Mexico: Its Getting Ugly

In a sense I think there is some promise to the street marches that have begun over the past few days in that they could help to force a recount of the votes, which should be seen as essential to any election as close as this one is. However, if Lopez Obrador and his supporters do not accept the result of the election after a recount as has been suggested they wont (assuming there is one and that it is open and fair), then the civil unrest they will cause would be far worse than the results of a Calderon Presidency.

It was a bad year for the PRI which ruled Mexico for more than 70 years, as the news cycle this year consistently burned that party, they lost support in Oaxaca thanks to a heavy handed response to striking teachers, new evidence emerged that they had assassinated political opponents in the 1960s. The PRI could recover, overcoming its history of corruption and authoritarian tactics to become a respectable centrist party. But if they do not, the PRD has many votes still to gain from former PRI voters. The PRD should continue to build up its support running strong candidates for all offices over the next 6 years and running another strong candidate again in 6 years, perhaps even Obrador again. Obrador lost this election by refusing to participate in the first debate, which allowed the "Obrador will wreck the economy" frame to dominate the public discussion, it was a huge tactical error. In spite of the loss that Obrador has likely endured, this election was a victory for the political left in Mexico, the PRD gained legislative seats and is a legitimate opposition party, potentially even a majority party if they can align themselves with the PRI (which they were once part of) in the legislature. The fact that we were seriously talking about a legitimately liberal President in Mexico is a huge step forward, if the PRD continues to build in this way I have nothing but hope for Mexico's future, for this was a victory of political legitimacy for Mexico's poor overshadowed in her history only by the Revolution.

Calderon Wins Recount

With 99.52% of the votes recounted Calderon leads by 0.45% over Lopez Obrador, a margin of 150,000 votes. Obrador has anounced his intention to challenge the results in court. There certainly were some irregularities in this election, reports of ballot boxes being thrown out, as well as polling stations not having enough ballots for people who wanted to vote. I have heard nothing of any other ballots that remain uncounted, unless there are uncounted ballots to go back and add to the count the only place Obrador's challenges could go would be for a hand recount of each individual ballot, but that evidently would violate Mexican law.

Luis Carlos Ugalde, head of the Federal Electoral Institute, which is tabulating the results, said Wednesday that he was unsure how long the count would take. The process is complicatedby a law that allows for the contents of the vote packets to be opened only if the tally sheets, or the packages, appear to have been tampered with or damaged. Such packets are then sliced open and a vote-by-vote count is conducted.

Obrador Leads in Recount

In the recount of votes Lopez Obrador currently leads 35.95% to 35.26% with 94.32% of the ballots counted. Other good places to get updates, El Universal, La Reforma, and La Jornada.

More on Mexico

Something very significant has happened in this election, regardless of who comes out the winner in this affair after the recount. The PRI is officially an opposition 3rd Party, they won fewer seats than either the PAN or the PRD in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, and their candidate for President Roberto Madrazo did not win a single State. Something unheard of in Mexican politics over the last 76 years.

Meanwhile, Roberto Madrazo, the PRI candidate, did not win in a single state, garnering 21 percent of the vote, according to the unofficial returns. Mr. Madrazo's performance marked a new low for the party that once ruled Mexico with only token opposition until Mr. Fox's historic victory in 2000.

Even the PRI stronghold of Oaxaca went for Obrador, as the NPR report I referenced two days ago suggested would happen. A very clear regional breakdown on that vote, the Northern States all went for Calderon, and the Southern States all went for Obrador, this is clearly a regional divide between Northern Mexicans and Southern Mexicans choosing radically different directions for their Country.

Mexico Election Update

With Almost all votes in Obrador still trails by just barely over 1%. I'm not sure what's next, I'm guessing that they're going to recount them given that the IFE has stated that they will not declare a winner until Wednesday.

Gap Still Shrinking

Obrador still playing catch up, now down by less than 1%. 75% of votes have been counted, the current numbers:

Calderon-37.12%
Obrador-36.23%
Madrazo-19.93%

Obrador Gaining

A new update from Univision has Obrador gaining ground now with 61.5% of votes counted. Obrador now trails by only 1.4%, a tight tally seems to be tightening even more. The totals:

Calderon-37.5%
Obrador-36.1%
Madrazo-19.5%

I should reiterate that no official result is expected until Wednesday. Go Obrador!

Obrador Down with 1/2 of Votes Counted

The Mexican Presidential election is officially too close to call. Univision reports the following results:

Calderon-37.9%
Obrador-35.8%
Madrazo-19.4%
46% reporting

Election Day in Mexico

It is election day in Mexico, I'm currently lacking information, I will post here as information becomes available. Here's all I've got right now.

Each one of these sites can only have 500 ballots. One analyst commented that at 8:00 am he tried to go an vote and there was already a line of approximatly 500 people. I was at the Federal Electoral Institute this morning and the representative of the PAN at the IFE German Martinez commmented that even at the special ballot site at the IFE they were having problems... In Guerrero a PRD rep was killed, however, it is being reported that the murder was not associated with the elections. In Oaxaca, striking teachers took over a police station where ballots were being kept... Anyway.. Generally speaking it has been a peaceful election day in Mexico

Oaxaca Could Become Key Battleground Tomorrow

With the Presidential election tomorrow in Mexico, the race currently polling at a dead heat could turn on the State of Oaxaca, a traditional Institutional Revolutionary Party stronghold. NPR this morning discussed how a recent action by police in that State in response to a teachers protest could swing it towards the Democratic Revolutionary Party and play a key role in the election tomorrow.

Police violently stormed the square on the orders of the Governor Luisias Ruiz using teargas and helicopters... dozens were wounded. Instead of disbanding the teachers ahead of the July 2nd election, the confrontation entrenched them more, and now they're calling for the Governor's resignation, loudly.

The story went on to explain that because of the confrontation people in Oaxaca will not support either the PRI or PAN, the two ruling parties and will instead turn towards the PRD and Mr. Obrador.

The teacher pay issue that sparked the protest has been an ongoing event for some time, when I was in Oaxaca in January I witnessed a protest on this very issue. The teachers swinging left towards Obrador could make a huge difference tomorrow. If you know any Mexicans tell them to vote for Obrador tomorrow, he's going to need all the help he can get.

Supreme Court Overturns Guantanamo Tribunals

In a 5-3 ruling today (5-4 for all practical purposes), the Supreme Court threw out the Bush Administration's Guantanamo "trials" ruling that they violated the Geneva Convention as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This ruling provided the first hard evidence of Alito's tendencies to defer to executive power as I argued he would do when he was nominated. The Bush Administration really seems to view this as its top priority for Supreme Court nominees, they want people who will defer to the President's authority, as Bush believes (probably rightly) that his legacy resides with the success of his "war on terror." Marty Lederman at SCOTUSBlog has more.

the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This was a nice rebuke of the Bush Administration's claims of a completely open ended interpretation of executive power in wartime, as well as their claims of the Afghanistan war resolution as a completely open ended document for executive power. This was a big relief to see a rebuke of the Administration here, the claim they make to justify these outrages that the Afghanistan war resolution lets them do nearly anything they want is disturbing on several levels. Most importantly the fact that the "war on terror" that the Administration claims to be fighting will go on forever would, under their argument here as well as in Padilla and Hamdi, give the President nearly universal wartime powers as long as the President wants them. There is no traditional war against a traditional enemy at all, if we view the "war on terror" as a traditional war we will be fighting it forever, for terrorism can never be completely eradicated. Given the arguments the Administration has made about the Afghanistan war resolution, Barbara Lee's vote against it is starting to look awfully good. I suspect many more Senators and Representatives would have voted against it if they thought the Administration would use it the way they have.

Supreme Court to Review Bush Administration's Refusal to Regulate Carbon Emmissions

The Supreme Court has accepted an appeal in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency which challenges the Bush Administration's claim that they are not required to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. I don't know enough about the specifics of this case to discuss how the Court should rule, but it is a sorry day that we even have to debate this. Whether they are required to or not, the EPA should be working to curb carbon dioxide emmissions. This is the greatest environmental challenge of our day and the Bush Administration sits back and works for big oil instead of working for the American people. From a public policy perspective this approach by the Administration is irresponsible.

Washington Post Spouts Bullshit

Washington Post writers Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray show that they have no idea what they're talking about in an article about the House move to put off immigration until after the election.

