AIG handing out executive bonuses

This is unbelievable.

A.I.G. Planning $100 Million in Bonuses After Huge Bailout

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and PETER BAKER
Published: March 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — Despite being bailed out with more than $170 billion from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, the American International Group is preparing to pay about $100 million in bonuses to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

An official in the Obama administration said Saturday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had called A.I.G.’s government-appointed chairman, Edward M. Liddy, on Wednesday and asked that the company renegotiate the bonuses.

Administration officials said they had managed to reduce some of the bonuses but had allowed most of them to go forward after the company’s chief executive said A.I.G. was contractually obligated to pay them.

In a letter to Mr. Geithner, Mr. Liddy wrote: “Needless to say, in the current circumstances, I do not like these arrangements and find it distasteful and difficult to recommend to you that we must proceed with them.”

Distasteful?

Perhaps if these people had been FIRED, they would not be up for bonuses. What kind of business doesn't fire the employees who screw up on such a massive scale -- but instead gives them bonuses?

And what kind of suckers are we that we keep giving AIG money?

My husband isn't even getting a cost of living pay increase this year, let alone a bonus. He didn't break any laws, take advantage of anyone, do anything unethical or illegal, and he didn't destroy his company. Think the good guys don't finish last in this country?

Want our money? Then we OWN YOU.

I'm sick and tired of banks begging at our doors. The same banks that would happily foreclose on us, without a thought. The same banks that came begging to the government for a bailout because they "just couldn't make it" after all of their irresponsible but lucrative business ventures; then threw another lavish, 'we deserve the best' party for themselves.

As though our money was their birthright. Partying on our thin dime... while people are being tossed out of their homes. Partying on our thin dime after repeated bailouts and promises that they won't use corporate jets, etc., etc., etc., (lie after lie -- and undoubtedly laughing behind closed doors as they get richer and We The People go bust.)

This must stop. This has to stop.

Mr. Obama, please: the next time the banks come asking for cash, they sign over the stock and We own them. They report to us, the stockholders; and the party finally ends.

Federal workers all took a pay freeze... right? The only way to make these greedy bastards toe the line is to take them over and freeze their pay.

And fire their loser CEOs. As the GOP is so fond of saying... there is no free lunch.

From Maureen Dowd courtesy of the New York Times (OP-ED:)

I Ponied Up for Sheryl Crow?
By MAUREEN DOWD

LOS ANGELES

Talk about being teed off.

The economy is croaking and bankers are still partying at a golf tournament here on our dime.

It’s a good argument for nationalization, or better yet, internationalization. Outsource the jobs of these perfidious, oblivious bank executives to Bangalore; Bollywood bashes have to cost less than Hollywood ones.

The entertainment Web site TMZ broke the story Tuesday that Northern Trust of Chicago, which got $1.5 billion in bailout money and then laid off 450 workers, flew hundreds of clients and employees to Los Angeles last week and treated them to four days of posh hotel rooms, salmon and filet mignon dinners, music concerts, a PGA golf tournament at the Riviera Country Club with Mercedes shuttle rides and Tiffany swag bags.

“A rep from the PGA told us Northern Trust wrote one big, fat check in order to sponsor the event,” TMZ reported.

Northern No Trust had a lavish dinner at the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday with a concert by Chicago (at a $100,000 fee); rented a private hangar at the Santa Monica Airport on Thursday for another big dinner with a gig by Earth, Wind & Fire, and closed down the House of Blues on Sunset Strip on Saturday (at a cost of $50,000) for a dinner and serenade by Sheryl Crow.

Read the rest (if you can do it without smashing your monitor...)

Democrats: Offense!!

Perhaps they were bullied as children. Perhaps they are afraid of the loud crashes and clangs that are predictably coming out of the corporate media (run now almost entirely by a handful of powerful elite.) Perhaps they still don't comprehend what happened last November; that we handed them a REAL mandate.

A mandate for change.

It is past time that Congressional Democrats grew a little spine and delivered on promises made.

They cowered for two years since we gave them a majority in the House in 2007, and now they still don't seem to comprehend... that our latest electoral shout indicates that we are no longer asking, but are demanding a change from the last eight years.

