We don't Fearmonger, but the Scary Bad Guys Who Want To Kill You do

Honestly, I don't even know what I'm listening to. I turned on the TV and DHS head Michael Chertoff is giving a speech or press conference regarding threats from pandemic flus and/or bioterror. I just don't have time today to chase down quotes and all, but this is what I heard, paraphrased except if I put quotes:

I'm concerned that the public isn't concerned about this. Right after 9/11 and the antrax attacks [which, BTW, jerk, no one ever solved] there was a push to protect the public against bioterror. But then the "fear-mongering" started up, telling the public that we were being too hasty and "spending too much money", and the issue was moved to the back burner. So to dispel what you might have heard, let me tell you about the types of people who still want to use bioterror in the US and what their serious plans are.

At which point he went into the part of the speech that did just that.

While I'm not quoting, I'm also not being flippant. I might have some of the actual words wrong, but this is exactly the tone and the calm explanation that the public has been "scared off" of the bioterror problem and so to clear that up, here is a list of the bad guys and what they want to do. I'm not taking a speech that said one thing and just giving you my take on the subtext, this is the actual text, the upfront line. People, you have been scared into not being scared enough, so let me tell you who wants to kill you so you will be scared of the right things again. It's this kind of crap that makes me want to take a nap.

Check it out, I'm sure it's on CSPAN, I'd get you a link if I wasn't so crazed today (only 12 more days until Shakespeare's Birthday!!!).

You're lucky this isn't in iambic pentameter

I've gotten quite busy with what I should have been doing all along-- working with the Austin Shakespeare Festival. For more on what happened to ASF in the past few years, read Richard III, it's the same story. But now I'm back with ASF, teaching and learning, and consequently I've been too busy to write.

And it would seem that despite the endless string of scandal and horrifying acts on the part of this Administration (The Current Occupant, as Garrison Keillor calls Bush), most news cycles have coalesced to two stories: the Next Occupant, and the economy. We don't hardly even talk about the wars anymore, except to repeat mindlessly that "the surge is working"-- even though no one can agree what that means and how it's even true.

I confess I don't know anything about the economy. I will say that we bought a lovely house in a new subdivision in the bedroom county just south of Austin-- and the extra 7 minutes down the highway seemed like nothing-- until gas went up. I paid $3.06 a gallon yesterday, and I got lucky. Suddenly all this driving "up to town" and back (a tank a week for the full-time employee in our family) is eating all our money. We thank the good lord every day that we got a regular fixed mortgage we could afford and that none of that mess involves us directly. I know my story isn't unique, and harder times have hit others, but my story is all I have, not being an economist.

And I've avoided talking too much about the election because I wholeheartedly and with great joy chosen a candidate-- and while I wasn't sure it was appropriate to say so here, I also knew I couldn't write about this topic at all without revealing it. So, here goes: I have a crush on Obama, too. We've just voted here in Texas, and don't let anybody spin you-- Obama GOT MORE DELEGATES in the primary and will get more in the caucuses when they're finished being counted. We love him here.

But you know what my main concern has always been, and remains to this day: the Unitary Executive, the power grab of the presidency, and how this idea that "if the President does it, it's not illegal" leads inevitably to other shocking behavior, including tampering with the vote, so that we can't even "throw the bums out" because they've gerrymandered and lied and cheated and stolen votes so that they will retain power forever.

We all rest easy knowing that there are checks and balances and in the end, if it's really that bad, we can impeach and remove. Only if they have succeeded in tipping the balance and removing the checks, and have tampered with the vote, then none of us can rest easy.

And it's not enough to get rid of this bunch of crooks, because crookery knows no philosophy other than the search for power. It's not "just Republicans"-- it's Republicans today. Tomorrow, it could be anyone.

Perhaps I misspoke-- it's not that crookery has no philosophy, it's that it can co-exist with any other philosophy. Why, take a look at the latest crooked televangelist or high-powered Christian leader embroiled in scandal (there's always a new one)-- his crookery* is hiding behind the Christian philosophy of "love your neighbor". So yes, a Democrat may be running on Democratic values (and may intend to enact those values), and a Republican on a different platform-- but they could both be actually seeking a Unitary Executive, power-grabbing, undemocratic (even unrepublican, since in small "r" republics we're supposed to be able to legitimately elect our representatives in government), unchecked office. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I don't care if you're for universal health care or trickle-down economics, if you're wiretapping your opponents and keeping me from electing someone else next time.

*yes, I KNOW that's not a word, but I like it and I can't find the right word so deal with it!