House Republicans have long frowned upon the president's approach. In December, they passed a bill that would tighten border controls, clamp down on employers who hire undocumented workers, and declare illegal immigrants and those who assist them to be felons. Their position was solidified this month after Republican Brian Bilbray defeated Democrat Francine Busby by running against Bush's immigration plan in a hard-fought special election to replace imprisoned former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

There is absolutely no evidence in support of that statement, and actually some limited evidence that the opposite might be true. The fact is that the CA-50 in which Bilbray defeated Busby has a +14% Republican edge, to suggest that Bilbray won because of his hard line on immigration is patently absurd when as a Republican he won by only a 3% margin in a heavily Republican district. Furthermore, the independent running in the race who had the endorsement of the minutemen only won about 4% of the vote. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Bilbray won because of his conservative stance on immigration, while it might have actually hurt him considering that the race in the CA-50 should have been an easy win for Republican Brian Bilbray. The Washington Post should try doing a little bit of research before they write total bull shit and claim it to be fact.

Broder Hates Democracy

David Broder, defending Joe Lieberman in his collumn seems to suggest that long time Senators should not be held accountable to their party's voters in a primary. The essential fact of the matter is that Lieberman has run this campaign like a Republican and seems to have a disturbing willingness to flee the Party and run as an independent if he doesn't win. Furthermore, Broder ends his collumn defending perhaps Lieberman's most rediculous statement comparing Connecticut Primary voters to Jihadists. As if its so outrageous for issues to matter to voters. Just because Lieberman is an incumbent does not give him free reign to do anything without repurcussions from the voters. If Lieberman does not feel that he's a Democrat anymore he should leave the Party before the primary, he should not run as an independent in a fit that his message does not resonate with Connecticut primary voters.

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman said, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

I just find that unbelievable, primary voters are jihadists according to their Senator, anyone who runs on that message doesn't deserve to win the primary.

Augh

End this, now, please, time to get out.

WASHINGTON - American deaths since the invasion of
Iraq have reached 2,500, marking a grim milestone in the wake of recent events that
President Bush hopes will reverse the war's unpopularity at home.

United Auto Workers Re-elect President

Ron Gettelfinger has been re-elected as President of the United Auto Workers. I don't know a whole lot about Gettelfinger, but I do know one thing. The UAW needs to change direction. They cannot continue to accept pay cuts and suffer layoffs as they have in recent years. They are declining in numbers and relevence, as the article points out:

All the union officers were elected by a voice vote, and there was no opposition to any of the nominations, despite the troubles have swept the industry during the past four years. In that time, the U.A.W. has lost roughly 78,000 members, falling to under 600,000, the lowest level since 1942.

The lowest level since 1942, amazing. The fate of our country will fall in line with the fate of labor, and the UAW is of particular importance. The break in labor last fall was an acknowledgement of this, things cannot continue to be done the same way. As for the United Auto Workers, they must move away from their tendency to pit themselves against environmentalists. The US auto industry is in decline and the only way to curb that will be for US auto manufacturers to be innovative as they once were. I'm sure if Henry Ford could return to this earth he would be shocked to find that we are still using the internal combustion engine (I stole that from somebody, but I don't remember who). The UAW should join hands with environmentalists to push for US car manufacturers to aggressively pursue energy efficient vehicles, beginning with hybrid technology and moving forward from there. It serves the best interest of all parties involved, environmentalists concerned with global warming, workers concerned with job and pay cuts, and the manufacturers who are seeing declining sales. This is perhaps the best possible example of an issue that would fall within Rousseau's "general will." Everybody's interests would be best served by a move towards energy efficient innovation by the US car companies. The UAW needs leadership that will push them in that direction using whatever tools necessary.

House Appropriations Committee Passes Minimum Wage Increase

The House Appropriations Committee voted Monday to add a minimum wage increase to an appropriations bill for labor and health programs. I don't see this passing ultimately, but its nice to see this move forward. I thank the 7 Republicans who broke ranks to tack this onto the bill. I predict that the Republican leadership won't let the bill go to the floor with the amendment, which would be an interesting hypocrisy for people who forced ANWR drilling onto the floor via appropriations bill. Hopefully this can set the stage for the passage of a similar minimum wage increase when the Democrats take control of the House in 2006, force Bush to veto it and expose the agenda of his party.

Dog Night

I was just watching ESPN and found out that its "dog night" in Detroit for the Tigers game. It was so funny I had to put it here. This brought to mind several questions. Do you have to buy an extra seat for your dog? If you do have to buy an extra seat for your dog how much does the "dog seat" cost? Is this Detroit's way to sell out the stadium, by selling a few thousand seats to dogs? If the dog runs out on the field, who gets ejected, the dog or the owner?

WaPo Summarizes the Candidates

The Washington Post summarized the candidates for Mexico's Presidency on the 9th. Patricia Mercado actually sounds pretty good, but I still stand strongly behind Obrador. When I was in Mexico in January I recall seeing several signs for Mercado, but knew nothing about her until now. I just hope she doesn't serve as Obrador's Nader. As an aside, this piece of the article struck me as interesting:

In 2000, Obrador became mayor of Mexico City. He won over the hearts of residents by providing cash subsidies to single mothers and the elderly and addressing horrendous traffic problems with elevated highways and an improved bus system. He left office in 2005 with an unprecedented 80 percent approval rating.

If Obrador improved the traffic flow in that City I would hate to see what it looked like before he became Mayor, that town has some major traffic problems.

Why Stop At Flag Burning?

The three items on the Republican Senate agenda this week were gay marriage, estate tax repeal, and flag burning. Two of these have now failed and we are waiting on the constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the American flag. Before the Senate votes on flag burning, Senator Frist should withdraw the constitutional amendment and rewrite it to make it more expansive and more in line with the conservative GOP agenda.

It is clear from Ann Coulter's outrageous comments recently, and from the Republicans rushing to defend her, that what they really want is for ordinary citizens to be stripped of the right to criticize their government. So Mr. Frist, I ask you, why would you stop so far short of what you really want? Particularly given how extraordinarily rare flag burnings are. Senator Frist, please, do not undershoot your goals, legislate to make America what your Party clearly wants America to be. I propose that the flag burning amendment be withdrawn so that a far better constitutional amendment can be brought to the floor. Why stop at flag burning? The Senate Republicans should instead go for what their party really wants and ban all speech except by public officials. For as Ms. Coulter and her supporters have argued: Why let the 9/11 victims make the case when Howard Dean can make it for them? Let's just get rid of speech by ordinary citizens, that way we can better weed out the rabble. The text of the amendment currently reads as follows:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

But this can be much improved upon, Senator Frist should not stop there, when he can go so much further. The Amendment that the Senate should in fact be voting on would read like this.

The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Private Citizens in the United States shall speak only when spoken to.

With the extraordinary effort Republican partisons have gone to recently to defend Ann Coulter's outrageous statements, I fail to see why the Republican Party would sell itself short. Senator Frist should move to eliminate the pesky First Amendment immediately.

cross posted at dailykos

Zarqawi Killed

Al Zarqawi has been killed in a US Airstrike. Ultimately I believe this is meaningless in terms of what happens in Iraq, though not insignificant in public opionion related issues within the United States. The Iraqi insurgency has no top down organizational structure. The Iraqi insurgency doesn't even have a common goal. People are fond of comparing this war to Vietnam, and some of the parrallels are valid, but one thing in particular breaks down. In Vietnam it was easier to tell who the enemy was. This is because in Vietnam we were fighting the Vietcong who wanted South Vietnam to join communist North Vietnam, but in Iraq we are fighting 8 million different factions that all want something different. Some are Sunni separatists, some Shia fundamentalists, some Sunni fundamentalists, some former Baathists, and some foreign fundamentalists fighting their jihad for no secular purpose at all. Its such a hodgepodge of interests that we literally have no enemy in Iraq.

Whoa, Slow Down

Abe Kaul blogs like he's on crack.

Results Coming In

The special election in the CA-50th seems to be tightening as the night goes on, Busby currently trails 45.06% to 49.64% with 78% of precincts reporting. I don't think she can bridge the gap, though I hope I'm wrong when I wake up. An impressive run by Busby to do that well in a heavily Republican district and force the Republicans to spend $4 million to the Democrats $2 million in order to hold onto it. A fiercely Republican district, I will count the closeness of this race as a moral victory.