Stop listening to the GOP! Damn it -- stop cowering!

But don't listen to me... who am I, anyway? Some miscellaneous American citizen. A blogger, no less. (Eww.)

You certainly ignore me when I call your offices, trying to make my opinion heard.

No, don't listen to me -- listen to Krugman. Perhaps his Nobel prize will get your attention.

On the Edge
By PAUL KRUGMAN

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to economic recovery. Over the last two weeks, what should have been a deadly serious debate about how to save an economy in desperate straits turned, instead, into hackneyed political theater, with Republicans spouting all the old clichés about wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts.

It’s as if the dismal economic failure of the last eight years never happened — yet Democrats have, incredibly, been on the defensive. Even if a major stimulus bill does pass the Senate, there’s a real risk that important parts of the original plan, especially aid to state and local governments, will have been emasculated.

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.



Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

Read more...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

Frank Rich ponders why Bush seems so small standing next to the steaming pile of, er, destruction he caused during his eight years in office. Could such a small, insignificant man really have wrecked such havoc? (Only with Cheney pulling the strings.)

A President Forgotten but Not Gone
By FRANK RICH

WE like our failed presidents to be Shakespearean, or at least large enough to inspire Oscar-worthy performances from magnificent tragedians like Frank Langella. So here, too, George W. Bush has let us down. Even the banality of evil is too grandiose a concept for 43. He is not a memorable villain so much as a sometimes affable second banana whom Josh Brolin and Will Ferrell can nail without breaking a sweat. He’s the reckless Yalie Tom Buchanan, not Gatsby. He is smaller than life.

The last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on Bush’s presidency found that 79 percent of Americans will not miss him after he leaves the White House. He is being forgotten already, even if he’s not yet gone. You start to pity him until you remember how vast the wreckage is. It stretches from the Middle East to Wall Street to Main Street and even into the heavens, which have been a safe haven for toxins under his passive stewardship. The discrepancy between the grandeur of the failure and the stature of the man is a puzzlement. We are still trying to compute it.

More...

And then... there's Jon Stewart's grand send-off.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Bush Years: Farewell, Mr. President

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Privitizing healthcare (only the healthy need apply)

Paul Krugman offers a terrifying scenario in today's column, "Health Care Destruction:" the privatization of of health care that puts coverage completely out of the reach... of those who are sick.

Seriously. This would be the McCain 'health care plan.' Its no wonder he rarely talks about it in public.

If you have any pre-existing health problems (this would include McCain and his melanoma -- but he's a multimillionaire, so what does he care?) insurance companies won't have to cover you. If you currently have health care benefits available to you through your job -- and McCain is elected president -- get ready to lose them. He plans to remove health care tax breaks and incentives for employers who provide it.

So you doubt that McCain would do this? You doubt that a Republican would flinch from privatizing health care across the board? Been watching the privatization of schools in New Orleans? Works out fabulously for wealthy, private industry. But it seems that there is a slight glitch in the deal: educating the kids (those who are actually allowed in.)

Anyone that doubts that the GOP would hesitate to privatize anything and put it in the hands of their business buddies hasn't watched the gutting of New Orleans post-Katrina. Disaster capitalism at its best -- coming to a nation near you. Oops -- coming to your nation. Sorry.

Take a hard look around at the wreckage the GOP has left in its 8-year wake and tell me again how sure you are that McCain won't come for what little insurance coverage that you now have.

By the way, I know what it is like to be 'out on my own' without collective coverage through a large employer. Large employers have your back when insurance companies try their usual tricks to avoid paying a claim. If you are on your own... you have a choice between paying all of your medical bills yourself to avoid the hit on your credit when the bills go unpaid, or fighting un-winnable battles with insurance companies who lie to your face and seemingly hold all the cards.

When I owned and operated my own business, I was at the mercy of an insurance company that felt no compulsion to actually pay my bills - even after promising compensation and sending me to strange doctors and a remote hospital for a necessary health screening. I followed their instructions and filled out all of the required paperwork... and they never paid a cent. Every time I called, representatives swore that the bill would be paid.

