Economic Stimulus

I’m commenting because I have a blog and I can. I am no economist.

The first thing that strikes me as odd about an “economic stimulus package” is where the money comes from. The government only has the money it collects in taxes, or in this case, the money it will collect in taxes. That is, it’s our money, that the government is going to give back…to us. Except that, it costs money to collect the money and it costs money to redistribute it back to us, which means, that the government is losing money overall. It would have been a lot cheaper to just let us keep it to start with.

Except, it’s not like they’re giving me back exactly the money I paid or anything. Almost all of us, so I’m told, are going to get between $300 and $600. But I, for example, paid more than $600 in taxes last year. The people getting $300 didn’t pay any taxes last year. People like Bill Gates, that theoretically paid substantially more in taxes last year than I paid, will still get about $600 or whatever. Of course this $600 won’t effect Bill Gates at all, and won’t stimulate the package…er economy. The $600 to me, yeah, that’s going to help me pay some bills and pay down some debt. Not exactly stimulating but moreso than what Bill and Melinda are going to do with it (unless they end up giving it to some inner city school, and bully for them if they do!). But that $300 to the people who make the least, yeah, that’s going to get used right up.

So what we have here, essentially, if I’m hearing it right, and if we stop right here in our “money cycle” is government-sponsored wealth redistribution: Taking money, in the form of income (and other) taxes, and giving it to people (unprogressively, I might add) that don’t pay taxes. Which is a blatant admission, if ever there was one, that trickle down economics doesn’t work, and that if you want to have a healthy economy you need to get more money into the hands of the people that will spend it.

But, I want to restate something I just said. The government will be passing this package of forced wealth redistribution so that less well-to-do people will spend it. Presumably on things they need like milk and AAA batteries, but with a $300 lump sum, it could just as likely end up as an ill-afforded down payment on a Rent-to-Own plasma screen TV. Whatever. The point is that it’s a government-sponsored wealth redistribution plan, redistributing wealth from the public coffers and to private enterprise.

Yikes.

Like I said, I’m no economist but I’m seeing a lot of things I don’t like here. I’m seeing the government praying to High Heaven that we don’t ask the tough questions about why a plan that’s good for “stimulating” the economy isn’t also good for long-term economic stability. I see them avoiding the issue of how a stronger corporate “tax” in the form of an increase in the minimum wage wouldn’t take more money from the very richest, and put it in the hands of the people who need it the most and thereby create a sustainable, strong economy. I’m seeing them avoid the issue of the failure of capitalist hierarchies. I’m seeing them shy away from an admission of the social failures of corporate greed.

Unfortunately I’m also seeing them feed government money, public money, tax money, back into the hands of the very people that caused the problem to start with. Every gallon of milk, every loaf of bread, every credit card payment, every iPod bought with that tax rebate was bought with money that could have paid for sewage infrastructure, highway repair, more teachers, better schools, lower insurance premiums, lower energy prices, advances in reusable energy and other social causes the increased price of which have caused our average cost of living to go up while wages have stagnated.

Furthermore, it’s an admitted band-aid. It doesn’t fix the issue that caused the problem. It doesn’t punish the guilty. It doesn’t stop a mortgage from defaulting. It doesn’t salvage the loan industry. It won’t stop the bankruptcies that will prevent millions from owning a home for the next seven to ten years. For that matter, the amount that is likely to be distributed is a spit in the ocean in terms of the amount that was “lost” in the housing crisis.

Should I, while I’m ranting, also mention that that money was not lost. It’s comfortably sitting in the bank accounts of billionaire executives at Citicorp and Merril Lynch and others. The money went up but it didn’t come back down. Those banks have been reporting “losses” lately, but those aren’t actual losses. Those are losses compared to last year’s ill-gotten gains. And it doesn’t matter, the guys and gals (but mostly guys) that raised expectations by arranging for multiple mortgage-sized thefts have filled their private coffers with annual and per-project bonuses, with 7- and 8-figure salaries, and with exit packages large enough to buy a third world nation.

And…

They’ll be getting a tax rebate.

If there was any justice, the ones that caused the problems by talking out of both sides of their mouths will be stripped of million-dollar legal aid and forced to defend their duplicitous business dealings with the aid of C-average public defenders. And, when they inevitably lose because of their inability to semantically twist the laws’ intents, they will have to buy the houses they stole and give them to the people that bought them.