In other news, Jon Tester has defeated John Morrison for the Montana Democratic Party nomination to take on Sen. Conrad Burns in the November election. The nation's most unpopular Senator is in trouble. David Sirota has a great post on Tester.

Good Night and Good Luck.

Election Day

It is election day in the CA-50. I would expect a close race for the House seat left open by Duke Cunningham. Personally, unless there is very low Republican turnout (a definate possibility) I don't see Busby getting over the 46% she took in the primary.

I will now take this moment to criticize the fact that there is a special election at all. It is only a few months until the general election in November, and much of that time the House will be out of session. There was no reason for a special election here, whoever wins is going to have to be elected again after just a few months. Personally I think Arnold should have just appointed someone to fill the seat until the election, instead San Diego County has to spend a lot of money and resources on running this special election. The OH-02 special election was different, the winner of that election had most of a term to fill out, and thus it made sense. Here it really does not. I hope the best for Busby, but there shouldn't be a special election, it is a waste of time and resources.

On the Mexican Presidential Election

I am watching this election pretty closely, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Center-Left PRD in Mexico is currently running neck in neck with Felipe Calderon of the right wing PAN (Vincinte Fox's party). The Institutional Revolutionary Party that ruled Mexico as a one party state for 70 years until Fox's election in 2000 seems to be completely out of the race. The New York Times ran an excellent article about the race and about Obrador in particular yesterday. Some exerpts from the article of particular interest to me.

As the Mexican historian Enrique Krauze has pointed out, López Obrador's emphasis on his loyalty to the poor connects him, in the mind of much of the Mexican general public, to "the core ideals of the Mexican Revolution." It is common at campaign rallies to see people holding placards with slogans like "López Obrador: For all Mexicans, but first for the humble" and "They will not rob us of our dreams."
...
"People say that I am promising too much. But we're talking about a society where 20 million people — 20 million! — live on $2 a day. So when, for example, I talk about giving food aid to the poor, I'm talking about 20 pesos each" — the equivalent of about $2. "And that money — those $2 — would double what these 20 million get and radically change their lives. What the people of Mexico need is not that much, you know."
...
Everything changed when Fox, the PAN candidate, won the 2000 elections and the PRI government of Ernesto Zedillo did not try to invalidate the results. But in the minds of many Mexicans, perhaps even a majority, this political transformation was not matched by economic progress. The middle class unquestionably expanded during Fox's term, and along with it grew rates of homeownership and, in certain regions of the country, disposable incomes. But in other parts of the country, the Nafta years were ones of falling incomes and rising joblessness. A result was mass emigration to the United States, enormous even by already-high past standards. "It's not a migration; it's an exodus" was the way one of López Obrador's aides described it. Or, as one Mexican writer put it to me, Fox did create 10 million jobs for Mexicans — unfortunately, they were all in the United States.

López Obrador emphasizes the emigration issue at virtually every campaign stop. Resentment at the treatment of Mexican migrants in the United States is at a fever pitch in Mexico, with practically every affront against illegal workers, real or imagined, getting huge coverage in the Mexican media; the recent pro-legalization rallies in the U.S. were treated with adulation. But López Obrador speaks of emigration as a tragedy for Mexico and as something Mexico needs to put a stop to out of its own national interest. Unlike many Mexican political figures, AMLO doesn't seem to expect the U.S. to continue to accept the current levels of immigration. Nor does he base his economic calculations on the $20 billion that emigrants to the U.S. send home each year, in the process helping to prop up the Mexican economy. And he says that addressing the question will be a priority for his administration.

"If I am elected," he told me, "I will propose a conference on migration with the United States. Building a wall is not a viable solution. The only thing that will work is creating jobs in Mexico. Fox was not able to maintain good relations with Washington. But I can't see any reason why I can't succeed in doing so."

Mexico has not had anyone like this ever, someone who really seeks to make life significantly better for poor Mexicans who have been forgotten about in a neoliberal tide. All through her history Mexican politics have been dominated by foreign business interests. There have been brief shifts away from this, obviously in the break from Spain, in the rise of Benito Juarez, and the Mexican Revolution, all represented an acknowledgement of the struggles of indigenous and southern Mexicans, but they were shortlived. Independence was followed by Santa Anna, Juarez was followed by the French occupation, and the Revolution was betrayed by the PRI. Obrador follows from the tradition of Hidaldo, of Juarez, and of Zapata, the tradition that fights for the poor and disenfranchised of Mexico.

Too many particularly in the south have been pushed aside by this neoliberal tide. In principle NAFTA can be good for Mexico, and where I had worried about the extent to which Obrador was against the treaty, this article kind of puts those fears to rest. He seems to acknowledge that NAFTA and globalization are a fact of life but wants to alter the trade policies so that poor rural farmers and workers are better protected. In terms of US Mexico relations, I really think that Obrador hits immigration issues on the head, its bad for Mexico to be losing some of its most motivated citizens to the United States. It is as I've said many times here before, an economic refugee crisis. It is a problem of human suffering, and people are going to continue to migrate to where the jobs lie, to Mexico City and to the United States until the basic problem of poverty that drives the situation is dealt with.

Great article on the race, not nearly as pro-Obrador as I am, but a very good summary of the election circumstances, go check it out. As a side note, I believe that Obrador's support is underrepresented in the polling, his support will come from rural and poor areas where pollsters will be unable to reach. Mexican polling has failed before, Fox trailed by 6% right before the election in 2000, and we all know what happened.

Gore Instists that he Will Not Run for President

In today's Washington Post, Al Gore explicitly states that he will not run for President.

"I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again. I've found other ways to serve. I'm enjoying them."
...
"I have no plans to be a candidate for president again," he said. "I don't expect to ever be a candidate for president again. I haven't made a so-called Sherman statement, because it just seems unnecessary, kind of odd to do that."

Its a shame, if he wanted it I think the Democratic nomination certainly, and the Presidency likely would be his for the taking in 2008. The remade Al Gore would be a compelling candidate far better than the cautious candidate we saw in 2000.

Pinning Down the Identity Gap

I believe I have found the cause of the identity gap. It would certainly need more study if I have. Check out the Diary at DailyKos.

The Republican Strategy in 2006

They have no record to run on, they have cheerleaded a disastrous war, the most visable public figure for their Party has a 30% approval rating, and they have failed to engage in any oversight of an administration that, as Blumenthal pointed out in yesterday's Salon, has shown a blatant disregard for the Constitution. So what are the Republicans going to do to avoid losing one or both Houses of Congress in November? Jack Cafferty hits it on the nose on CNN this morning. They are going to try to ride hatred, bigotry, and fear into the election.

This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.

Its really no different than the strategy in 2002 and 2004, divide the country and push all public debate into a "us vs. them" mentality. In 2002 and 2004 it was easier for they could simply use 9/11 to do this. Now, with Republican leadership in foreign policy clearly out of touch, this tactic of division and seclusion has a greatly diminished chance of working for the Republicans in 2006. So they have returned to their favorite whipping boy in 2004, the gays, and added a new player to the mix. The "illegals". Expect the Republican theme in 2006 to be a constant harping of the need to be afraid of these two minority groups. Be afraid of the gays and the illegals.

The War Paradigm

Sidney Blumenthal has a good article over at Salon on the "war paradigm" adopted by the Bush Administration after the September 11th attacks. Not anything really new, but he clearly and concisely hits the mark on the way this Administration governs. One piece of information I was unaware of:

In the short run, Bush's defense of his war paradigm could precipitate three potential constitutional crises. In the first, freedom of the press would be at issue. On May 21, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced the "possibility" that the New York Times would be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act for publishing its Pulitzer Prize-winning article on the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance. "It can't be the case," he said, that the First Amendment "trumps" the "right" of the government "to go after criminal activity" -- and he then defined the Times' printing of its story as "criminal activity."

The 1917 Espionage Act? I was either unaware of Gonzalez making this argument or had forgotten all about it. That shows a truly unbeleivable disrespect of the first amendment and for openness in government. Very good article, go read it.