Meanwhile the medical bill went into collections. The insurance company assumed - and assumed correctly - that I would find some way to pay the bill myself when faced with the loss of my own credit rating (credit I desperately needed for my business.)

Insurance companies are lying, cheating bastards... SiCKO didn't do them justice. Your only protection is your employer and the clout they bring to the table with their large contract. When you go it alone, you lose. Period.

And this is what McCain wants for America... for the lower 95% who can't simply pay medical costs out of pocket.

Krugman, NY Times:

Most Americans under 65 currently get health insurance through their employers. That’s largely because the tax code favors such insurance: your employer’s contribution to insurance premiums isn’t considered taxable income, as long as the employer’s health plan follows certain rules. In particular, the same plan has to be available to all employees, regardless of the size of their paycheck or the state of their health.

This system does a fairly effective job of protecting those it reaches, but it leaves many Americans out in the cold. Workers whose employers don’t offer coverage are forced to seek individual health insurance, often in vain. For one thing, insurance companies offering “nongroup” coverage generally refuse to cover anyone with a pre-existing medical condition. And individual insurance is very expensive, because insurers spend large sums weeding out “high-risk” applicants — that is, anyone who seems likely to actually need the insurance.

So what should be done? Barack Obama offers incremental reform: regulation of insurers to prevent discrimination against the less healthy, subsidies to help lower-income families buy insurance, and public insurance plans that compete with the private sector. His plan falls short of universal coverage, but it would sharply reduce the number of uninsured.

Mr. McCain, on the other hand, wants to blow up the current system, by eliminating the tax break for employer-provided insurance. And he doesn’t offer a workable alternative.

Without the tax break, many employers would drop their current health plans. Several recent nonpartisan studies estimate that under the McCain plan around 20 million Americans currently covered by their employers would lose their health insurance.

As compensation, the McCain plan would give people a tax credit — $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family — that could be used to buy health insurance in the individual market. At the same time, Mr. McCain would deregulate insurance, leaving insurance companies free to deny coverage to those with health problems — and his proposal for a “high-risk pool” for hard cases would provide little help.

So what would happen?

The good news, such as it is, is that more people would buy individual insurance. Indeed, the total number of uninsured Americans might decline marginally under the McCain plan — although many more Americans would be without insurance than under the Obama plan.

But the people gaining insurance would be those who need it least: relatively healthy Americans with high incomes. Why? Because insurance companies want to cover only healthy people, and even among the healthy only those able to pay a lot in addition to their tax credit would be able to afford coverage (remember, it’s a $5,000 credit, but the average family policy actually costs more than $12,000).

Meanwhile, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most: lower-income workers who wouldn’t be able to afford individual insurance even with the tax credit, and Americans with health problems whom insurance companies won’t cover.

Read the rest...

Here is an excellent presentation out of New Hampshire:

Dueling News Alerts

Interesting. It appears that CNN has a much shorter grasp of history than the New York Times; either that or a much more aggressive 'BE AFRAID' agenda.

(File this under 'reading between the lines.')

First, the CNN 'Breaking News' Alert:

-- Dow suffers biggest point drop in history, falling nearly 778 points in reaction to House vote rejecting economic rescue.

The biggest drop in history, eh? Not according to the New York Times News Alert:

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Monday, September 29, 2008 -- 4:49 PM ET
-----

Dow Closes Down 777 Points

The Dow Jones industrials closed 777.68 points lower on Monday -- a 6.97% drop, the biggest loss since 2001 -- after the government's bailout was defeated in the House.

The broadest measure of the American stock market, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, fell 8.77 percent, its biggest drop since October 1987. The Nasdaq composite index fell by more than 9 percent, after the House defeated the bill by a vote of 228-205.

Notice that CNN rounded up to 778 and called it the 'biggest drop in history' which apparently is not true. The New York Times has the Dow down 777 points, and described the drop as the biggest loss since 2001. Big difference, wouldn't you say?

Apparently New York is a little less hysterical than Atlanta.

And as for Wall Street... sorry guys. No free ride. Not today, and not on our dime.