That would be justice, that would be an economic stimulus package, and that would be a warning to all the other dollarmongers out there in the world looking for the next big loophole.

Of course, that would never happen, that would never work, and that would shut down the spirit of “entrepreneurship” that “makes this country great.” So, y’know, there’s that.

= American

In the real world we talk about “nations” as political entities. We talk about nationalities and we talk about “nation building.” There’s the United Nations, which is a collection of countries (mostly), we talk about “nationalities” and when we do we almost always mean “what country those people are from?”. If someone asks most of my friends, “What nationality are you?” most of them will respond “American,” not because they’ve given any thought to the concept, but because it’s the easiest answer, and, for the most part, they’d be right because the American government have been notorious experts in the realm of “nationalizing.” What the rest of the world calls “nations” political scientists call “states.” Nations are, and I’m over-simplifying a bit, self-identifying units. The word signifies a group of people that feel they share a living history with other people. Those they share that living history with are fellow members of their nation. States, on the other hand, are identified by law and by recognition of others.

“Israel” for example is a state to most of the world, the United Nations and its members accept its borders as the borders of an entity known as “Israel” and they recognize that the leaders of this “Israel” have the jurisdiction to make decisions on behalf of and to be imposed on only the people that exist within those boundaries. Palestine however is not only not a state (because so few recognize its sovereignty) its people do not accept that the political borders of Israel compose a state known as Israel. As far as Palestinians are concerned, the idea of “Israeli” only applies to the people that called themselves (self-identify) as Israelis and it only includes Jews. Muslims living within the (unrecognized) borders of Israel are actually Palestinians. The artificial political boundaries of Israel are not strong enough to impose an identifiable characteristic.

We talk about the “nation-state.” The idea of the nation-state first started cropping up with force during the Renaissance. It really began to take hold during the 18th Century. Most of the wars that were fought at the time were fought over the idea of how a group of people within an area should think about themselves. After 1648 it was determined by international agreement, that forcing the people of another region to accept the religion of another nation was unacceptable. After that, wars were fought over the shared histories of people. World Wars I and II were largely fought over this very issue. Was the Rhineland French or German? Was southern France French or Italian? Who in Spain was Spanish? Weren’t Polish once Prussian which meant German, or did it mean Russian? Europe was famously carved up during and just after these wars, cementing the idea of the nation-state in the public conciousness. But ultimately the “nation-state” as a concept remained as artificial as the “state.”

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union the various national differences began to re-expose themselves across eastern Europe. Fifty years of forced Russian identity, the people of Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc was not long enough to erase the various national myths and shared identities of those people. Across the area known as “the Balkans” various people’s movements fought against the concepts of enforced state identities in favor of national identities. Their efforts to create areas of national homogeny lead to “ethnic cleansing” or, more accurately, genocide. All genocides (or at least all the famous ones) have been related to this idea of creating ethnically pure zones of influences, to bring about a real, perceivable unity between self-identifying nations and artificially imposed states. Since “states” are artificial concepts the “nation-state” as it was conceived is just as artificial. To create a real nation-state something artificial had to happen. Sometimes artifice thrust upon the world is an act of beauty, like a good film. Sometimes an act of artifice constitutes the worst tragedies. There is nothing as violent, brutal, and tragic as man in the service of his politics.

Modern Americans are beneficiaries of the most solidly constructed nation-state in existence. The Native American genocide was not simply an economic movement based on snatching valuable real estate and raw materials from the “savages.” It was an “ethnic cleansing” to create a nation out of the burgeoning state. The British and French colonists did not start a genocide; they were battling for land as an occupying force. The American government began the nationalizing campaign of “the Indian Wars.” The American government enacted the genocide. The result was that the Germans, Dutch, Scottish, Irish, and English that made up America could identify as not-Indian and therefore “Americans.” The genocide brought us together. That’s what we mean when we say “nationalizing.” An immigrant does not “become a citizen” of the United States. They are “nationalized” by living here for awhile, becoming a productive member of our legitimate society (i.e. not our criminal society), and they learn our histories. They learn who are founding fathers are.

