Chastized, I return

One of the New Year's messages I received this year was this:

Happy New Year Jill. Now update your Patriot blog or something!

This may very well count as "something"... Why haven't I been writing?

a) got busy
One of the reasons I feel politics is so important is that when that system is running correctly, it gives us the freedom to go off and chase whatever rainbow we wish (no matter how pedantic or silly). Once I felt like things were going to be all right after all, I wandered off to chase my only silly and/or pedantic dreams...

b) stopped being so angry and scared
When it seems that not only does the emperor have no clothes but the peasants are also DEAF because they can't hear me screaming, I get on my blog. When it seems like everyone's got it together, I see a shiny thing and move on (see "a").

c) I found Daily Kos and Facebook
Maybe I should always have written on Kos, joined in the general convo instead of playing alone in this sandbox. And I've even posted what might have been a blog post on my Facebook page as a note.

d) I couldn't be balanced because I (heart) Obama like SOOO MUCH!!! I don't feel comfortable writing commercials for candidates. However, after the 20th, he will be OUR PRESIDENT, to be judged on his merits and given a chance to succeed for the good of us all, and I look forward to writing about it!

But I do miss our conversation, so I am returning as LMP!

What's bugging me right now is what always bugs me:

• Are we going to hold the Bush Administration responsible for their mistakes and crimes to avoid future claims of "precedent"? (and continuing kudos to Congressman John Conyers and The Wax Man for staying on this!!!)
• Are we going to clean up the affected agencies (which seems to be all of them) from their partisan-strangled and wrong-headed tactics?
  
• Speaking of which, are we going to clean up the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division and the insane gerrymandering so that we can actually believe the election results? Because if that part is BS, then the whole system is worthless and hardly worth railing about.
  
• Are the Republicans ever going to find something to be right about? Because I would love to write about that if that were to happen.

Let me leave you with a parting thought:

I like to use school vouchers as an example of a perfect political argument. We all want a better education for our kids. Because we see the world differently, we have a few different ideas about how to achieve that. Logical arguments can be made on both sides-- and to be clear, a logical argument begins with a worldview, develops an overarching philosophy, and finds solutions based on that philosophy that honestly attempt success and see to "destroy" nothing. You may feel that innovation is key to success, that removal of government influence is key to innovation, and suggest school vouchers as a way to support innovative charter schools. Or you may feel that running off in all directions, rather than working together to bring innovation and improvement to one public education system, weakens our communal efforts for the common good, that allowing parents to take their education funds out of the local school in the form of a voucher weakens the school for those left behind, and suggest we put more money into the system we already have bought into. Both sides can argue the finer points as they work toward a solution, understanding that we all want what is best for our kids. There's no demagoguery or demonizing of the other side-- how can you demonize someone for wanting school vouchers (or not)?

This issue is more complex than I have laid it out, and hours could and should be spent debating and coming together. But it is a perfect example of what politics should be: logical arguments about solutions to our collective problems. I applaud Obama for having a similar view. Let us lay down our arms and let politics be as boring as the last paragraph.

Happy New Year!

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!

Ooh, good answer!

As you probably know, I'm not voting Republican in 2008. But if I were to do so, well, I have to confess I heart Huckabee (that is, Republican Presidential Nominee candidate and Governor of Arkansas Michael D. "Mike" Huckabee). First of all, he seems to have more character and integrity in his little finger than the other GOP candidates could find with two hands and a flashlight; plus, he retains the added bonus of not being bat-shit crazy, as most of them are. Oh, we'd probably have a rousing debate on policy, Mike and I, but at least I know it would end with prayer and a salad instead of a wiretap and rendition.

But the election aside, I want you to hear what Mike said at the CNN/YouTube debate the other night in answer to the question if the candidate believes the Bible to be the literal truth, every word. Mike used to be a Baptist preacher and actually holds a theological master's degree, so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at what a brilliant, thoughtful, and insightful answer he gives now. As a former Southern Baptist myself, I often cringe at how the divisions between left & right, red & blue, have manifested themselves as a fight between the faithful and the secular. And just like Texans, when the media gets a quote from a Christian, they usually sound crazy and right-wing. Sadly, Mike hasn't been much of an exception: I don't know if there was a turning point in his life but many sources like Wikipedia insist that he believes in biblical inerrancy (that the Bible contains nothing untrue, which may actually be argued as not the same thing as everything in the Bible being literally true, but that's for another post) and Mike's reputation for such things would put him in the Scary Christians camp for many voters.

But, you're still waiting for the money quote, right? Well, it's almost here. One more thing: if you're a Christian and you're not so obtuse as to believe every literal word of the Bible as being completely literally true, then print out this quote and put it on your fridge or cubicle. People have got to learn that Christians aren't crazy (or at least, that's not why). Ready?