Spokesman Review Avoids Reality

Ironically on this day the Spokesman Review decides to run this fantasy article, the major news of the day would be this report. One wonders if Sowell and the Spokesman Review which chooses to pick up his article have been paying attention particularly in the past month when we've seen a major decline in the stock market, rising inflation, and now very low job returns. Is there any remaining doubt that the Spokesman Review clings to some FoxNewsesque idea of balance? Anyone who hopes to become informed by reading the paper should probably be avoiding the Spokesman at this point. When the Spokesman Review consistantly runs this kind of crap and then "balances" it with soft moderates like David Broder its seriousness as a paper is put into question.

Bush Tries to Reconcile House and Senate Immigration Bills

President Bush attempting to convince the House and Senate Republicans to reach a compromise over their competing immigration bills today spoke from the US Chamber of Commerce headquarters on the need for compromise.

At this point it strikes me that neither bill is good, the Senate bill is bad but not terrible and the House bill is outrageous. There is no reason that this issue needs to be dealt with at this exact moment. Democrats should withdraw their support and allow Republicans to feud over the xenophobe bill and the corporate friendly bill. If most Democrats withdraw their support from both bills I don't think there's any way that these can be reconciled, we can come back to the issue after the midterms or after the 2008 Presidential election. Until this is taken for what it is, an economic refugee crisis nothing good can come of it. What is needed is serious visa reform (which a guest worker program with a path to citizenship starts to do), a renegotiating of NAFTA, and a committment to helping Mexico improve her rural infrastructure. As long as we're talking about militarizing the border, eliminating due process for illegal immigrants, and building a giant fence nothing should be passed.

SCOTUSBlog on the Ceballos Decision

Basically this decision is outrageous, it severely limits the Constitutional rights of whistleblowers and is completely impractical. SCOTUSBLOG has the scoop.

Today, the Court took that very signifiant step, holding that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." This apparently means that employees may be disciplined for their official capacity speech, without any First Amendment scrutiny, and without regard to whether it touches on matters of "public concern" -- a very significant doctrinal development.

Or perhaps not quite. In order to issue such a holding, the Court would have had to distinguish or overrule Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U. S. 410, 414 (1979), which provided First Amendment protection to an English teacher who had raised concerns to the principal about racism in her school’s employment practices. Citing Givhan, Justice Kennedy writes that "[t]he First Amendment protects some expressions related to the speaker’s job," even when made within the workplace. But, he argues, "[t]he controlling factor in Ceballos’ case is that his expressions were made pursuant to his duties as a calendar deputy.".

So, it appears that if one's duties are to expose wrongdoing in the workplace, such exposure is entitled to no constitutional protection, but that if an employee whose duties do not involve such whistleblowing makes the exact same complaint, then Pickering/Connick analysis still applies. A somewhat odd result, at least on first glance. And odder still: Under today's opinion, if Mr. Ceballos had written a newspaper article complaining about the wrongdoing in question, rather than taking the matter to his supervisor, he would at least be entitled to whatever constitutiional protection Pickering/Connick offers.

I guess the lesson in all this is that if you have a complaint about your workplace you're better off going to the press than to your employer, great idea Justice Kennedy. Furthermore, Jack Balkin makes the argument that employee whisleblowers are screwed no matter which way they go. If they use internal channels they forfeit their first amendment rights and if they go to the press they become workplace pariahs and will probably have to leave their job anyway.

My Published Work on Immigration

Several weeks ago I was asked by the Linfield Review to write an article on immigration. I did, and it was published. I had hoped to link to that article here, but that issue of the Linfield Review seems to have not been posted on the web, so without further ado, I present to you the article, edited for one or two things that I meant to change before I submitted it but forgot.

Since 1886 the statue of liberty has welcomed immigrants to the United States with the famous slogan “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free…I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Now as the United States debates immigration, with some proposals featuring a giant fence along the Mexican border, that sentiment is threatened. What emerges from the immigration debate that we are currently engaged in will define who we are as a country for a long time to come.

The United States is in a unique position economically and geographically in the world. Very few developed nations share a significant border with a developing nation as we do with Mexico. Immigration from the developing world into the developed world is a common trend worldwide, the United States is somewhat unique because of that 2,000-mile border with a developing country. This situation makes the United States perhaps a more desirable destination for people from Latin America. Other developed nations, which also serve as destinations for immigration from the developing world do not have this geographic situation that may make immigration to the United States in particular so appealing to Hispanics seeking a better life.

There has been much debate over whether immigrants, and particularly illegal immigrants improve or harm the US economy. Some of the arguments are patently false, and need to be dismissed from the discussion, that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes, and that they are a drain on social services in particular. In fact, illegal immigrants are ineligible for services such as food stamps, Medicaid, or welfare benefits, but do pay taxes on their income, in fact they serve as a major boost to social security since they pay the payroll tax but are ineligible for its benefits. Businesses appreciate the labor that these individuals provide, for they are very hardworking individuals who, unfortunately are not always paid the minimum wage or given the essential protections afforded to most workers. There is some wage loss due to immigration, according to George Borjas, a Harvard economist; immigration from 1980 to 2000 caused an average 4% wage decrease for US-born males. When lower prices, increased productivity, and other benefits of illegal immigrant labor are considered, Borjas estimates that the average American is 1% wealthier because of illegal immigration.

While the opportunities that people find in the United States are certainly greater than they were in Mexico the lives of these individuals hardly transforms from poverty to wealth. The Pew Hispanic Center notes that in 2004 the poverty rate in the United States among Hispanics was 22.5% compared to a 14% national average. That number includes both citizens and non-citizens; you could imagine that the non-citizen and illegal numbers would be far higher. People endure these conditions to enter the United States illegally because conditions are worse in Mexico. After the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the number of Mexicans living in conditions of poverty increased by 19 million. NAFTA is not bad, the agreement has generally improved the Mexican economy, but it lacked provisions to protect low wage workers and small farmers. Some Mexicans employed full time may make as little as $2.50 a day.

Given the apparent minimal effect that illegal immigration seems to have for Americans it is the cultural implications of immigration that make it such a big issue. This is about a perceived threat to the American way of life with millions of people creeping up from the South speaking primarily a foreign language. If this is true then the issue is ultimately about isolation. Many Americans want to seal their culture off from perceived outside threats. This would explain why people are willing to support free movement of goods across borders, but not free movement of people, for tennis shoes from Malaysia bring no apparent cultural change, while socializing with a completely different culture does.

An honest approach to the immigration issue should seek greater integration, for down the road of greater integration lies the best course for the United States. We should welcome immigrants and the good work they do in this country as we have in the past, perhaps make it easier to gain citizenship for those who want it, and pursue policies that help Mexico and Latin America to improve itself, like renegotiating NAFTA and supplying aid directed towards improving infrastructure. Down this path we welcome what it different and take the cultural changes as they come while easing the desperate circumstances that drive people to risk their lives to come here. The slogan on the statue of liberty signals an attitude that built this country into what it is today, we cannot afford to abandon that sentiment now.

Why Don't They Come Here Legally?

The New York Times ran an article today pointing out the absurdity of much of the "illegal immigration" frame that has dominated our public discourse on this issue. George Lakoff points out at the Rockridge Institute that this is more properly a "economic refugee crisis" than it is a "illegal immigration problem". When we think of the issue in terms of illegal immigration it is likely that the discourse revolves arround the fact that so many hispanic immigrants are here without the proper paperwork to be legal. It sets the debate in terms of the immigrants having broken the law. What the New York Times does excellently today is point out that the idea that people should "wait in line" is a false one, for oftentimes there is no line to wait in.

Six years after he came here from Mexico, David E. has a steady job in a poultry plant, a tidy mobile home and a minivan. Some days he almost forgets that he does not have legal documents to be in this country.

David's precarious success reflects the longtime disconnect between the huge number of Mexican immigrants the American economy has absorbed and the much smaller number the immigration system has allowed to enter legally.

Like many Mexicans, David — who spoke in Spanish and whose last name is being withheld because he feared being fired or deported — was drawn by the near-certain prospect of work when he made his stealthy passage across the desert border in Arizona to this town among the cucumber fields of eastern North Carolina.

"If I had the resources and the connections to apply to come legally," said David, 37, "I wouldn't need to leave Mexico to work in this country."
...
By big margins, Mexican workers have been the dominant group coming to the United States over the last two decades, yet Washington has opened only limited legal channels for them, and has then repeatedly narrowed those channels.

"People ask: Why don't they come legally? Why don't they wait in line?" said Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization in Washington. "For most Mexicans, there is no line to get in."