People are losing their houses, not just their yachts. Our sympathy is a little worn right now. That, and your robber baron in chief has cried wolf so many times that we're sick and tired of being afraid. We are - in fact - more inclined to anger right now.

By the way, no diss towards wolves intended by the use of the 'cry wolf' idiom -- I have a lot more respect for the intelligence and integrity of wolves than I ever will for our robber in chief.

I read the news today - oh boy (Monday edition)

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Monday, September 29, 2008 -- 8:29 AM ET
-----

Citigroup Buys Banking Operations of Wachovia

Citigroup has agreed to buy Wachovia's banking operations for $1 a share, a move that that would concentrate power within the nation's banking industry in the hands of a few giant lenders.

A friend once predicted that the consolidation of American business would one day result in exactly three of everything; three banks, three drug companies, three internet providers, three phone companies... three choices, with little if any competition.

I wish this triad philosophy also included political parties.

From the New York Times:

The sale would further concentrate Americans’ bank deposits in the hands of just three banks: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.

Together, those three would be so large that they would dominate the industry, with unrivaled power to set prices for their loans and services. Given their size and reach, the institutions would probably come under greater scrutiny from federal regulators. Some small and midsize banks, already under pressure, might have little choice but to seek suitors.

Greater scrutiny... from our government? Federal regulators. Do we still have those? I thought they had all been outsourced to the banks and companies they were regulating.

Yes, I'm sure the prices will soon be set; undoubtedly well above our puny heads. Welcome to the new Gilded Age.

Strong words from the New York Times

The New York Times is calling foul on the stream of lies coming out of the McCain camp, and severely questioning his choice of running mate Sarah Palin.

In Friday's editorial, strong words about Palin:

As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.

If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert also stated that Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be Vice President:

While watching the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night, and the coverage of the Palin phenomenon in general, I’ve gotten the scary feeling, for the first time in my life, that dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.

How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?

For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”

(This has been going on since 2000, when the media told us that Gore was 'stuffy and boring,' and 'too intellectual,' and that 'Bush was the kind of guy you could hang and drink a beer with - a regular guy." I find it surprising that Mr. Herbert is just now noticing this... but better late than never.)

NY Times Columnist Paul Krugman cried foul on McCain's sleazy (lying) campaign tactics in his Op-Ed, "Blizzard of Lies:"

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 — my first year at The Times — trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.

And the New York Times newsroom has apparently decided that the lies are now becoming a story in and of themselves:

First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.

According to the story, even longtime McCain supporters are questioning the rapid slide from straight-talk into sleaze-express:

In an interview Friday on the NY1 cable news channel, a McCain supporter, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, called “ridiculous” the implication that Mr. Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment was a reference to Ms. Palin, whom he also defended as coming under unfair attack.

And some in the media are even calling McCain out to his face; questioning his support of such obvious falsehoods and forcing him to compound the lies of his campaign by once again endorsing them in person:

On Friday on “The View,” generally friendly territory for politicians, one co-host, Joy Behar, criticized his new advertisements. “We know that those two ads are untrue,” Ms. Behar said. “They are lies. And yet you, at the end of it, say, ‘I approve these messages.’ Do you really approve them?”

“Actually they are not lies,” Mr. McCain said crisply, “and have you seen some of the ads that are running against me?”

Does McCain really believe the American people are this stupid? Perhaps the most frightening question of all: Are the American people this stupid?

The Economy is a giant, long-haired dog

... and it's shedding jobs!

Dispatch from the Angry Middle:

I received this 'breaking news' alert from the New York Times this morning:

Economy Shed 84,000 Jobs in August; Unemployment Rate Jumped to 6.1%

Quick - someone get a vacuum cleaner while I crawl around on the floor and try to grab a few handfuls of, um, jobs before they all disappear (see below.)

(Excuse me - the economy is 'shedding' jobs? Is that one way of saying that it is no one's fault?

The economy - like a giant, hairy dog - simply sheds jobs from time to time. This is quite natural. This just happens... no one knows why... perhaps due to the heat of the season, genetics or an 'Act of God.')