"'Love your neighbor as yourself,' and 'As much as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me,'" Huckabee said. "Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated. And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite God, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their God is too small."

Ooh, thank you Mike! Not only did he answer the question beautifully, but he taught us a good lesson too. First, he says let's stop this petty gay-marriage-scare and all that and work on loving our neighbor (hello, Gulf Coast!) and caring for our fellow man (hello, SCHIP!) and I would add "turn the other cheek" (hello, diplomacy!) and until the day when each of us win a Nobel Peace Prize, we should stop worrying so much about these theological points of debate. Right on!!!!

Second, he said something really profound about the Bible issue. Some of my readers aren't Christian and may find this debate pedantic (it is) and obvious (it is), but here's the thing: for those of us with Judeo/Christian faith, the Bible is a guidebook for living, not in the parts that say, "Do this," or "Don't do that", but in the story parts. The parts where we think about Elijah dropping in on some poor woman trying to feed herself and her kid and he demands she use the last of her food to feed him first and then herself and her kid, and she does, and the food never runs out. What must the woman have thought when this stranger showed up at her door? Why does she say yes to feeding him before her son? Why does Elijah demand this of her in this way? What situation in my life is this similar to? What does the story tell me is the right thing to do? I have a friend who recently after a series of failures and missteps (with good intentions) found herself a single mom with $120 in the bank. The IRS, to whom she owes a few thousand (part of her not-so-great life), seized all the money. Like the widow Elijah meets, my friend had no choice but to give up her last $120 to the government instead of using it to care for her son. I'm not attacking the IRS here, but rather, I can imagine my friend turning to the Bible for comfort, and finding this story. The last of the widow's oil and grain was just like my friend's $120. Elijah's intractable attitude on the subject is like the IRS' immovability. But what my friend might draw hope from was that even when your last morsel of food or your last $120 is taken from you, it will still work out. God won't let that be the end of you, there is hope! And for my friend, getting on a payment plan and out of collections with the IRS was actually a step on the road to recovery for her whole life, so in the end, she too found hope.

Some people talk about the Bible being allegorical or literal. Allegorical would mean that the Elijah story never happened, but is merely there to illustrate a point, while literal would mean that it happened in history just as it says. But as I see it, "allegorical" for me means that I turn these stories into allegories that speak to my life whether they happened or not. Who cares if there was a real woman with a real bottle of oil? Who cares if Elijah was a spiritual prophet or a technical man? (Go back and read Elijah's whole story in Kings and tell me if you don't end up thinking he's a time traveler. It's totally eerie.) What's most important is, "How am I going to get through the end of the month with my last $120 gone?" and for that, you're going to make an allegory to your own life anyway, so who cares if it's literal or not?

Plus, if you're saying it's totally literal, then you're saying that it is a record of historical events that stands on its own whether it has meaning for anyone or not, which seems to undermine the point of the Bible. We can read the Constitution, for example, and if we just think of it as a description of the lives our founding fathers and the rules they made up for themselves in their point in history, then we can't apply it to today, and what would be the point of that?

Lastly, and I'm just piggybacking my own thought onto Mike's here, is that even if you thought the Bible was literally word-for-word true, we don't have the whole story. Looking back at the Elijah/widow story, we don't really know what he said to her (surely there were a few more words than, "Fetch me...", how about hello, where'd you come from, cute kid you got there, etc.) or what she said to him (she doesn't have any lines in the story, was she mute? had lockjaw? cat had her tongue? we don't know), or other details. There are a very few sentences that describe this story, and so that can't be all there is to it. So therefore if it's not the whole story then even if it is literally true, it's still not the whole truth, and one is then left to ponder, imagine, fill in blanks-- and what has happened then to your certainty in "truth"?

Same goes for the technical rules contained in the Bible. BTW, for those of you who aren't Christians, the deal is supposed to be that Jesus make a New Deal with us (the new "covenant" or "testament") that superseded all the old rules about animal sacrifices and stonings and hair lengths. So please stop asking Christians who take the Bible literally whether they think people should be stoned to death or follow other arcane practices; even if they took that literally, Jesus shook our hand on a new pact and we don't have to listen to those old rules anymore anyway. That should be a question saved for Jews, who you could say didn't shake on the new deal and are still following the old one. They're the ones who have to answer for all that, and most of them aren't taking it literally anyway, so, debate over.