The United States offers 5,000 permanent visas worldwide each year for unskilled laborers. Last year, two of them went to Mexicans. In the same year, about 500,000 unskilled Mexican workers crossed the border illegally, researchers estimate, and most of them found jobs.

"We have a neighboring country with a population of 105 million that is our third-largest trading partner, and it has the same visa allocation as Botswana or Nepal," said Douglas S. Massey, a sociology professor at Princeton.
...
For Mexicans who try to immigrate legally, the line can seem endless. A Mexican who has become a naturalized United States citizen and wants to bring an adult son or daughter to live here faces a wait of at least 12 years, State Department rosters show. The wait is as long as seven years for a legal resident from Mexico who wants to bring a spouse and young children.

Although David E. graduated from a Mexican university, he does not have an advanced degree, a rare skill or family ties to a legal United States resident that might have made him eligible for one of the scarce permanent visas.

Instead, he said, after he despaired of finding work at a decent wage in his home city, Veracruz, he discovered an alternative immigration system, the well-tried underground network of word-of-mouth connections. Contacts he made through the network helped him to make the trek to Arizona, traverse the country in a van loaded with illegal Mexicans and land a job eviscerating turkeys at a poultry plant in Mount Olive three weeks after he arrived.

David has been at the plant ever since, rising to become the chief of an assembly line but still working as much as 12 hours a day on a red-eye shift that ends at 3 a.m.

From time to time he has made inquiries about becoming legal. But he said he was detained twice by the Border Patrol when he first tried to cross into the United States, and with that record, he feared that any approach to the immigration authorities might end in deportation.

Emphasis mine. So great, we're going to demonize people for coming to the United States illegally when there are no channels for them to come here legally. This grossly unfair visa distribution must end. Thanks to Mountain Man at DailyKos for the catch.

The Irony of the DaVinci Code Uproar

I went to see the DaVinci Code today. While it seems to have been largely panned I liked the movie, but that's not what I intend on speaking to here. At the end of April Vatican Officials called for its boycott. Numerous other groups have protested the film as well.

The irony of it all of course is that by reacting as they have to a fictional film, based on a novel that never claimed to be anything else, those who have reacted to this film and are offended by its content serve only to prove its point.

Now is the time for a spoiler alert, if you have not seen the film or read the book you may be well served to stop here. The premise of the film is that in order to justify a patriarchal message the catholic church had suppressed that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and had a female child with her. In short, that Jesus christ was human, and that the catholic church would go to any length to prevent this getting out in order to justify a doctrine that serves to oppress women.

The uproar over this movie by the Catholic Church and many other religious groups makes Dan Brown's point more effectively than the book itself. It suggests that some are so determined to prevent free thought and questioning of church doctrine that they will go to extreme radical measures to prevent it. And there lies the point of this movie. Those who have put so much effort into killing this movie should perhaps consider Robert Langdon's (Tom Hanks) ending remarks. "Is it divine? Is it human? Can't the human be divine?" To question doctrine should not be something so actively fought, but considered. The Catholic Church has throughout its history been an organization less than committed to womens rights and equality. The movie is treats the Catholic Church brutally and in many regards with historical honesty. Maybe it should be considered whether it is really worth trying to destroy those ideas that question your doctine or whether it is better to consider the substance of the attack and admit ones past mistakes moving forward with more compassion.

As a side note, fiction is fiction ya know, its not like anyone is claiming this to be a documentary or to be factual. It is an engaging fascinating mystery flick, making a major PR campaign to get out the news that fiction is fiction seems a little odd.

Back In Action

Ok, after a long semester featuring the class from hell I can now restart this blog over the summer and hopefully keep it going into the fall. With the research project that bogged me down this semester out of the way I suspect I can pull it off just fine. Now I hope to once more be able to write about the world's happenings. I missed the isolationist immigration proposals, the new wiretapping revelations, and much more. Now with fewer conflicts over the next three months I will be able to discuss what happens in the world here as I also attempt to transition this into a place for labor related stories in particular. Cwech Blug open for business again.

I Quit!

I've been trying to juggle this blog with school all year long, and I just can't pull it off. I will keep this open and post when I'm dying to say something, but beyond that, this blog is shutting down until June. I simply cannot pull it off at this time, I have not posted much recently and I do not expect to in the near future.

The Hillary Media Circus

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the 2008 Presidency. For starters its simply too far out to worry about. There are people I like (Feingold, Edwards), and people I don't like (Biden, Kerry, Hillary). I kind of suspect that the 2008 Democratic nominee might be someone on nobody's radar screen who will emerge from some obscure governorship. The in thing right now on those who can't bother to wait for people to actually start campaigning is to treat Hillary Clinton as the defacto nominee 2 years before the primaries begin. The Washington Post runs an op-ed piece today explaining I think quite well the Hillary Clinton phenomenon. It also does an excellent job of expressing why I think Hillary Clinton is not the right person to nominate.

It is, of course, Hillary's very wifeyness that titillates. All wives are mysterious to others (even to their husbands, I suspect) since their relationships to their men are not based on merit, as we know it, or patronage, as we know it, but on love and sex (at first), children (after a while) and then something else. Since we do not know our own marriages, we cannot know anyone else's. This engenders endless speculation about the distribution of power and the importance of pillow talk. (Somehow, it's OK for the unelected Karl Rove to advise Bush, but if Laura did it, some people would go nuts.) Did Nancy Reagan actually tell Ron what to do? What about Eleanor Roosevelt -- especially Eleanor? She was even more vilified than Franklin and all she ever did was go down into a coal mine, invite Marian Anderson to sing on the Mall and make some speeches in that high, squeaky voice of hers. Hardly worth hating, you'd think. But, oh, she was certainly hated.

Hillary, of course, is a very famous and very mysterious wife. We need not enumerate the reasons. They were more or less impeachable. Did she know? How could she not have known? Was she complicit? Is she an enabler? And now that she is a public official in her own right, even more mystery attaches to her. Who is she? What, exactly, are her politics? Is she a Cubs or a Yankees fan?
...
Some scrutiny of a possible president, even a mere senator, is expected, even required. But for one person to be so loved, so hated, and of such compelling interest -- so much more a celebrity than, say, John McCain -- suggests that more than politics is involved. Like Marie Antoinette, Hillary has emerged as the repository of so many fears, so much dread, such aspirations -- so much good and bad -- that we have to look past her office or her ambitions and suggest, strongly, that something deeply Freudian is at work. It was Freud, after all, who spoke for all men (and many women) by asking, "What do women want?" Now -- some fear, others hope -- we may finally have the answer.

My frustrations of late with Senator Clinton have been based arround her push to the center and apparent pandering to the non-existent centrist voter. But I am confident that if hypothetically Hillary could get elected, then she would make a good President whether I like her campaign style or not. The reason to object to Hillary Clinton running is that nobody has an open mind about her. It would be very difficult to get people to look beyond the irrelevencies that Cohen discusses and to consider the merits of candidate Clinton. It does not have to do with her being a woman, it has to do with her person, she is a much loved and much hated person who everyone has already made up their mind about. A less famous woman could stand a chance. I would welcome and support a Boxer candidacy if she decided to run, Hillary's problem is not her being a woman, but her presence as an irrational vent for many people to express everything wrong in the world.

Shhhh

I take a perhaps unusual view of Senator John McCain of Arizona. In spite of the conventional wisdom of McCain as a moderate I consider him a relatively conservative Senator who's image as a maverick, a moderate, and a pragmatist make him unbeatable. Paul Krugman exposes McCain's conservatism in the New York Times today, and I agree with most of his argument though he uses some questionable data as "facts". For example he sites voteview.com as ranking McCain the 3rd most conservative member of the United States Senate. Now, voteview could be right, and seems to be run by trustworthy people (a UCSD Poli Sci professor), but the ranking of McCain as the Senate's most conservative member is way out of step with everything else I've seen which tends to place him towards the middle and mainstream of the Republican caucus. That said, Krugman hits the principle quite accurately.

He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him at the right wing of the REpublican Party.

And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.

While I think Krugman's analysis of Arizona's senior Senator is ultimately correct I don't think this is a cat you want to let out of the bag. If McCain decides to run for President in 2008 his moderate image may prevent him from winning the nomination for lack of traditional conservative voters supporting him. I would argue that McCain cannot be beaten, he's too well liked accross party lines. Should he decide to run, the only thing keeping him out of the White House will be the Republican Primary, and in that setting his moderate image might kill him. So let's not tell the public that McCain is a right winger just yet.