NYT:

The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1 percent in August, its highest level in five years, as the erosion of the job market showed no sign of slowing.

Employers cut 84,000 jobs last month, more than economists had expected, and the Labor Department said that more jobs were lost in June and July than previously thought.

So far, 605,000 jobs have disappeared since January. The unemployment rate, which rose from 5.7 percent in July, is now at its highest level since September 2003.

Don't you hate it when a job... gets lost? Or just disappears?

So many lost and wandering jobs. Surely some of them will find their way home?

Perhaps we should install job lighthouses up and down our coastline, in an attempt to assist those 'lost' jobs that were captured in the night, bundled onto ships, and now find themselves headed across the sea to China.

Whither Bin Laden?

New York Times Editorial:

According to members of Congress, Attorney General Michael Mukasey is preparing to give the F.B.I. broad new authority to investigate Americans — without any clear basis for suspicion that they are committing a crime.

Well here we go again. Enemy us.

I'm sorry, but Mr. President... if you are going to persist in attacking the American people - who have done you no harm (some of them even voted for you) - at every turn, I'm afraid it is time to pose that creepy question again: the one you keep hoping no one will ask.

Where is Bin Laden? Why aren't you chasing him down?

If Bin Laden was the guy who masterminded the September 11th attacks... then why aren't you chasing him to the furthest corners of the earth? You did a nice job of laying waste to Iraq. Bin Laden wasn't there - has apparently never been there.

Iraq didn't attack us. Bin Laden did.

What about Bin Laden?

If Bin Laden was the man who planned 9/11, why did you fly his family out of the country the very next day? (Yes, we heard about that one plane that was allowed into the air.)

If Bin Laden is the man behind the worst day in American history - and sure, I know the Bin Ladens are Bush family friends, so its a little uncomfortable for you - shouldn't he figure somewhere into your 'keeping America safe' master plan?

Why won't you hunt him down? Why do you hunt the American people instead?

Because the Bin Ladens are family friends... and we aren't? Because you are afraid we may eventually start to notice that you're never chasing Bin Laden, and start to wonder why?

Is that why you're eavesdropping on our every word?

I'm sorry, but like many people, I'm starting to really wonder about you. You're even more paranoid than Nixon. And Nixon was one wildly paranoid guy.

And like most Americans, I keep waiting.

I remember it like it was yesterday: you promised - with a bullhorn - that you would "catch the man who knocked down those walls."

I guess we'll be waiting forever.

Under surveillance.

Once upon a time

I haven't posted in awhile, for numerous reasons I won't go into here.

I just wanted to draw attention to this excellent New York Times editorial: about our national change in values. Ethics. Our loss of our national soul. Very well said, and worth noting.

On Torture and American Values
The New York Times | Editorial

Sunday 07 October 2007

Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

After the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the creation of extralegal detention camps where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, extreme ranges of heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. The administration clearly knew this; the C.I.A. modeled its techniques on the dungeons of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.

The White House could never acknowledge that. So its lawyers concocted documents that redefined “torture” to neatly exclude the things American jailers were doing and hid the papers from Congress and the American people. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush’s loyal enabler, the Justice Department even declared that those acts did not violate the lower standard of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

That allowed the White House to claim that it did not condone torture, and to stampede Congress into passing laws that shielded the interrogators who abused prisoners, and the men who ordered them to do it, from any kind of legal accountability.

Mr. Bush and his aides were still clinging to their rationalizations at the end of last week. The president declared that Americans do not torture prisoners and that Congress had been fully briefed on his detention policies.

Neither statement was true — at least in what the White House once scorned as the “reality-based community” — and Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was right to be furious. He demanded all of the “opinions of the Justice Department analyzing the legality” of detention and interrogation policies. Lawmakers, who for too long have been bullied and intimidated by the White House, should rewrite the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act to conform with actual American laws and values.

For the rest of the nation, there is an immediate question: Is this really who we are?

Is this the country whose president declared, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and then managed the collapse of Communism with minimum bloodshed and maximum dignity in the twilight of the 20th century? Or is this a nation that tortures human beings and then concocts legal sophistries to confuse the world and avoid accountability before American voters?

Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions. Restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo Bay would not set terrorists free; the truly guilty could be tried for their crimes in a way that does not mock American values.

Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system. It also will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America’s uniform or serving in its intelligence forces.

This is an easy choice.

Bravo. Tell it like it is. We used to stand for something. We may not have always achieved - risen to meet our standards. But at least we had standards... once...

NY Times Editorial: "Just what the Founders Feared"

In an excellent editorial in the New York Times, Adam Cohen lays out my favorite argument for impeachment: the unitary, 'monarchical' presidency and the dangers it poses to our democracy:

"Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

And as James Madison himself once warned, war is the obvious tool for any president intent on gaining excessive powers that would never be allowed in peacetime:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. - James Madison

We have certainly noticed how Mr Bush uses 'the war', 'national security' and 'executive privilege' as excuses for obstructing any congressional oversight. If there were no war, he would have no basis at all for any of these claims... and even with the war, his basis is extremely weak.

Cohen goes on to remind us that:

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.

The biggest power invested in Congress, is the power to cut off funding for a war that is not in the best interests of the nation. This is one of the gravest, most critical roles of Congress in wartime. And one that Congress absolutely must uphold:

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”

The Tillman case is but one example: how on earth can Bush claim 'executive privilege' for failing to disclose information about the death of former Cardinals football player Pat Tillman by friendly fire? Will this information somehow 'embolden' an already emboldened enemy?

Please.

Abuse of power is abuse of power. Attacks on the Constitution are not to be allowed, if we are to remain a free people living in a free democracy.

If we cannot end this war, then we must reign in this executive branch that continues to promote this war for it's own self interest. If the war continues unabated... if Congress refuses to use the 'power of the purse,' we stand to lose not just our army, our 'treasure,' and our status in the world -- but likely our democracy as well.

Our founders predicted this. The knew all of this from firsthand experience with a tyrannical monarch, and they wrote everything down as a warning for future generations, and built our Constitution around it. Alas, if only we would look back to our very own history for guidance. It's all there: in their words, and in our laws.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. - James Madison

NY Times (finally) calls for US to leave Iraq

Better late than never (welcome to the rest of the country; anti-war sentiments already in progress - but we saved you a seat.)

Great editorial, so I suppose its worth the wait.

Not that it will do any good, seeing as contractors outnumber our troops (and of course, it IS about that $$ gravy train, along with the oil bill, right?) Bush has no intention of getting our troops out of Iraq; he will need legions to defend that gigantic palace he is building (I've heard it referred to as the 'Colossus of Baghdad.' Yes, 4 billion dollars of our money into this disaster, and he's building the world's largest embassy - but somehow can't rebuild New Orleans.)

At any rate: Bush doesn't plan to get our army out of Iraq, no siree. The money is great, and that oil bill for ExxonMobile and Chevron isn't yet signed on the dotted line.

(That, and Dick didn't give him permission. Dick still plans to use Iraq as the launching pad for his attack on Iran.)

But lest I seem like I'm complaining - hey, NY Times - nice to have you along. We've been hoping the media would show up eventually.

It was kind of useful to have you guys around during Vietnam and Watergate (which is why I went to journalism school in the first place; I wanted to be one of those 'heroes with a typewriter' that helped change the world and kept democracy safe... once upon a time. Who knew journalism would be dead by the time I graduated?)

So without further ado... I give you... the New York Times Editorial! The Road Home:

Like many Americans, (the 28%?) we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. (Suckers!) When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. (So you noticed that too?) It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

Senator Reid! Apparently, you were right after all - the war is lost!

Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda. (Right next to impeachment; and over 50% of us want that, and it's hardly partisan... but I suppose it will be another 6 months or so before you catch up with us on that one too.)

more...

Al... you could end this nightmare

This letter has been writing in my mind for a long time, but today I've reached my threshold. Al... you could end this nightmare. All of it.

Al wrote an Oped in the New York Times today, upping the ante on climate change (the very climate change we're already doing nothing about, because we've got a president who seems hell bent on destruction.)