But in any case, let's say it says (sorry, I don't want to take the time to look up a real one) to stone a guy if he sleeps with his brother's wife. A technical rule, and one that would have been possible to carry out because at the time it would have been legal and presumably customary. Nowadays, that would be first degree murder, so following Christ's admonishment that we "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (follow civil laws), we know we couldn't stone anyone for any reason in modern America. So we have to look at it allegorically, that is, what this is saying to us is that sleeping with your brother's wife is seriously bad, and worthy of getting the smackdown from your friends and neighbors. So even tho this example is Old Testament (and we Christians aren't expected to follow it), I would say that it's telling me that I should cut this guy out of my life and stop being his friend until he ends the affair and starts living an honest life. Cutting him out of my life is the equivalent of "killing" him, and since I can't really kill him, that's the only option left open to me. Whew! I need to stop saying "I" in this example! I wouldn't do either, because of course Jesus said to turn the other cheek and not judge, but you get the point.

Boy, I really thought this was going to be a short post today! Let me just wrap up on the last bit of what Huckabee said:

Leaving aside the allegorical/literal debate, what Mike said at the end was that there is no end to the mind of God, and if this Bible is his revelation to us, then there is no end to it.

I'm a big Shakespeare freak, and what I find so cool about Shakes is that no matter what we descendants invent (19th century realism, 20th century "method" acting, 21st century rap), when we look back at Shakespeare, it's in there. This is much like what Mike was saying about the Bible, that it continuously reveals itself to us, which is a phenomenon that by definition expands beyond the debate of literal or allegorical.

Oh, Mike. Now if only you held progressive political ideals, my love for you could be complete...

Welcome to the Horror Coma

I didn't know there was anything beyond scandal fatigue, until I tried to pick up writing again. As John Dickerson said when he opened the Slate's Political Gabfest podcast a few weeks ago, "There's so much to cover... and we're sick of it all already." Amen, brother.

I've got a couple things on the stove (my writing stove, that is, where the heat source is righteous outrage), so I'm going to give you not one, but TWO posts to be thankful for today! First, privitization, then below this post you'll find one on Hillary Clinton.


Enjoy your turkey and your tryptophan comas!

Privitization & The NeoCon Economy: Maybe it's because Democrats can't hatch intricate plots to redesign the government (the last meeting disintegrated when the nice lady who brought brownies was brought to tears justifying them as cruelty-free AND not anti-feminist), but there really is a nefarious and wide-ranging plan on the right to create an economy based on fear and war (see Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism) that is executed primarily through privatization, that is, handing over implementation to private companies.

I have lots of problems with this, but I just want to take a step back here and say, this isn't just about Katrina (New Orleans public schools remaining= 4) or the Wars (Blackwater). In the film No End In Sight, we learned that the NeoConMen intended to use Iraq as a laboratory for these economic ideas. "We can't get the American people to see what a great idea this is and let us do it here," they apparently thought, "so let's topple another country and do it there!" The New York Times said in describing the film, "The knowledge and expertise of military, diplomatic and technical professionals was overridden by the ideological certainty of political loyalists. Republican Party operatives, including recent college graduates with little or no relevant experience, were put in charge of delicate and complicated administrative areas. Those who did not demonstrate lock-step fidelity to the White House line were ignored or pushed aside." OK, that sounds like the typical crap we hear from the GOP, just like the stories of the justice department. But what the film makes clear is that this was done specifically to implement necon ideals-- because (to paraphrase, I should have written down the quote) the older, experienced policy makers would have known better, would know that these trickle-down, "free market", privatizing ideas would not work, and so the spots were filled with fresh-faced, brainwashed, inexperienced kids who wouldn't know better and would do what their Leaders told them to. So if you want to see what the NeoEConomy would look like, look at Iraq. Isn't it swell?

Oh, there's lots more on this subject-- look at how housing monies in the Gulf Coast are being funneled to the ports for the good of the casinos-- and I will continue to stay on this topic in the weeks and months to come.

Let me just stop here and give you my philosophy.

We as a nation, as one people, make decisions through our elected representatives as to what will receive our allocations of time, money and resources. For example, recently in Texas we allocated millions of dollars for cancer research. We as a state, through voting, decided that we want to research cancer more and help cancer patients. Our allocation is for the public good. We Texans need cancer research, we're putting money to that for the people.

Cancer is an easy one because it's obviously "good". But when I talk about what America does for the public good, I mean we make moral decisions, decisions on what we feel is important. We have X number of dollars, and we decide to spend more on cancer than heart disease. This is a moral choice, a choice that reflects one's morality, or priorities.

Making a decision "for the public good" does NOT always mean the measure is in fact good-- it could be a mistake, or not the best way to go about things, or perhaps if the morality of the leaders is skewed, they might allocate resources to line their own pockets rather than on cancer. But as I am using the terms, even that is a moral choice because the act of allocating resources in our name is making moral choices for the public good, even if those choices are poor or even diabolical. With me so far?