So while the News these days is the election ("Obama vs. Clinton in the Thrilla in Manilla!") and the economy ("Giving Up Starbucks for Gas Money!") or even that Governor Spitzer likes to pay for it (unless that headline means he's a pimp)-- news for me comes down to two things:

1. What are the candidates views and what are their telling actions regarding the Unitary Executive? Will you be another Bush, pushing out of your branch and controlling rather than being checked by other voices? Will you tamper with elections? Will you restore the Justice Department or continue to pimp it out for your own gains? Will you allow scientists at the NIH, CDC, and EPA to give their honest opinion, or distort their findings with your own spin? Will you wiretap me and then forgive those who conspire to transgress with you? Who are you, really?
2. What are we doing right now to check and punish those who have colored far outside the lines in the current administration? Where are the hearings?

Since I led into point #1 with detail, allow me to close with an overview of point #2.

I believe that it is critical to punish those who have acted inappropriately in the past (or what will soon be the past once the elections are over) because it is far too easy for future generations (or even the next President) to build upon what has happened to justify his or her own corrupt behavior.

Incredible as it may seem, it doesn't take many years for crimes to be softened in memory into precedent-- precedent like we use in court cases, to build upon for future use, "In Blah v. Blah, the courts upheld that..." The difference is, those precedents are decided on by a judge and are subject to appeal. In this case, what is "upheld" or "allowed" is whatever was not prosecuted and died out in the minds of the public. If the public ignores it, or "moves on", then it is considered precedent, even though we never actually decided it was OK to do such-and-such, we just got distracted by something shiny and never got back to it. And yet, just as Bush uses what Nixon did to justify his own actions, someone else will inevitably say, "Just as Bush did the right thing by [fill in crime here], and history has accepted that, so must I do [fill in futuristic crime here]."

Silence = acquiescence. Only investigations, hearings, and ultimately punishment will keep this from happening again.

And yes, we might only get the lower-down lackeys and not Cheney and his man-sized safe. But as long as we prosecute the crime, for history's sake I don't know that it's as critical we get the right person for it. I could be wrong, and tell me if you think I am, but as long as we've clearly stated, "It is NOT OK to ignore FISA and wiretap Americans," I don't think it matters as much if some poor middle-management type is the one who goes down for coming up with the end-run around FISA in the first place. Sucks for him, but for history, I think what's most important is that it gets said.

So... what to do? Well, first, I have to give it up for Congressman Henry Waxman, who has something like 20 open investigations. Go, Henry, Go! If you'd like to follow the check and balance part of the show, follow the Wax Man. I hope to do the same thing here at LMP, give you updates on how it's going. Today's headline, for example, was "Democrat requests Blackwater inquiry" and it didn't surprise me at all that it was Waxman. Maybe if time is on my side, I'll work up some kind of chart or list of all the things he's working on. Also, Congressman John Conyers is another important player in this fight.

Second, start taking a look at our slate of candidates with a careful eye to their views on the Unitary Executive and their overall temperament. I hope to walk you through what I've learned so far in the near future, but in the meantime take a look at an older but still relevant Boston Globe article from 2007. I've referenced this article before but it's even easier to read now that there's only three candidates left. (You could look at the questions and how everyone answered them, or look by candidate at how they answered all the questions.)
Hillary Clinton Q & A
Barack Obama Q & A
John McCain Q & A
What I remember from reading it before is that only Romney was crazy enough to admit he was crazy in the survey. You will no doubt find carefully parsed language here, but I encourage you to take a critical look at their opinions.

I often run across little news tidbits that are generally overlooked that pertain to this issue-- now that I've caught you up on what my focus is going to be, for the most part, I hope to drop you those links and show you the picture I'm getting.

Punish the past and hold the future to a higher standard, that's all I ask. Oh, and civility, and kudos to Obama and McCain for their efforts remain dignified. (Ahem, Mrs. Clinton.) Then we can all get back to a nice rousing discussion of mundane things like how the government can address the problems of our citizens without fearing for the life of our nation.

Watch the skies...

Unitary Executive links:
SourceWatch, Wikipedia, UE & the FY2009 Budget, TomPaine.com, DailyKos

Nice Guys Finish First

Hooray for the Nice Guys! Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee both won their perspective caucuses last night in Iowa. (I was going to make that a link, but really, if you found me you're capable of looking up cnn.com or Googling "wins Iowa".)

The two men who faced negative attacks and refused to sling mud in return wiped the floor with their supposedly inevitable opponents.

The two candidates who were told they'd never make it, because they didn't have the money or the right color skin, because they openly embraced their faith and/or dared to organize their communities for a better tomorrow, because conventional wisdom said the other candidates had "inevitability"-- those candidates soared ahead on the one thing greater: the belief of voters too smart for all of that.