The Plight of Airline Pilots

The New York Times illustrates the hardships pilots currently endure as the airline industry continues to limp along. The thing that particularly disturbed me was the discussion of increased hours. This is not just about pilots, the more fewer pilots are pushed to work more hours with less rest the more dangerous it is for everybody flying. I don't know what can be done here, the airline pilots union is in a bind, they work for an industry that is running in most cases out of bankruptcy and is really struggling to get by. That is the root cause of the problem, and with that in mind it is difficult to know how the union should react to improve the situation. I think everyone can tell that pushing too hard on airlines to improve pensions and reduce hours could be the final blow to many airlines experiencing losses from reductions in the number of passengers. There is one thing I do know though, this is the wrong attitude.

Not everyone agrees that the longer working schedule is a problem.

"It's hard for me to feel sorry for them," said Capt. Jeffrey R. Hefner, the safety chairman of the union that represents pilots at Southwest Airlines, who have always flown longer hours than pilots at older airlines.

"They're a bunch of spoiled brats," he said. "Historically, this has been a really cushy job once you get to the majors. You make a lot of money and you don't have to fly a lot. But there had to be a market balancing at some point."

Great, so pilots have union officials who think the members of the union are a bunch of spoiled brats, I'm sure that really helps the situation. What ever happened to union officials who fight for improved conditions for their members?

Dubai Ports Controversy Ends

Dubai Ports World has agreed to sell operations to a US Company effectively ending the showdown over ports. In an amazing bipartisan effort to shut the US off from the rest of the world, Congressional Democrats and Republicans joined together to stop the deal. I just don't get this, especially the Democrats, Republicans have a long history of xenophobia and it would be unreasonable to expect it to end now. But the Democrats should not have made this the issue they made it. This will come back to hurt Democrats ultimately in the attitute it enforces. That attitude is that we must resign within ourselves because there are people in the world who seek to hurt us. Democrats saw this as a political opportunity to show the Country that they were better on national security than Bush, but it will come back to hurt them because it reinforces that isolationist attitude that Republicans thrive upon.

That said, I feel no sympathy for Bush here, he dug his own grave on this issue through his rhetoric towards Iraq. Paul Krugman pointed this out on February 24th and puts it far better than I.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam -- what's the difference?

Now comes the ports deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

The administration also tells us not to worry about having Arabs control port operations. "I want those who are questioning it," Mr. Bush said, "to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

He was being evasive, of course. This isn't just a Middle Eastern company; it's a company controlled by the monarchy in Dubai, which is part of the authoritarian United Arab Emirates, one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan.

But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs."

This is all about retreat from the rest of the world, and thus Democrats should not be blocking this deal. It is nice however, to see Bush get nailed by his own rhetoric. That said, today the xenophobes have won with the Dubai company agreeing to sell operations to a US company. Next up, a 2000 mile long fence between the United States and Mexico.

Where is all this Iran Rhetoric Going?

LiberalOasis confronts Bush administration saber rattling towards Iran and offers a strategy for preventing another war. While I agree with them that the United States is engaging in the same kind of rhetoric and action with Iran that preceeded the Iraq war, I see no way this is a precurser to war with Iran. The simple fact is that we have no army with which to invade Iran if we did want to. The only plausible way to go to war with Iran would be to institute a draft. The Bushies could not gain support for another war if there is a draft, and probably can't without one since they no longer have any credibility on these matters. Once you start talking about a draft very few people will support war and Congress will stand up to the Administration.

Given that, I don't understand what is going on with Iran. I am convinced that Liberal Oasis is correct, we are engaging in a strategy just like we did prior to Iraq to frame Iran as the #1 threat to US security. But again, the Bushies know that we have no army anymore so I don't see what the hoped for end result of this rhetoric is. It can't possibly be war for the reasons I stated above, so what is happening

Crap, Ciro Lost

Ciro Rodriguez appears to have lost his primary challenge to Henry Cuellar in the TX-28. Quite unfortunate. Texas has an open primary system, so it seems likely (especially given the Club for Growth endorsement) that Republicans turned up in the primary to make sure they didn't lose their Dixiecrat congressman to a reasonable Democrat. Cuellar was clearly one of the worst Democrats in Congress voting for the right wing Bush agenda, it is very unfortunate that he was able to hold on against this challenge. I will now be taking Rodriguez off the candidates list.

In other news, the United States somehow managed to lose to Canada today. Dontrell Willis got absolutely shelled and a late offensive run to tighten the score at 6-8 came up just short.

NYT Can't Find Anything New to Report

The New York Times runs the "Democrats in Dissaray" story for the 8 millionth time on the front page this morning, ignoring the fact that the New York Times has run some version of this exact same story at least one other time in the last month, the article made little sense.

The article begins by pointing that Democrats in different places are (gasp!) talking about different things! As if that's some huge indication of having no direction, the simple fact is that different people prioritize different things. In a Democracy that should be respected as a normal human fact, some people think one issue is most important that other people don't. Not only that, but many argue that Congressional elections are fought on local issues, so shouldn't it then be considered a strength that Democrats aren't all talking about the same things? The article then moves on to say how in sink Republicans were in 1994 and how they were all talking about the same thing. It then goes to Rahm Emmanuel arguing that the election must be nationalized because so many districts are gerrymandered to Republican advantage. Then instead of pointing this out as a reason that it may be good that Democrats are talking about different things, it goes to Republicans arguing that Congressional elections hinge on local issues, and uses that instead as an argument that Democrats don't know what they're doing. Never mind the way this article began, and the fact that this counters the entire thesis of the article, we'll just pretend that it supports it.

In short this was horrible rotten writing that ignored obvious logical conclusions to be drawn from the evidence it presented all to run their favorite story once again on the front page, that the Democrats have no message.

Senate Passes PATRIOT ACT

And Larry Craig is a goddamn hypocrite. After Rep. Butch Otter proved to him that opposition to the PATRIOT ACT was politically popular in Idaho Craig spend the next 3 years speaking against the act. Now when the time to really stand up comes, he votes for it again. In other news, most of the Democratic caucus is gutless. Feingold was only able to garner 15 votes against cloture and 10 against the bill itself. Though in the end, it may not matter since the President doesn't seem to think it matters what is and is not legal. Since Bush thinks he's king, in fact, a post over at the Volokh conspiracy wonders whether the domestic spying program began even before the AUMF passed Congress. I don't see why anyone felt the need to pass the PATRIOT ACT even if they are its most outspoken supporters.

Specter's Specter FISA Bill

I wrote yesterday that Arlen Specter's bill introduced yesterday appeared to do absolutely nothing, now we have an observation from Marty Lederman that it does in fact do something. Quite a lot actually, Lederman argues that Specter's bill actually dismantles FISA. Quite a different interpretation than what was presented by the Washington Post yesterday. I'll let Lederman take it for a while now.

As I read the draft bill, however, this is wrong. It's not simply a a reenactment of the "FISA framework" -- instead, it's a wholescale dismantling of that framework, a substantive amendment to FISA that would vastly increase the surveillance authority of the President. It would give the Executive branch everything it has always wanted, and much more: The punishment for having broken the law with impunity would be a wholesale repeal of the law that has governed electronic surveillance for almost 30 years (and not only with respect to Al Qaeda or terrorism). In one fell swoop, the Specter legislation would undo the detailed regulatory scheme that both political branches have so carefully calibrated over more than a quarter-century.
...

Under FISA, in order for the federal government to engage in electronic surveillance targeted at someone here in the U.S. -- i.e., at phone calls and e-mails going out of the U.S. -- there must be probable cause that the person targeted is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. See 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(3). The Specter bill would go much, much further. Under that bill, it would not be necessary for the NSA to show that either party to an intercepted phone call or e-mail has anything to do with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. It would not even be necessary for the government to show probable cause -- or reason to believe, or any evidence -- that etiher party to the call or e-mail is a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or even associated with a foreign power.