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

Thanks for the warning Al... but if you really want to help us fix this... RUN FOR PRESIDENT.



I don't know if you've noticed, but you are the only 'FDR' or 'Lincoln' or 'Washington' our generation is going to get. We're in dire times here, dire straits. Our government has been overrun by jackals in high office, looting the coffers and gutting our federal agencies -- including the EPA.

You want us to step up? I'm doing everything I can here at our house, with our income constraints... but we need a massive, rapid change in direction on a national level. The people want this -- we're not stupid, we want to live and we want the next generation to have a chance. But we continually run into roadblocks from our government and the hulking corporations standing in the shadows. Do you think we wouldn't all be using solar power by now if it were cheap and readily available? How about solar cars?

And what is stopping us? Corporations. Their interests, not ours. So much for government of the people. Words are fine, but the reality is quite different these days.

Hell yes, we all need to do more to stop climate change. And to do this, we need strong, devoted, moral leadership. We need another Lincoln, who will speak to the 'better angels of our nature,' and reunite this house divided. We need a Kennedy who will entreat us to "ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country." And then the planet.

Our current leaders want us to live in fear. They spy on us, and steal our freedom in tiny, barely noticed increments, while misdirecting us with propaganda media. The frog is nearly boiling now. They are fanning the flames of hatred both here and abroad; and while we are distracted, they are eating away at the most basic framework of this government that has stood for over 200 years.

This is not the way out: it is the way of chaos, destruction and despair.

Step up, Al. You've done so much already -- there must be a reason you didn't take office in 2000. Perhaps you 'lost' because you had other, more pressing work awaiting you. Perhaps you were being forged in the fires of life; traveling your own 'hero's journey,' so that you would grow into the magnificent and fearless leader that you are today.

If you had been just another politician, just another corporate tool, you would have become a lobbyist after leaving office. Instead you chose to teach, and then to travel the world warning of impending climate change. This is not the behavior of a politician. This is the behavior of a leader!

You are now exactly what this nation needs: not just our nation, but the entire world. Your country is calling, and never has our need been greater. It is time for you to take that office we elected you to hold in 2000, bringing all of your fiery passion, leadership skills, intelligence; your knowledge of government, Constitution and history; and yes... political courage with you to the White House.

We need our FDR. We need a president who will say NO to fear and hatred and divisions between blue and red, and instead say "there is nothing to fear but fear itself." It will take every one of us working together if we are to get this done.

You will notice the current administration is doing the exact opposite: sowing discord and distrust. Divide and conquer. I have never seen the people so divided, into 'blue' and 'red;' conservative and liberal.

And while we are all busy fighting each other, the Executive Branch is busy amassing power, gutting our CIA, discrediting our FBI, has thoroughly embarrassed FEMA, made a mockery of the EPA, a laughing stock of the DoJ. Now they are privatizing our army (actually, they are creating their own army,) while our National Guard is destroyed overseas; doing tour after tour after tour. Our army is being systematically broken on the rocks of Iraqi civil war, as our government is quietly being outsourced at home.

If our hamstrung, ineffective Democratic 'majority' can't or won't do anything to stop this downturn, we will need a master of leadership to bring our country back to something again resembling a constitutional democracy and government of the people. And this is assuming there is still time... that we are even still a Republic in 2009. Our forefathers made no such promises that this democracy would last through time, without our own vigilance and a strong citizen media.

Lincoln's great fear has come to pass: corporations have been enthroned, and the Republic is on it's last gasp. You are the only life-support that many of us can see anywhere on the horizon. You are the only person who truly cares and possesses the knowledge and the leadership to bring us through this mess. And yes, you do care; and Al, we can all see that you care, about us and about life on this planet. We also know that you grasp the challenges (those of us who have read "The Assault on Reason.")

Al: we will need you to restore our federal agencies, reign in these rampant corporations and lobbyists, restore corporate oversight, bring our troops home and then rebuild our military. We will need you to somehow restore the trust of prospective enlistees, so they will know that their leader cares about them, and will have their back while they defend our country. And all this, while fighting climate change and weaning America off of oil.

