Home | November 30, 2008 - December 6, 2008 »

Week of November 23, 2008 - November 29, 2008

Expecting Change? You're Already Too Late!


We've witnessed alot of hand-wringing among the progressive left liberals worried that the upcoming Obama Administration will not truly represent change from our past. Most particularly, the seemingly self-serving arguments heard recently from the GOP that we are in fact a "center-left" country has many liberals worried that Obama will govern from that place on the political spectrum and thus fail to offer any kind of "change we can believe in."

After what we have lived through, especially these last eight years, I argue instead that radical change is already upon us if we in fact find ourselves governing at the "middle-right."

ONE EXAMPLE: If Bush/Cheney & Friends (including McCain/Palin) were now awaiting the White House for the next term, just what form do you think the proposed/required government financial stimuli would take?

For openers, I would expect their economic stimulus proposals would include massive amounts of monies directed toward "national security" efforts. Halliburton would undoubtedly have multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts, perhaps to build a parallel telecommunications network that would give the Government total control over its ability to engage in secret wiretapping, near-universal video monitoring, etc.

And surely the defense industry would also be in line, gaining contracts to build the next generation of bombers and fighters and tanks and weapons to ensure the neo-cons have sufficient disposable toys in the future to project their personal penile insecurities - oops! I mean "to project power" - at will throughout the world.

For the eight years of Bush/Cheney, we have poured great amounts of money down a rathole (i.e. wars in Iraq/Afghanistan; defense spending increases; National Security budget increases; etc.) in support of the right wing "Homeland Security" agenda. Through it all, we have suffered tremendous budget deficits without gaining much in terms of economic multipliers that might otherwise have been gained were these same funds dedicated toward effective investments in our domestic economy.

But with this election, change has come. It has become obvious to all but the most extreme Libertarians among us that we are entering a period that calls for "Big Government" involvement to get us out of our financial mess. The "center-right" Americans (even the GOP leadership) are now talking about the need to target large economic stimulus packages to buoy the economy, and this investment of taxpayer dollars is targeted specifically to provide maximum leverage that will "assist Main Street." We are therefore seriously considering investments in a green economy, infrastructure improvements, and even universal health care, that will result in improvents in our environment, greater energy independence, and legitimate domestic job creation/retention and other empowerments of the middle and lower classes.

Independent of any personal ideology (or lack thereof!) Obama is certainly smart enough to see which way the wind blows. The people spoke in this last election, and are in fact shaping the discussion (at last!) toward (at least!) this middle-right course. Obama understands his mandate to be a strong shift to the left of where the Bush/Cheney/GOP map has left us: Broke. In the dark. With any sort of warm feeling being nothing more than the wealthy with full bladders trickling down upon us.

Change is already upon us. It is We the People who have already established the Obama Administration at a far more progressive spot on the political spectrum than where we last saw Bush/Cheney & Co. What remains to be seen is how much further to the left the Obama Administration chooses to direct us.

It's enough to give even an old, cynical, socialist/liberal like myself cause to find hope within the otherwise sorry state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

Bush Aspires to Rare Heights & Exclusive Company


"I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process," - George Bush, in an interview with NPR (Broadcast on Thanksgiving, 2008)

---------------------------------

George seems to aspire to some pretty rare company. After all, the same could have been said by the following:

Ed Gein: Never sold his soul, but was in the market to buy material to make a few lampshades...

Dick Cheney: Never sold his soul, but left his heart behind in one of his earlier visits to Geo. Washington University Hospital

Charles Manson: Never sold his soul. His mind? Not so sure...

Table Top Joe: Never sold his soul (sole?). Didn't have much of anything else to offer, either!

"Thank You Very Much, But I'll Take My Constitution With Me!"