If you allocate money and other resources for the public good, then as it goes through the government processes and all down the line we're working for the good of the people. But then at the end of the line, where the rubber meets the road, where the work or service is actually happening, if you privatize the implementation of this thing, you have suddenly and at the last minute handed over the process to a corporation who works solely for the good of the corporation, not the people. While all along we were working toward the common good, in the end we serve the good of a private corporation.

Consequently, that privatization in essence robs America of its morality.

I want to wrap up but I have to say this first: conservatives have said for years that the private sector is leaner, more agile, more able, than cumbersome and sometimes corrupt government agencies and bureaucracies. Well, if that is so, then let us LEARN from those companies, and do better. We have oversight of the agencies. If a corporation happens to be corrupt or inept, we can't do anything about it. We can't say, fire that boss and let's do better. But if it's our own government, if it's us, we can correct problems with both corruption and lumbering bureaucracy. And again, we retain the moral high ground.

Update: Here is a list of the Senior officials of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority. These are the senior, in-charge folks, so their resumes don't look as anemic as what is described in No End In Sight. However, you do see their NeoCon is showing.


Chew over that, next up, Hillary Clinton.

Stop creeping me out, Hillary!

Hillary Clinton: My other hot button on this day of thanks is the strangely Bush-esque qualities of the woman who's currently leading primary polls. I wrote about this months ago, and while at the time I tried not to be too harsh about it, I'm flat-out starting to worry. Since I heard Medea Benjamin from Code Pink talk about the "Clinton thugs" last year, I haven't heard any good news coming out of that camp.

Here's my problem: I smelled a rat with the Bush Administration when Cheney refused to release the information about his energy task force. (The rat was apparently named "we'll save the oil companies by bombing a country in the middle east and take their oil, and give it to the oil companies".) Free speech zones weren't far behind, and if you're not familiar, if you wanted to protest the government, you had to walk yourself into a little cage with other protesters where no one could see or hear what you had to say. We let a lot of really anti-American activities such as these occur on our watch, and I see the same kind of thuggery in Hillary. Now there's planted questions (as if she couldn't handle the crap questions that are asked in these debates anyway) and god knows what else.

We have two choices: either DEMAND that she change her tactics, or find an American candidate, one who will stand up for me to say whatever I want EVERYWHERE in this country. America is supposed to be one big giant Free Speech Zone, remember?

Quickly, because I'm late for turkey, let me say this: if you feel that getting rid of the Bush Administration is the most important goal, because our policies are better than their policies, then by all means vote for Hillary. As she constantly reminds us, she is the best fighter. If on the other hand you are more concerned with the behavior of this Administration and the trashing of the Constitution and the lying and the secrecy, you best look elsewhere. I see no evidence that her hands will be any cleaner. Personally, I can't take any more of this behavior.

Little Miss Hiatus

"This vote may have already happened!"

--Jeff Greenfield on Slate's Political Gabfest podcast (8/17/07) on the primary elections being held earlier and earlier.

I'm taking a break on posting to catch up on my podcasts and net surfing, and to catch up that my son has turned three. I noticed I pooped out last August, too. Lazy days of summer and all that. Enjoy your last days of sipping lemonade, and I'll see you in September (unless something outrageous happens before then). Keep watching the skies!

Obama's Plan to Solve this Mess

Today in Salon.com's War Room, they posted an "excerpt from the Obama campaign", which laid out his differences with the current adminstration vis a vis foreign policy and our answer to whatever war it is we're in. Now, it's only a campaign pledge, it doesn't mean much this early out, but I have to say, I do agree with this theory. The details may vary in yummy goodness, but this at least shows some intelligent thinking...

"Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real ... To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

"The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al-Qaida's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al-Qaida in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al-Qaida and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

"By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

Obama hit two key points I agree with:

• the Pres has got us all confused. There are major differences in the different groups O mentioned. Al-Qaeda, for example, will NEVER be supported by Iran, because AQ is Sunni and Iran is Shi'a. They are not on the same side. These distinctions are not clear to the American public, and in this smoke and mirrors, the Pres can make anyone seem like an enemy.
• drying up support for extremists. The Pres once famously divided the world into those "with us" and "against us". The truth is, if you were inclined to divide the world in two, the split is over extremism v. moderation. Guess what, kids? We are extremists in this fight. The Islamic extremists, by Allah, want one world in their image, and the NeoConservatice extremists, by God, want another. We are caught between the two, and both seem intent on bloodshed. If, however, we had pressed for moderation, consideration, unity, and friendship with the nations of the world after 9/11 (and before), we could have helped to "dry up" extremism with moderation, much like a rash dries up with Caladryl.
  