Instead, the bill would permit domestic electronic surveillance targeted at U.S. persons merely upon a showing of "probable cause" that the surveillance program as a whole -- not even the particular targeted surveillance -- will intercept communications of anyone who has "had communication" with a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, as long as the government is seeking to monitor or detect that foreign power (or agent)! (See the new section 704: The standard for the FISA Court's review of the application is whether "there is probable cause to believe that the electronic surveillance program will intercept communications of the foreign power or agent of a foreign power specified in the application, or a person who has had communication with the foreign power or agent of a foreign power specified in the application.")

So, if Lederman is correct (and he makes a disclaimer that this is an initial impression and perhaps he's missing something) then the Specter bill actually prevents the President from ever having to show probable cause for a wiretap. If he can demonstrate that there is probable cause for the program as a whole then the NSA may conduct these wiretaps. I would read that to essentially declare that the President can moniter any conversation he likes if he can demonstrate that somewhere at some time there is or was a threat that wiretapping could or did stop. Assuming that Lederman is right, the Specter bill then essentially allows the President to data mine at will, as long as he can justify the program itself to the FISA Court.

Another issue unrelated to the bill comes up here. How could the Washington Post have done this awful a job in reporting on the Specter bill? Did the author not bother to wonder why Specter would propose a bill that does absolutely nothing that FISA doesn't do already? How could the Washington Post have printed an article that makes the reader think that the bill does the exact opposite of what it actually does? Come on Washington Post writers and editors, grow a brain.

Specter Proposes Bill to do Nothing

Sen. Arlen Specter, chair of the Judiciary committee has proposed a bill to require "The federal government...to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants." Sounds like FISA. There's a reason for that, it is. Given what can be determined from this article, Specter's bill does absolutely nothing, because it is entirely contained within the status-quo. Maybe Specter should introduce a bill to criminalize marijuana now as long as he's introducing bills that offer no change to the present situation.

William F. Buckley Admits Defeat in Iraq

Yes, Editor of the National Review William F. Buckley has admitted that the United States cannot win in Iraq.

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.

Unfortunately we have a President backed by a whole lineup of neocons who can't accept this reality, so we continue to pursue an unatainable policy. If the Administration could accept the obvious reality of the situation in Iraq we could move forward to find a reasonable way to cut our losses and get our troops out.

TIA Returns

Remember Total Information Awareness? Well, it's back. When Congress refused to fund it the Bush Administration folded the program into the NSA. This Administrations disdain for the Congress, the Constitution, and the privacy of the American people is unbelievable. Unfortunately Bush has now stacked the Supreme Court with Executive Power Justices and Congress doesn't give a damn.

So Much to Blog So Little Time

It's not like there's nothing to blog about, I just can't find the time or energy to do it.

Republicans Admit Domestic Spying Program is Illegal

The Associated Press runs a story about a "deal" struck between Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and the White House.

Without offering specifics, Roberts said the agreement with the White House provides "a fix" to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and offers more briefings to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The deal comes as the committee was set to have a meeting Thursday about whether to open an investigation into the hotly disputed program. Roberts indicated the deal may eliminate the need for such an inquiry. Democrats have been demanding an investigation but some Republicans don't want to tangle the panel in a testy election-year probe.

I feel farely confident that whatever this "deal" is, its no good. Anything that allows the executive to bypass Court approval for searches can't be good, and that's the only solution the White House would settle for. DeWine is also suggesting changes to the law.

Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan hinted at a "good discussion going on" with lawmakers and praised in particular "some good ideas" presented by Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record). The Ohio Republican has suggested the FISA law be changed to accommodate the NSA program.

Republicans suggesting changes to the FISA law in order to permit Bush's program? By suggesting that the law needs to be changed to allow for a program that Republicans claim is absolutely necessary to national security, they admit that the program is illegal. So, seeing how we are all now in agreement that the President defied US law in order to engage in a domestic wiretapping program we can move forward to the proper place right? If we all agree that this is illegal there are only two arguments that one can make. One, that the President has the authority to do whatever the hell he wants and the law doesn't matter. And two, that the President violated the law and should be impeached. If we choose the first then we may as well abolish the Constitution to establish a monarchy. If Republicans are not willing to take this step then the only other option is to join Representative Conyers to impeach the President. Since that won't happen, they remain hypocrates who support dictatorship.

Tucker Carlson Makes Shit Up

I couldn't bear to stick arround and watch the show, but MSNBCs Tucker Carlson stated tonight that "the liberal blogs are running with a story that Cheney is covering up for an affair." Now, Tucker shields himself by attaching the blind quote, obviously we don't know what blogs he's looking at. But let's do a quickie survey of the major blogs that I tend to look at along my sidebar. I will look only at the significant partison blogs, excluding SCOTUSBlog, the Poetry Scorecard, Blue Oregon, The Emergingg Democratic Majority, and Juan Cole. If for no better reason then that I'm sure they aren't even talking about the issue.
Alternet-Discussion of "A beer or two and a gun"
Atrios-Discusses how well Cheney knew Mr. Wittington, and addresses right wing claims that the media is at fault for the incident.
DailyKos-A lot on drunkenness
LiberalOasis-Absolutely Nothing on the Cheney shooting
MyDD-Nothing on the subject
My Very Brain-Nothing but the bare facts.
Talking Points Memo-Discussion of the police investigation.
Think Progress-News coverage of the question of Cheney possibly being drunk.

So, after actually examining major blogs, one can only conclude that either Tucker was just flatly making shit up, or he decided that this was his story and went way out of his way to find a liberal blog to back up his case. Since there are so many liberal blogs out there, I'm sure that somebody did in fact say that, but it aint anyone who very many people read. Congratulations Tucker, you can conduct a google blog search. Very good, you pass the test.

The NLRB Fails to Adequately Protect Workers Even When It Sides With Them

Today's New York Times runs a very important and telling story about the State of labor relations. The article documents abuses at non-union meat packing plant in North Carolina where the company has been found to have illegally manipulated the vote to prevent a union. The most obvious and immediate problem is speed:

In 1997, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union lost a unionization election at the sprawling plant, built in this rural town 75 miles south of Raleigh. But it was not until 2004 that the National Labor Relations Board upheld an administrative law judge's decision that threw out the election results.

The labor board found that the Smithfield Packing Company not only had prevented a fair election by illegally intimidating, firing, threatening and spying on workers but also had a union supporter beaten up the night of the vote count.

Seven years to finaly rule that the company violated the workers rights to a fair vote for a union. Seven years that the company was allowed to continue abusing its workers and for which the workers had no recourse of a union. Even after the ruling, organizers fear that the company would continue to act in the same way, intimidating workers so that they still would be unable to get a fair vote. If a new vote were held today and the company engaged in the same tactics and the vote had the same result, it would take another seven years to get the same ruling from the NLRB. Another 7 years for which employees would have no way to defend themselves against company abuses. I talk about company abuses, because they are many at the Smithfield Packing Company, and many of those abuses would be solved if the workers were allowed a union, something that the company is hell bent on preventing.

Among the nearly 5,500 workers at the Smithfield plant who kill the hogs and cut them into hams, ribs and pork chops, there is a steady stream of complaints about bullying managers, the line speed and the many injuries to hands, arms and shoulders.

"A union would help reduce all the injuries — people are getting hurt left and right," said Edward Morrison, 42, an Army veteran who quit his job on the kill floor in October after tearing his knee while straining to push a rack that had five hogs hanging from it. "A union would also give the workers a say-so."
...
One of those the union has enlisted is the Rev. Markel Hutchins, associate pastor at Philadelphia Baptist Church in Atlanta. "I became involved with this not so much as a union issue, but as a civil and human rights issue," said Mr. Hutchins, who has spoken at churches and colleges to rally support for the Smithfield workers. "What's happening there is eerily reminiscent of the days of Jim Crow in terms of gross mistreatment."
...
"Given the history of Smithfield, if you try to have a free and fair election, it ain't going to work," said Gene Bruskin, the director of the unionization drive. "What Smithfield needs to hear is the message that workers have a right to make a decision about whether they want a union without being beaten, terrorized, intimidated and threatened."
...
Mr. Hostetter said Smithfield maintained a good relationship with unions at its unionized plants — 21,800 of its 51,290 workers have union representation. But union officials are quick to point out that the workers at many of those [unionized] plants earn on average 40 percent more than the Tar Heel workers, who usually earn $8.50 to $11.50 an hour.
...
But Joseph T. Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said: "We could have an election there every year, but it won't be fair because the workers will be terrorized. Why should we keep beating our head against the wall?"