The full-scale partisan assault on President Clinton that began almost before his Inauguration was puzzling in that it always seemed to be a pre-ordained Impeachment looking for an impeachable offense. Whitewater? Yeah, let's try that. That didn't work? Ok, how about Troopergate? Nothing there? Well, let's throw accusations about drug-dealing at Mena, Arkansas at him and see if we can make that stick. No? Well, maybe we can pin the "murder" of Vince Foster on him. Yeah, that's the ticket!...

Like a pack of dogs in pursuit of elusive prey did these well-organized partisans keep at it, finally settling upon extraordinary persecution of a tawdry - but hardly impeachable - extra-marital sexual affair and its related lies as their last, best hope to declare that the Republic was sufficiently threatened by this democratically elected President to warrant his removal from Office. (I know! When you look back on it from the perspective of having experienced the Bush years, it seems pretty crazy, no?)

Upon the Supreme Court's appointment of Bush to the White House in 2000, Rove/Cheney & Co..certainly assumed power with considerably more swagger than either their "mandate" or the Constitution would've deemed appropriate. Without batting an eye, they immediately and continually stretched the limits of the Executive Office to extremes no legitimate Constitutionalist could ever have imagined, all with no apparent concern that there was any opposing force to truly limit their transgressions.

Unfortunately, they were right in acting as though theirs was the only game in town. These cynical pols seemingly understood that the public would be greatly disinclined to allow Congress to exercise its Impeachment Powers against two successive Presidents. To follow one Impeachment with another would understandably be construed as partisan warfare and would therefore be politically unpopular as a perceived misuse of the extraordinary Powers of Impeachment. These Powers, after all, were never intended to be exercised as a common feature of our governance.

Thus, having successfully pursued the Impeachment of Clinton and having inflicted great trauma to the nation during that time, it is therefore understandable that these pols would subsequently find the populace willing to grant a whole lot of latitude to crimes and misdemeanors rather than suffer such a stressful disruption of their government as they had most recently experienced in the Impeachment of Clinton..

This political response within the electorate to the trauma of the Clinton Impeachment is the only logical reason that I can find for Congress' unwillingness to exercise their most solemn duty to protect the Constitution during the years of the Bush Administration. There can be no other reason why we now find ourselves engaged in questions like "How much torture is TOO much torture?" or "How long can the President hold prisoners without granting Rights of Habeus Corpus" or for our "experts" to be struggling to find justification for our President's assertion that he has the authority to direct secret and warrantless wiretaps against anyone he deems appropriate.

In the past, each one of these transgressions and others such as we've seen perpetrated by these criminals would have raised considerable alarm and absolute opposition, including calls for Impeachment if the criminals persisted in their pursuit of such assaults on our Constitution.

But it is perhaps the greatest irony of the Clinton Impeachment that those who so wantonly attacked the Presidency during the course of that abominable exercise ultimately managed to destroy Congress' political authority - for the short term - to exercise their Constitutional powers of Impeachment.

My fear is that failure now to do whatever it takes to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their many crimes and misdemeanors will in fact not only take from us the specific rights in question that have been violated, but that inaction now will also perhaps fatally compromise Congress' Powers of Impeachment altogether.

Yet, we continue to hear the talking heads warning that there are political reasons why we should simply turn our head and let bygones be bygones. For myself, I would instead insist that we make certain we carry with us the Constitution before we pretend to move forward into any kind of change we can believe in.

Unimpeachable Justice: "What's Good for the Goose..."


Unfortunately, the opportunity to Impeach President GW Bush along with his criminal associates has passed us by. Over these last eight years, the Bush Administration has exercised its Executive authority in numerous ways (i.e. warrantless wiretaps; torture; renditions; etc.) that invited charges of High Crimes and Misdemeanors to be Constitutionally tested. Yet, the cowardly Congress of that period abdicated its responsibility to pursue such a remedy in real time.

It would be difficult for these same spineless sycophants in the House and Senate leadership to now hold Bush & Co. retroactively accountable for their crimes - unless, of course, they care to invite prosecution for dereliction of their own sworn responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution.