Most people just want to live their lives in peace and freedom. Most people in the world are more concerned, truthfully, with their family budget, sick cat, carpools, their children's health, their parents' aging, and all the rest. They will only rise to arms when they feel like their well-being is threatened, either by their own society's or another's extremism. We excite these regular folks with our imperialistic "remaking" of the Muslim world. We are doing this, and it's time we realized it. We must remake ourselves into a voice for moderation, tolerance, freedom, and peace. I can't say this is what Obama was thinking, I can only go by the quote above, but I think his words represent a new way of thinking of our relationship with the world.

I am still not endorsing any candidate. It's too early. But I will report when they say something that rings true... or false.

Rummy's back!

And in fine form. He's testifying in front of the House hearing on Pat Tillman's death, and he answered Rep. Elijah Cummings' question (something like what the hell happened) was, (paraphrasing), "Well, you know, there are lots of investigations all the time, I mean, heck, how could everyone know everything?"

Someday when I grow up to be a real blogger I'll figure out how to get exact quotes while listening to CSPAN 3 on the net. In the meantime, here's where all the excitement is happening...

Attention El Paso!

In our US House, El Paso's 16th district is represented by Silvestre Reyes. In an article in USA Today, Reyes made a comment that incensed me. I'm telling you because his website will only take comments from people in his district. Maybe he'll hear about it, or maybe you're from El Paso or know someone who is. And in any case, the whole country is stuck with him.

Reyes is the chairman (ranking Democrat) on the House Intelligence Committee, and he is apparently friends with Alberto Gonzales. AG AG certainly has a lot of friends. I take it that he's sweet, and charming, and dumb as a box of hammers. (I heard a great quote similar to that but far funnier, when I figure out who said it and find it, I'll put it here!)

Every time AG AG testifies, Reyes comes out and says something fawning. Remember, this AG is the guy who burst into the hospital room of the ailing John Ashcroft to try to twist his morphine-injected arm. This is the idiot who said the Geneva Conventions were quaint, argued against habeas corpus' legitimacy from the Constitution, and the hospital visit itself was for something so nefarious that Mr. Ashcroft lifted his broken body up and lectured Alberto about why it should never be legal.

But what does the Gentleman from El Paso say? The Chairman of the committee investigating the AG?

"When there are issues of national security at stake, I think certainly one should not question the motivation of individuals," Reyes told reporters. "I'm willing to accept the rationale behind it."

WHAT?!?!? Isn't that the MAIN time to question individual's motivations?!?!?!

Now, I first saw this on Salon.com's War Room, so I am not the first person to do a spit-take over this. And in doing some research this morning, this is not the only apologetic quote from Reyes. Why, according to Reyes, AG AG "explained it very well", and... [frankly, writing time got interrupted by Lil Mr. Patriot who got up early. I'm going to have to fill in these other obsequious quotes later.]

This, BTW, is the same Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who, when asked if Al-Qaeda was Sunni or Shi'a said the latter (it's the former) and when asked about Hezbollah answered, "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? ... Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?" (Congressional Quarterly, Dec 2006)

Oh, El Paso, we love you. Love us back. Replace this idiot, loyal to his friend to the last, with someone who is loyal to us, the rest of the country, and our Constitution. And for those of you who have more time to write letters, write to Reyes and let him know this is not the time to be an apologist or a puppy who rolls over on command.

The Lady I Knew

Lady Bird Johnson 1912-2007

No, I never had the pleasure personally. But even if you came to Austin as politically untuned as I was 12 years ago, the Lady with the funny name could make an impression on you with the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. A riot of horticulture, this goes way beyond garden. If you're ever in Austin, visit the Lady Bird Center, and if you want a lift today, go to the web site and check it out.

Lady Bird passed away yesterday at age 94. A quick trip to the LBJ presidential museum (also here) and the first thing and the last thing you notice is the love these two people had for each other. After over 30 years of being apart, and after two richly lived lives, I'm glad they are together again.

If you thought Texas was like you see in the movies, think again. Here's a taste of why we love the Hill Country!

Just when you thought it couldn't get more ridiculous: Enter the Post-Surge

Or, If You Liked The Surge, You're Going to Looooove This!

From CNN.com:

Six months after announcing an increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops that became known as the "surge," Bush is scheduled to appear at a town meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday where he's expected to push for a "post-surge" phase of the four-year war, senior officials told CNN.

However, senior administration officials said that the Bush administration does not plan to make any major changes in its war strategy despite increased calls from Republican lawmakers to begin a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq.

...The report will show "some of the benchmarks have been made, some of them haven't" and will set off a debate that will result in "the beginning of a new way," White House spokesman Tony Snow told CNN's "American Morning" on Tuesday.

"What Congress will get this week is a snapshot of the beginning of the retooling of the mission in Iraq," Snow said. "Everyone says, 'We want to do it a different way.' We agree. It's just now started."