As above in the Israel/Palestine problem, when countries have failed to fully unite their national identity with their state identity there arise inevitable problems. Iraq is a state. The Kurds are a nation. The United States of America is a state. The Cherokee (famously) are a nation. What constitutes that living history mentioned earlier is different for each nation. It can include language, religion, norms, beliefs, values, rituals. It is easier to identify the ties that bind people together in some nations than in others. Many nations, for example, share a religion. It is not the only thing they share, but they do share it. But “nations” are often very hard to describe. Like many groups, there are members that are wholly of a group and there are members at the periphery, about to fall into a different group. During World War II for example it was hard for “Americans” to figure out which of two opposing groups Japanese-Americans should be identified with. As citizens of a state, everybody was “American.” As members of a nationality…? Who knew?

Part of the reason lies in concepts of group identity. Groups tend to identify themselves most starkly in times of conflict. During World War II, for example, “Americans” were those people that joined the war effort, either as soldiers or as home front practitioners that willingly and proudly made the extra sacrifices that ensured victory abroad. They participated in scrap metal drives. They planted victory gardens in their yards and in highway medians. They sewed parachutes out of old nylon stockings. Through no fault of their own, the Japanese and Germans that were imprisoned in internment camps, were not “Americans.” The other Americans made sure of that.

After World War II, “Americans” were “not Communists” and “Communists” were “not Americans” and that was all knew on Earth and all we needed to know. Of course, what made one person a Communist was up for grabs and consequently what made one an American as well. It left us wildly in the dark, for example, how to pigeonhole people like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow who used that bastion of Americanism “the free press” to demonize crazed Communist-hunters like Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis).

If nothing else, the idea of a nation relies on the national myth. It relies on the belief in the greatness of common ancestors. In our nation George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine are the root source of our national identity. To a lesser extent (not in reality, but in the common perception) James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Paul Revere and a handful of others share in that reverence. It is a common feature of our political debates that even the most uneducated of us rely on arguments to history. In terms of formal argument, that is, in an argument that weighs the pros and cons of a policy decision based on its logic and effects, an appeal to history holds very little weight. Appeals to history are, at their core, emotional appeals.

The ethnocentric self-identifying “Americans” among us now, in their efforts to marginalize and reject Latino immigrants, in part, rely on the clearly isolationist, xenophobic, attitudes of our shared forebears. To them America is defined by the external characteristics of the rich, white men, of northern Virginia. They spoke English. They were protestant. Their rallying cry at one crucial moment was “The British are Coming!” To these ethnocentrists “Americans” in part were “not British.” They extend that attitude to today, “Americans,” they say “are not Mexicans.” Mexicans speak Spanish. Mexicans are Catholic. Mexicans are short and brown (and for that matter share many external characteristics with victims of our last genocidal efforts).

It is evidence of our American nationality that those who are pro-immigrant also make appeals to our shared forbears. To the pro-immigrant, Washington et. al. themselves were immigrants. They embodied an entrepreneurial spirit recognizable in today’s Latino immigrants. They shared a belief in the equality of men across time and place which encourages the acceptance of modern immigrants as equals on (God’s) Earth, equally worth sharing and contributing to our national greatness.

Are Americans white, European protestants or do Americans embody a “melting pot” of various cultures that come to express similar ideas of what the nation should be; to share a founding myth? The question of immigration…the “problem” of immigration is of fundamental concern to American identity as we have come to understand it. The problem, if there is one, is that the state/nation/country/powerful elite/academics/common man all have different concepts of what constitutes an “American” and if Latinos have a place here. The “problem” of immigration is a problem of identity.

National identities change over time. Americans used to be not-British, then they were not-Indian, then they were not-German/Japanese, then they were not-Communist.But then British people became Americans when British people won the war of Independence. Then there were no Indians to not be. Then we became comfortable with the Germans and Japanese. (And of course, there have been dozens of other things that Americans were not until they were: Black, Catholic, Jewish, Italian, Vietnamese.) Soon we will be comfortable with the Latinos. For the moment we face the tumultuous sea change. We won’t even recognize that our national identity has changed until we are faced with a newer, more important threat to our national identity.

We Might Have to Actually Do Something About This Nader Cat

Someone else thinks exactly as I do and quotes someone else who thinks like both of us do. If Ralph Nader really wants to create a vibrant third party, then why isn’t he spending his money on making that happen rather than throwing it way just to see his name in print and then yelling at everybody that calls him a spoiler?

Ralph Nader wants McCain to be President

As far as I’m concerned this is the worst news I’ve heard since November 2004. There’s no reason to share how I voted in 2000; let’s just say I had no idea what was at stake.