One woman asked Mitt Romney in the hours before the caucus, will you keep running negative ads in the general election? Without hesitation, the candidate replied with a hearty "yes". That's because he believes in these "contrast ads" as being important parts of a campaign-- but the spirit in the room sagged like a poor soufflé when he said it. Because we're tired of evil. We want someone who for heaven's sake is at least NICE, and trustworthy. Last night, we got two, one for each side. Thank you, Iowa!

I am a registered Democrat, and while I hope that I am centered, balanced, fair, moderate, and willing to see the other side of a debate, it does mean I'm following the Dem side more closely. The GOP can pick whoever it wants and it's not really any of my business. I guess I feel the need to point this out because I will sometimes sound like I support Huckabee (cuz, shuckabee, he's keen) while at other times I might criticize him or his policy ideas. The thing is, he's a Republican I like while still disagree with on many issues. But as I've said before, at least I can trust that a debate with Huck would end in a prayer and a salad, not a wiretap and rendition.

And as you'll hear me say time and again, those of us who love our country and are interested in policy and governance have more in common with each other, even on different sides, than we do with our fellow citizens who don't care. So yeah, I like Mike. I'm not going to vote for him, and I'll tell you why as the election draws near, but today, I'm nothing but happy.

Two fine people showed that money and mudslinging don't win elections. And we couldn't have gotten a better gift from Iowa or a better message to start off the primary season of 2008.

Today, be happy. There is hope.

Oh, hey, I didn't even talk about the main attraction last night, but Mr. Obama not only walked away with Iowa at 38%, but gave a speech that reminded us of why we all fell in love with him back in 2004. If you've been wondering where that Obama went, he's back.

A Message from My Roommate

[Update below]

My roommate used to work for the IRS managing databases. Perhaps this gives him a unique perspective, because recently he said this to me:

"When I hear a candidate say that their tax system idea will 'shut down the IRS', I stop listening. They don't know what they're talking about."

Why is that? Because someone is still going to have to process the forms. Let's say we have a flat tax. Great, if you're single and have one employer. What if you're self-employed? You'll have to report your income to someone, and that would be the IRS.

Let's say it's a national sales tax. It's agreed that's overly punitive for the lower income folks, because they spend their whole paycheck and therefore pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. So national sales tax plans usually involve a break for the poor-- if you make less than x, you're exempt. OK, so who do I tell that I'm exempt? I'll have to fill out a form and someone will have to process it. That would be the IRS.

You could dismantle the IRS, get rid of its assets like facilities and computers, fire its staff, and create something else, buy all new stuff, get new buildings, and hire ex-IRS employees, but I dare you to name it something more vague than "the Internal Revenue Service". So long as revenue is generated internally in this country, someone's going to have to service it.

As if to prove my friend's point, Mike Huckabee spoke on New Year's Day and said that his Fair Tax plan would do away with the IRS. "Citing a poll conducted by FOX News, Huckabee said, 'The average American is more afraid of being audited than being mugged. This didn't make sense at first, but when you think about it, it does make sense. When you get mugged it only lasts a few seconds. When the IRS comes after you, they don't quit until they have every last dime and it could take years,' Huckabee quipped." (Iowa Independent)

Or, as my roommate put it, "every last dime you owe the government". Well, when you put it that way...

But even so, all I could think of when I heard that Huckabee quote was, the federal government is US. If we're so afraid of ourselves, maybe we should change the rules, yes? Or are those rules important to keep people from cheating, as the lawmakers clearly believe? Either way, quit telling me about how a government agency is so "bad" that we would kill it. Fix it! (Except those created in knee-jerk reactions like the Dept. of Homeland Security, of course.)

And back to my friend's point: Huck's Fair Tax plan involves a national consumption (sales) tax. And he says he'll kill the IRS. Well, who will collect the tax? And his plan involves cutting a check to every American to cover x amount of the consumption tax. (This makes it so the poor aren't paying that disproportionate amount.) Who does he think will write these checks and distribute them? And how will we know who every American is unless they fill out a form and send it to... someone? That's even assuming that the poor can get these checks-- we're talking about the homeless, the poor who rent and move a lot, students, etc. There are many problems with this plan, but not the least of the problems is how we will implement this system without an Internal Revenue Service to, hello, service the revenue generated internally.

So I have come around to my friend's opinion: if you say your tax plan will do away with the IRS, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

UPDATE: There's a great article on this on Salon.com (you'll have to watch a short ad before accessing their site). Listen to this:

The FairTax doesn't eliminate the IRS. It replaces the IRS with another agency -- the United States Fair Tax Federal Revenue Administration and State Tax Authority Reconciliation Service, or the USFTFRASTARS.

Hah! So, there you go. Just in acronyms alone this system makes things more confusing!