Oh, goodie. Because what we really need is

a snapshot (=generated image of a brief moment of the past which may or may not accurately represent the event)

of the beginning (=don't expect to see this yet)

of the retooling (=to redesign the machinery that will allow for improvements to happen in the future)

of the mission (=maintaining a holding pattern while the US crams an immoral oil law down the throats of Iraqis which will cost them billions in infrastructure while the four top oil companies will retain the lion's share of the revenue)

And worse, all that has "just now started"! Gasp!

I'm starting to think impeachment is too good for these people. Do they still do that thing with the ant hills and honey?

I met a wonderful young man who hopes (!) to be heading back oversees very soon. He's hoping because he's made the jump from grunt to Military Intelligence, and he's very excited about it, as any young man would be at his career taking a leap forward. When we talked, I asked him my two main questions (you're going to have to take my word for all this, now that he's in MI he really didn't want me revealing his name):

1. When you come back here and see us all being oblivious and shopping and watching American Idol, do you just think we're idiots? (I asked because I can only imagine coming back from a war zone and then listening to someone bitch about their iPhone must make you want to punch them.)
"No, because we all have our jobs, and that's how it should be. Mine is over there, yours is over here."

2. When you hear that there is discussion back here about the purpose of these wars and everything, does that hurt your morale?
"For me, no. But in general? Of course it does, yes. But everything hurts morale. Not having a shower in the morning hurts morale. So yes, hearing people (especially the ones who don't know what they're talking about) bitch about the war hurts morale. But everything does, so you just get used to that until it doesn't matter anymore."

My answer to this will be familiar to Constant Readers: Our big, shiny military is like a big, shiny gun. It's our job as civilians to take care of this gun, maintain it, treat it with care, and for God's sake be careful where you point that thing. We don't point it at ourselves (Posse Comitatus), we don't point it at our friends (treaties). As they say here in Texas, "Don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it, and don't use it unless you intend to kill with it." (A sentiment I don't quite follow, not being a gun person myself, but I'm sure folks around here would school me.)

I believe in the debate because I love our troops. If we don't debate, it's like shooting off the gun with a blindfold on. If we don't debate, and make sure we are doing the right thing, we are irresponsible. We are irresponsible to them, to that boy who is so excited to go back. We must take care of him, which not only means his equipment while he's there and his mind and body when he returns, but it means that we must be very, very careful where we send him and what mission we give him so that we do not waste our big shiny guns and our eye-candy boys (oops, sorry, I mean professional soldiers, but c'mon, he's dreamy!) on stupid conflicts handled poorly.

I can't confirm or deny that this exquisite specimen of Texan manhood is a member of the US Military.

What time is it? Subpoena Time!!!

Subpoenas!

Subpoenas!

Subpoenas!

Whoo-hoo!!!

Why we can't leave Iraq 2 (or should we?)

I wrote a post a year ago that explained why the lessons of Afghanistan teach us we can't leave Iraq to fend for herself. My point was that since we left Afghanistan in 1989 after fighting the Soviets, we left them alone; in that chaos grew Osama Bin Laden. I'm none to keen to see that happen twelve years from now.

Since then, my post been read by many people (I got a litte site tracker dealie) but what really shocks me is that lately, it's been read by a lot more people. People do Google searches on leaving Iraq, find my old piece, and read it. I thought it was time to update.

It's June of 2007 now and the death toll, just of our guys, is over 3500. I am not sure any more. I still believe in the ideas put forth here, but... You can talk about your various options for putting out a fire on the stove, but once the whole house is on fire, perhaps it's time to just shut up and get out.

What I really hate is that these are our two choices. The intractability of the President's "stay the course" plan has pre-determined its opposite: leave. He so stubbornly clung to his position that it caused everyone (now up to 75% I hear) to line up on the other side. (I don't know how that happens, some function of human nature, I suppose.) And once again, anyone who says anything between "stay" and "leave" comes off wishy-washy and unsure. Just because "stay" is wrong doesn't mean "leave" is the answer. We are so glad to have the 75% who don't want to be in Iraq on our side, that we forget that we needed them back in 2003 to keep us from going in. Their blind obedience to the point of view du jour isn't any more helpful now than it was then.

First, I have asked our candidates to stop telling me what they would do in Iraq if they are president in 2009.

Second, I have been reading about Richard I of England, known as the Lion-Hearted, who was a horrible king who started the Crusades after massacring Jews in England. I'm starting to understand why they might get sick of Western "help". It's the same thing as building the Bin Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia to "help" the Saudis defend their country; and that was on the top of the list for OBL's wrath. Building our base was insulting to the Saudis, who are capable of taking care of themselves (but we were gearing up for coming in and gettin' us some oil).