Mr. Hansen said the lower pay at the Tar Heel plant was putting downward pressure on pay throughout the industry. "The way people are treated there is outrageous," he added. "The people there are treated as if they're in the Sudan and not in the United States."
...
The labor board and the administrative law judge ruled that Smithfield had repeatedly broken the law in pressing workers to vote against the union.

According to those rulings, Smithfield managers illegally fired four workers for supporting the union and threatened to freeze wages, discharge employees and close the plant if the workers unionized. The two rulings also found that Smithfield had improperly intimidated union supporters by having its small police force mill outside the polling station at the plant.

Lorena Ramos, 29, an immigrant from Honduras, said Smithfield's managers and consultants often told the workers that the union only wanted employees' dues money and would cause strikes that could lead to violence, job losses and even closing the plant.

Her right arm was badly injured when it got caught in a conveyer belt as she was scooping dry ice into packing boxes. She and her husband were outspoken union supporters, and they said they were shocked and embarrassed when the plant's internal police force arrested them, handcuffed them and paraded them through the plant, accusing them of setting a fire in one of the plant's cafeterias. The county's district attorney dropped the charges for lack of evidence.

Ms. Ramos quit the plant after the arrest, too scared to return. The union hired her as an organizer because of her popularity, courage and communications skills.

"Right now if the workers want something to change at the plant, the plant's not going to listen to them," she said. "If the workers have a union, then they will be listened to."
...
For workers, line speed is one of the biggest issues. On each processing line on the kill floor, a hog passes about every three and a half seconds, translating into about 1,000 hogs an hour, 8,000 a shift. Many workers complain that injuries are caused by the line speed and by having to do the same task thousands of times daily. Workers sometimes even stab one another or themselves by mistake.

Abusive company that won't allow a fair vote can get away with it, because even if they lose at the NLRB they get to continue to abuse workers for the next 7 years. The process is far too slow to guarantee any justice for workers. We need reform at the NLRB speeding up the process and imposing harsher punishments for companies that intimidate workers out of unionizing, this 7 year process ending in nothing worse than a slap on the wrist does little to guarantee the protection of workers rights. Particularly in a climate where the NLRB is stacked with people friendly to big business interests.

I always knew Cheney had anger problems

Cheney shot a guy. It is evidently difficult for Cheney to tell the difference between a bird and a human. Someone needs to work with him on that distinction, it might help when hunting.

The Stupidity of Health Savings Accounts

Fellow Oregon blogger The Big Forehead with a very good short discussion of why the health savings accounts that Republicans support are a bad idea.

Consuming healthcare ain't buying Coca Cola; it's not choosing between buying a Kia instead of a Mercedes. Nobody wants to approach an insurance company with an expensive, pre-existing condition. You can't, as a consumer, opt for operable versus non-operable cancer. I've never met anyone who woke up in the morning and decided to break their leg. I'm guessing the premiums will be hard enough for most folks on the bottom rung and the idea that they're going to sock even more cash into their HSA would be funny if it weren't so insulting.

Basically, healthcare isn't a normal market. That entire argument is maddeningly silly and dishonest. This is about getting employers out of the insurance game. If you think that's a swell idea, great. That's your perogative. But do yourself a favor and excise the "smart consumers" meme from your talking points.

One minor quibble I have here, employers should be taken out of the insurance game, it would be better for everybody if employers were taken out of the insurance game by instituting a single payer plan in which everyone is guaranteed health care insured by the United States Government. But the argument about health care not being a normal market in which one can choose which products they are going to buy is made very effectively. PS: Emphasis mine on the quote

You call that an education policy?

The Bush Administration: Home to absurd policy initiatives that serve no practical purpose. Education seems to occupy the same approach the public policy that is present in nearly everything pursued by this Administration. In short, there is no policy. The New York Times today lead with this gem on page 1 collumn 1.

My first reaction was, in a sentence, "what the hell?" This makes absolutely no sense. I have always stood firmly opposed to standardized testing, but in the High School level some of the arguments make some degree of sense. The simple fact of the matter is that a percentage of High School teachers don't know what the hell they're talking about. They are a small percentage, but some High School teachers come in with little knowledge about the subjects that they're teaching and can't give the students any useful information. Furthermore, all American children attend High School, it is our bedrock education system and represents the bare minimum of what we expect our children to know. With that in mind there is some role for tracking student performance in High School, though again, I oppose the policy and it is a huge burden on schools that detracts from the actual learning process.

Colleges however, are totally different. First of all, colleges have some control over the students they are admitting. Secondly the presence of majors separates people into needing a knowledge base of some things but not others. Third all the professors in College are experts in their field, they have post graduate degrees in history or biology or political science, whatever it may be.

It is clear what a standardized testing regime would show us. The schools that test well would be the ones with higher admissions standards, the ones that do poorly would be the ones with lower admissions standards. For as is a problem with all testing regimes schools can only do what they can with the students they have. But Colleges have more direct control over what students they have. So the obvious result in a standardized test among colleges would be that schools everywhere would increase their admissions standards. It shouldn't be hard to see how this opposes the value of an educated public, because more people would not attend college. The article cites one cause for concern in American colleges as being a high dropout rate. But the cause of this is obvious and certainly isn't going to be helped by standardized testing. The cause of high drop out rates is twofold, the high cost of tuition and the difficulty of the coursework. Students who don't feel like they can keep up are likely to drop out. What this has to do with standardized testing is beyond me.

Quite frankly, this is one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard. So what the hell is the Bush Administration doing even seriously looking at it? Destroying public education. They know that in both High School and College the test scores will show that private schools do better in public schools. The cause of this is of course admissions standards in college, public schools often have softer admissions standards than private schools. In High School admissions is key to the answer once again. Private schools can reject anybody they want and control their student body to prevent people from attending who will drag down the test scores. Public schools on the other hand can't control their student body at all. The ultimate goal of standardized testing? Privatization of education. That is the only explanation which does not lead one to conclude that standardized testing (particularly in college) is bad public policy. For if the goal is privatization of the education system then it must first be demonstrated that private schools are inherently superior to public schools, and that public schools are incapable of supplying a good public education. This way the privatizers can demonstrate how much better the private secter supplies education than the public sector. Once that is done they can privatize education and make education something that only obtainable for the children of elites.

They wouldn't be Democrats if they weren't missing opportunities

The New York Times runs a front page story today that tells the rotten state of the Democratic Party like it is. After failing to get more than a measly 25 votes for an Alito filibuster, Senate Democrats have forsaken a duty to the American people to do everything they can to stop this radical nominee. Why? Because they were unable to effectively make their case and throw public support against Alito who will likely be even more conservative than Antonin Scalia. What kind of immediate impact is this likely to have? For starters Tennessee v. Lane represented one of the ways in which O'Connor has defined the Supreme Court in recent years, the already conservative path of the Supreme Court's view on federalism is now going to make a radical shift to the right tossing out a number of Federal laws. Secondly, there are the affirmative action cases where O'Connor once again comprised the deciding vote, once the Court has an opportunity all considerations of race in college admissions are probably going to be tossed out. I won't torture you going through a long list of ways that the Alito confirmation is going to radically change the Supreme Court, and will only go through one more example. Why did Bush ask for the line item veto in his state of the Union speech? The Supreme Court struck down the law in 1998 6-3, but Bush asked for it, he has appointed two executive power friendly justices to the Supreme Court, but if everyone votes the same it would still be struck down 5-4, Alito replaces O'Connor who voted in favor of keeping the line item veto, so that's a wash, but Roberts replaces Rehnquist who voted against it. Bush must believe that Thomas might switch over and that there is a chance that the Supreme Court might uphold the line item veto or he would not have asked for it in the State of the Union address.

But with all these radical changes Democrats were incapable of making their case to the public and could not come near the 40 votes needed for a filibuster. The underlying problem with the Democratic Party today is their total inability to make a case, no matter how strong that case is. This is further evidenced by the public support for Bush's illegal domestic spying program. The New York Times article is absolutely right, if the Democrats do not change the way they approach these discussions they will not have the gains that they should have in 2006.

Long Time No Post

It's been a while since I've posted anything here, I was in Mexico for a month, then I just couldn't find the energy to post anything. I suppose if I'm going to keep this going I should probably start posting again, so here I go, next post kicks off 2006 for me.