I understand Ralphie’s claims: that America has the right to vote for whoever best represents their views; and for a smattering million or two, Ralph Nader is the guy that best represents them.

The political reality is that Nader entering the race hurts the Democratic candidate whoever he or she is. And, I’ll admit it, I’m not 100% thrilled about either Clinton or Obama. They have their good traits and their bad, but I can tell you that both will be better than McCain.

And while I’d like to live in a world where a seriously concerned person like Nader says he is might win the presidency, the reality is I don’t. Pipe dreams and glittering referrals to “honest democracy” and “real representation” aside, Nader is dead in the water before he gets wet. I’ll vote for a dream. I’ll cast my vote for real representation. Trust me.

If Nader is serious about running, if he’s serious about getting his voice heard, if he’s serious about helping this country move past the calamity of the last eight years, he’ll sit out 2008 and run in 2012. That’s right, let him run against an incumbent Democrat.  Better yet, why doesn’t he do what Al Gore has done and just use his superior brain power and compassionate soul to solve the world’s problems through the increasing power of NGOs?

When they said that Nader was just running out of maniacal self-promotion in 2000 I didn’t believe it. Now, I don’t have a choice. It’s either that or he’s secretly accepting millions of GOP dollars acting as permanent spoiler for Democrats.

Back to the Races

So the biggest delegate-granting state had their primaries last night and Tsunami Tuesday is just around the corner. By next Wednesday we should all know who our presidential candidates will be. It’s probably unfair of me to say that. Only 40% of the delegates will have been parceled out by next Wednesday which means the race will not technically be locked up even if every state goes toward one candidate. But, c’mon, we all know what will happen: the press will treat the new frontrunner as the anointed candidate, the perception (press-inspired or not) will be that the frontrunner on Wednesday is “the winner” and “the only serious candidate.” It will become important to display “party unity.” The winner on Wednesday will likely waltz their way through the rest of the primaries. So, like just about everybody in the political/political science blogosphere I feel obligated to share with ya’ll my take on the race.

Republicans (Delegate count so far: McCain-97; Romney-74; Huckabee-29; Paul-6; Giuliani-Who cares?)

Giuliani: Thankfully out. He was by far the worst candidate the Republicans had running. He’s a balls-out fascist, a dirty politician, a despicable human being, and possibly certifiably crazy. He should just put on some plaid pants, buy a golf cart, and stay in Florida.

Romney: Well, the race is far from over but McCain’s victory in Florida has put him nearly an entire Huckabee ahead in terms of delegates–making him the frontrunner going into Tsunami Tuesday. McCain’s popularity is rising and has been for awhile. All trend lines have been coalescing around a McCain nod. Meanwhile, Romney’s trend lines could use a shot of Bob Dole’s Viagra. Right or wrong, Romney’s religion probably hurts him. Evangelicals were tempted to vote for Romney when they thought the race was just between him and Giuliani. Then Huckabee showed up to prove that there still were Christians in the Republican party. The evangelicals flocked around him like he was Jesus at a fish and bread dinner and they haven’t looked back. With Huckabee incapable of having another “miracle” comeback (despite God’s best efforts) it looks like evangelicals will stick by their initial promise and just stay at home in November.

Basically what I’m saying here is that McCain is most likely a lock as long as Huckabee stays in the race. If he drops out, the evangelical choice is between the guy who says that there should be more religion in politics (Romney) and the guy that called evangelicals “part of the problem” back in 2000 (McCain). And while McCain has won more delegates than Romney, he hasn’t won by that much. Good baptists in Alabama, Georgia, (most of) Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas could still hurt his chances.

Huckabee: In case your just skimming to read about the candidate you like, I’ll repeat what I said above. Huckabee is toast. After helping him win Iowa, God hasn’t reached down to help the declining Huckabee campaign since. If God had given Huckabee just 15,000 more votes in South Carolina he could have had two wins and fourteen more delegates (and of course, “momentum” which may have helped out in Florida). But he didn’t. For some reason God, despite what you may have thought, seems to prefer McCain.

Huckabee appeals to the evangelicals and is probably pulling votes away from Romney. If Huckabee stays in until February 6, you can call him the kingmaker. The real question is, is he angling for a cabinet/veep spot in a McCain presidency. (I say, “you betcha.”)