Third, I still believe the Iraqis will need some kind of help. Help by being left alone, or help from their neighbors, help in the form of money from us, or help from the Christmas Ghosts, I don't know. But I still believe that if the Iraqis don't get some kind of help, it will leave a gaping hole of instability that will surely spew forth demons as the Afghanistan did with Osama Bin Laden. And I believe in cleaning up messes you make. The Girl Scout motto is "Leave things better than you found them," and I take that very seriously.

Forth, I believe that the most important thing for the world is stability. I don't mean to imply that stability in the form of an iron-fisted dictator is preferable to the stability of small town America, but rather that worldwide stability is preferable to worldwide warmongering. Even the stability of the Cold War was better than the instability of erupting conflict we are now seeing in the Middle East. Worldwide stability gives us the platform to address pressing issues such as poverty, women's rights, child labor, dictators, free press, personal liberty, etc. When we are living in conflict, all we can address is ending conflict.

This is actually why many of us feel that we should not have opened instability in Iraq, even though she was being ruled by a terrible dictator. While we can use conflict to depose that dictator, we can't do anything else. While Saddam was still in power, we could have UN resolutions, weapons inspectors, negotiations. We had a framework within which to move closer to success. Oh, I'm glad he's gone too, but we can't get this new government to accomplish anything because of the instability in the country.

I have an ulterior motive, I don't want worldwide instability to have exploded in the next 16 years so that there is a draft when my son is of age.

Speaking of Little Mr. Patriot, he needs his lunch, so I must finish this later.

PS I found another post I'd done on this, found here, so this is actually the third one.

Tim Griffin and the Caging List Scandal, or How I Learned To Start Worrying And Fear The GOP

Tim Griffin, aide to Karl Rove, had caging lists developed for swing states of voters who were thought to vote Democrat so that, in removing them, the GOP change the outcome of the election.

He emailed the actual caging lists to Karl on the RNC email server. ["missing email scandal"]

The caging lists were apparently brought to the Civil Rights Division, which had been packed with GOPbots who would not question them, and thousands of names were removed from voter rolls in swing states. What happened in this stage of the game will surely be uncovered as the investigation continues. ["political hiring scandal"]

To avoid being caught, the Attorney General removed 8 to 10 US Attorneys (in the swing states where caging lists were being used) who had demonstrated an unwillingness to "play ball" politcally and might get wind of these caging lists and prosecute. ["US Attorney Firings Scandal"]

One of their replacements was Tim Griffin. He did not have to go through Senate confirmation, and so could not be questioned under oath and have his caging list crime uncovered. He was then a US Attorney, the prosecution, and the only one who could prosecute him would be the Attorney General, who was certainly part of this conspiracy at the level of firing the USAs, if not in other areas as well. ["change to the Patriot Act Scandal"]

Greg Palast wrote about this in his book. Senator John Conyers has caught wind of the story and is openly investigating. When that news broke, Tim Griffin resigned and is in the wind.

This is a crime committed to change the outcome of an election and establish a permanent GOP majority, and a conspiracy to cover up that crime. It is also the best example of how all these disparate stories (which smelled bad on their own but didn't seem to go anywhere) added up to a system in which this conspiracy, and possibly others, were permitted to occur.

Caging Lists

First of all, the term "caging" comes from direct mail and has only recently made its way into the political lexicon. As pertains to direct mail, the definition is quite different: it is a whole range of activities that add up to processing information in databases. While in politics it still pertains to databases, this time of voters, the use of the term is very different. If my definitions are not exact, it is because I am describing the practical application of vote caging, which is the most important to the Citizen Reader.

What is "vote caging"?

To cage votes is to separate out names of voters, based on their likelihood of voting for your opponent, and attempt to keep those votes from being counted. This is done with caging lists.

What is a "caging list"?

It is a list of voters whose voting status is challenged, with the hope of getting these voters off the rolls.

How does it work?

First, a political party wants to tip the election by removing thousands of voters off the rolls who are likely to vote for the opposition. These people will be unlikely to have a fixed address, will move a lot, or will be away from home for long periods (such as college students, deployed military, and homeless people). A mailer is prepared and sent to their voter registration address. It is marked on the outside "Do Not Forward", and the letter will request that you return some portion to confirm your address. Many of these voters will not be at their address (for example, it is sent to the stateside home of a deployed soldier) and the letters are returned. The party then takes the letters to the voting authorities and claims that none of these people are living at their voting address, and their registrations are likely fraudulent. In the interest of stopping voter fraud, the names are removed.

So, this happened?

Tim Griffin, Karl Rove's deputy, attached prepared caging lists to an email he attempted to send to Rove-- but sent it to a friend of a reporter instead. I've heard various reports on how many thousands of voters were caged, but it's 35,000 here and 70,000 there... It seems to be just enough to tip the election but not enough in any one spot to be obvious.