This will require a herculean effort, and you are the only person in the country completely qualified to step up to this task. Al; I cannot stress this enough. We need you.

There is no one else, Al. No one else who can do this job. You are our best, our greatest, and maybe our only hope. Please... put on the mantle you were born to wear, the one you have been groomed to wear -- not by your political training and career, or even by the popular vote in 2000... but by the trials, disappointments and struggles of life itself.

Save our country: then give us the tools and leadership so that we can work with you to save our world.

Mr President: Tear down that wall

The New York Times wrote an excellent editorial today (showing that at least a few people in the 'news' department remember how this democracy thing was supposed to have worked out.)

I was torn in naming this blog post. My inclination was to call it 'bullshit democracy;' but democracy is never 'bullshit...' not when it's really working. No; it only seems that way under this horrific, lawless administration.

How to rescue democracy from a hostile takeover? Well, good question, and one we seem to be asking ourselves endlessly these days. New York Times - have at it:

Presidential Stone Walls
The New York Times | Editorial

Sunday 17 June 2007

The template for the Bush administration's mania for secrecy was signed by the president six years ago - Executive Order 13233, reversing the presumption of right of public access to presidential papers. This basic right of taxpayers and historians alike was embedded in the 1978 laws enacted after the Nixon administration. The reforms established a reasonable 12-year waiting period for access. But Mr. Bush's reversal lets presidents or vice presidents (guess who?) keep their records sealed in perpetuity unless they or their heirs approve access.

Translation: their crimes are so epic and unconscionable, that if we as a nation ever find out what they've really been doing, behind closed doors the past 7 (soon 8) years, we will run their heirs out of town, tarred and feathered on a rail.

Fortunately, Congress is in the process of demonstrating that such hermetic devotion to secrecy has no place in a democracy. Mr. Bush's order would be rescinded by a proposal approved overwhelmingly in the House in March and now making its way to passage in the Senate. The White House, of course, is vowing to veto any final bill. So it is important that the Senate re-establish the public's obvious right to historical transparency with the same veto-proof support achieved in the House.

Which begs the question: will anyone on the GOP aisle of the Senate have the, um... 'courage' to vote on the behalf of the nation? Or are too many of them now complicit (and thus doomed to 'loyal Bushiehood' for life) to over-rule this illegal and undemocratic 'executive order?'

Otherwise, Mr. Bush's dictum will stand, with no explanation required for denying requests, nor any appeal allowed. The executive order leaves a costly, lengthy lawsuit as Americans' only avenue of possible redress.

You must be joking? We the American people would have to then sue our own government to find out what this president has been doing behind our backs the past 7 years? Really?

Surely we can overturn this in the next administration... oh I get it. Why would any future president overturn this freebie 'get out of history' free card if they weren't forced to be accountable to it? That would require... some sort of actual moral character and devotion to democracy.

So we are already assuming that we can't elect anyone - from either party - with enough of an ethical center that they would overturn this for the better interests of democracy. You're implying there aren't any Eisenhowers left in the bottle. Certainly no Lincolns, Jeffersons or Roosevelts.

Well that's certainly depressing.

Hiding secrets and embarrassments may be a predictable part of a politician's instinct for survival. But attempting to enshrine this instinct timelessly is a stain on the Constitution and an insult to history. The administration insists that only 64 of more than two million pages have been sealed thus far. They would be a good place to start reading once Congress re-establishes the public's right to know.

You're talking to the Senate... right? Because the House can undoubtedly pass this. The Senate seems to be our greatest stumbling block in our attempt to restore democracy.

Oh, I can imagine the same brave 'magic 7' stepping forward once again to shame the other members of their Bush-enabling party. But I have yet to see enough GOP Senators vote with any demonstration of non-partisan conscience to actually over-ride a veto on behalf of our constitutional rights as American citizens. They say they don't approve of Bush, but in the end, they give him whatever he wants and an order of fries on the side.

Mr Lugar. I'm watching you. One of these days you're really going to have to vote your conscience, if you expect me to believe that you actually have one. I know you know the difference between right and wrong: you used to be a minister. This isn't rocket science. If you have the moral character... vote it. Please.