The assumption of authority to declare anyone to be an "enemy combatant" as a pretext to depriving these individuals of fundamental rights is perhaps among the most egeregious of crimes committed by this Administration. If there was any true justice in the world, the correct scenario to now effectively address this particular impeachable offense would unfold thusly:

** Noon, Tuesday, Jan 20th, 2009: Barack Obama is sworn in as President of the United States, declaring by oath to uphold the Constitution (as presently understood/implemented by our Government.)

** 12:05pm (estimated): President Barack Obama, using the Executive's recently assumed power to make such a declaration, announces his official determination that GW, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and other culpable characters are "enemy combatants."

** 12:10pm (estimated): GW, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc., are "rendered" to an unknown offshore location where they will be held interminably; absent any habeus corpus or other rights enumerated in the Magna Carta or our own Constitution as written.

**12:15pm: Barack Obama repeats the oath of Office in a symbolic, poignant - yet remarkably substantive - recognition that this new Administration and those to follow will abide the Constitution as given to us by the Framers, as opposed to continuing any allegiance to the bastard morphrodite presented to us by Bush & Co. with the concurrence of the milquetoast 109th/100th Congress.

** Post-110th Congress: We never hear from or see GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc., ever again.

This is not merely a rhetorical suggestion. Imagine, if you will, what life has been like for any innocent "enemy combatants" who have been snared in this diabolical system of "justice" as created by Bush and his enabling apologists. Imagine what life has been like for the families of such innocents who wonder where their loved one and, in many cases, their family's breadwinner has been "rendered" to - or if they even remain alive, for God's sake. It is hardly too much to ask that Bush & Co. experience the same level of justice provided to the most aggrieved victims of their criminal debasement of Human Rights.

Ain't going to happen, I know. But I dream of this precedent being established wherein any future President would think twice before assuming tyrannical powers for him/herself to which he/she would not wish to be personally subject. The democratic fairness of our new President performing such an exercise in justice on Inauguration Day would represent a quite unimpeachable change we could believe in.

American Consumers Need Look into the Mirror


"The Idiot American worker only has himself to blame. Cutting his own throat, and then crying about it."

And don't forget about the American love affair with cheap gas and more horsepower.

I'm hardly sympathetic to the management decisions made by GM and the other domestic car manufacturers which have led to many of their problems. I am perplexed, however, at the insistence by many that these companies have somehow "made cars that nobody wants."

Hummers and SUV's have been extremely popular for so long as gasoline was less than $2/gallon. The recent and sudden price spike to over $4/gallon caused the American consumer to suddenly become concerned about energy conservation and renewable energy. "Why is Detroit still making these dinosaur's," is the question that is now asked "when we want plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles instead?"

The answer is that the auto industry - whether domestic or foreign - is inherently incapable of turning on a dime in developing/changing its product line to respond effectively to the whims of the consumer such as we witness here in America. Whereas Detroit has now been given their marching orders to develop and offer for sale only efficiently "green" cars for the market, I can assure you that the recent collapse in gasoline prices will soon have the American consumer once again scrambling to get the latest gas-guzzler offered and to spit on the Prius and the Volt as being insufficient for their needs.

If we are truly interested in stabilizing the market for our automobile manufacturers (and also "greening" our transport choices in responsible fashion) it is necessary to first stabilize the gasoline market. Fixing gas prices at $4/gallon or above is probably the singularly most important policy change we could make in support of our automobile industry, our environment, and our desire for energy independence.

Perhaps even more importantly, stabilizing the price of gasoline will do much to support the development and marketing of alternative fuels that will at last move us away from our present reliance on fossil fuels. Allowing the fuel market to instead swing as wildly as it has these last number of years is to cause the domestic auto industry, our renewable energy industry, and our economy itself to go completely dead in the water with the weight of the oil companies and the foreign oil producers tied around our neck.

Home | November 30, 2008 - December 6, 2008 »
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address