Missing Email Scandal

This is another vague, amorphous "scandal"... ish. But it has shocking ties right into the caging list scandal.

White House staff (and who knows who else) used the Republican National Committee email server to communicate about political machinations.

This is against the Hatch Act, which governs the political vs. public aspects of the White House. The more familiar aspect of the Act is to say that politicians aren't supposed to use their office, their official vehicle, or any other resources of the White House to do political business. For example, if Karl Rove wanted to find out the polling numbers for the GOP in Iowa, he couldn't use his WH email account for that. This keeps those in the administration from wasting government resources on their own re-elections.

But the other side of the Act also dictates that official business can't be done outside the office. While the flip side is about preserving resources, this side is about preserving all documentation about an Administration. Rove can't use his RNC account to discuss amendments to a bill, for example. Doing so would not only violate the Hatch Act, but also allow him to hide presidential records from the National Archives.

Hiding records by using an outside email account goes against the Presidential Records Act, which regulates how all the "paperwork" (in quotes because now it's virtual too, of course) generated by the Administration will be handled. Under the PRA, everything has to be saved until the National Archives says it's OK to throw it out (usually done during the sorting process for the Presidential Library, I suspect).

Which brings us to the next part of this story. When the Congressional committees who were holding hearings on various political machinations of the Administration, they found that when they subpoenaed all the records and emails, many, many were missing. Inquiries revealed that the WH officials and staff had been using the RNC server for both political and policy matters.

Yes, it is true that times have changed. Yes, it's true that not so long ago, no one had ever heard of email. Yes, it's true that those of us with multiple email accounts get confused too. However, emails that have been recovered show this was intentional:

Susan Ralston, who was Karl Rove’s executive assistant, invited two lobbyists working for Jack Abramoff to use her RNC e-mail account to avoid “security issues” with the White House e-mail system, writing: “I now have an RNC blackbeny which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.” [ThinkProgress]

However, when Congress attempted to subpoena the emails from the RNC, they had been deleted. Four years worth of emails, approximately 5 million, were missing from the RNC servers. This is yet another assault on the PRA; had the emails been carefully preserved, the WH might have only gotten in trouble over the Hatch Act ("What were the emails doing on the RNC server in the first place?") but in this case, they have effectively destroyed administration records.

Or, are all the emails missing? At least 500 of these emails were victims of yet another mistake, this one for real: the sender typed in "rnc.com" instead of "rnc.org". (In fact much of what we know comes from similar mistakes in addressing.) Fortunately for history, "rnc.com" was a parody site that was owned by a friend of BBC reporter David Palast. As Palast describes in his book, Armed Madhouse, some of the incriminating emails Congress was looking for were in these 500, including the smoking gun of caging lists. Senator John Conyers is now investigating these emails.

UPDATE: While we can't get the MSM to pick up on this story, at least CNN today is finally mentioning that some emails are missing (altho it's buried in their politics page)...

Voter Fraud, or It's Not Us, It's You

In order to maintain a permanent majority, the GOP has been attempting to manipulate the system by crying "voter fraud". They first scare the public by claiming there is rampant polling place voter fraud. (It has been proven there isn't, but I can't find the link right now, sorry. Will update.) Then they put measures in place that have the effect of disenfranchising voters under the name of fighting fraud.

For example, they might claim that there are "so many" people trying to sneak in to vote without proper ID that we should have a "tamper-proof voter ID card". This card costs the voter $40. And now we effectively have a PRICETAG ON VOTING. There are many poor people who would have trouble coming up with $40, especially if it's between feeding their families and voting. Getting people to vote is hard enough, make it harder and many won't bother. So even though the GOP has skirted the law and not done anything illegal, in fact talked us into creating a law for them, they have in effect gotten the poor people to stop voting (read: stop voting Democrat).

They have also been packing the Civil Rights Division with rabidly political GOPbots. The Civil Rights Division has a Voter Fraud department.

There are TWO IMPORTANT things to remember:

The GOP's "War on Voter Fraud" is like the "Clean Skies Initiative". It means the exact opposite of what it sounds like.

They are whipping the people who are paying attention into a frenzy (even implying that ILLEGALS might try to vote, gasp!), and to those who only follow half of what's going on, they sound like they're addressing voter fraud instead of committing it. It's all a red herring, though. In this case, as in so many others with the GOP, look at what they're accusing the other side of, and you'll find their own faults there.

The office in charge of rooting out and prosecuting people for voter fraud is the US Attorney.

And this bunch, along with the Civil Rights Division has been packed with GOPbots just for this purpose.

Update: I found another interesting article in Salon about how this scandal relates to the firing of US Attorneys.