McCain: McCain is the big winner in the two most important races so far. He’s ahead in delegates and all signs point to his coming out on top after the February 5 Tsunami Tuesday. This is both bad and good for Democrats and Liberals. On the one hand, a McCain presidency would be better than whatever monstrous crimes would otherwise be committed by Presidents Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, or Thompson. On the other, well, he’s still not all that good and he’s the one who is likely to put up the best fight against either Clinton or Obama (but especially Clinton). It’s hard to decide if I’d rather line up a “best of all possible worlds” scenario with McCain vs. Clinton in November where I could easily end up with a President McAngryPants or if I want to root for Huckabee dropping out, relinquishing the evangelical vote to Romney who will then likely become the Republican nominee. Because…if that happens, Romney will likely lose to Clinton or Obama…but, if he doesn’t, we’re screwed.

Democrats (Delegate count so far [remember Dems have "superdelegates" so I count them here but their actual delegates are in parentheses]: Clinton-232 (48); Obama-158 (63); Edwards-Who cares? (Who cares?))

Edwards: Let’s get him out of the way early. He’s out. (Note: I actually wrote this this morning before he officially dropped.) He hasn’t performed since his close second place finish in Iowa and he’s not going anywhere after February 5. Pundits and bloggers are speculating that he’s staying in because he pulls (white) votes from Clinton and is therefore acting as kingmaker for Obama who he (presumably) prefers. I’m not sure if I believe that or not. He could just as likely be pulling progressive votes from Obama making him a queenmaker instead. In either case, I think his presence is negligible going into next week. (And of course, completely negligible since he won’t be there). If he really wants to help someone he should drop out during prime time on February 4th. The tiny bump his dropping out/endorsement might give to his preferred candidate might make a difference in some close races.

Clinton: She’s the likely candidate. When people first started talking about her assumed candidacy back in 2004 she was preferred. She was preferred after the rockstar Obama put his hat in the ring. She was preferred up until a week before Iowa and then was preferred after New Hampshire. So with that anomalous week between her third place finish in Iowa and her (rigged?) victory in New Hampshire aside, she has always been the preferred candidate. Going into next week she has the most superdelegates and the second most actual delegates. Her “scorched earth” campaign damages her possibilities in November but probably doesn’t hurt her chances that much in the primaries, where her lead contender can’t seem to get over a third of white voters. (We’ll have to see if that remains true after Edwards’ withdrawal.)

Obama: He’s technically the frontrunner with the most earned delegates and he’s been raking in some high-profile endorsements which may or may not help him on Feb 5. Perhaps the biggest helping hand came from Kennedy which may raise Obama’s appeal with two important (northern) constituencies [white people and Catholics] and one important western one [old people]. Unfortunately the jury is out on whether any endorsements matter. They certainly didn’t help him in the Florida “beauty pageant.” Of course, turnout there may have been hampered by his lack of campaigning there since the delegates don’t count (yet).

At least on blogger seems to think that Obama’s loss in Florida is indicative of a larger trend.

James Joyner from Outside the Beltway:

I believe it foreshadows what will happen on Super Tuesday. Despite both Clinton and Obama raising unprecedented sums of money, campaigning in 22 states in six days is next to impossible. As in Florida, no campaigning gives the advantage to the candidate with the best organization and name recognition. My guess is Clinton will have an impressive showing next week and all but wrap up the nomination.

This seems a reasonable and insightful analysis of what we’re likely to see. If the primaries had been spread out–given Obama’s messaging, his “above the fray” and “hopeful” image, and his momentum–he might have been a more clear favorite going into a Tsunami Tuesday. If he fails to win the nomination, this is why (not, as it will be written, because of the Clintons’ race baiting and “dividing the black vote.”)

However, I don’t think all hope is yet lost. Obama’s been getting a lot of good publicity from his victory in South Carolina and his high profile endorsements. He’s likely to out perform Hillary in the south. If he can pull the south and some of the small states he’s visited like Kansas and Alaska he may still be “in the race” even if Clinton wins California, New York, and New Jersey (delegate-heavy states where polls indicate a Clinton victory). After all, Obama, in addition “the south” will probably win delegate-heavy Illinois and the important swing vote in Ohio. Since he goes in ahead, (and with momentum) my guess is that the sun will shine on two frontrunners on February 6: Clinton ahead but with Obama close behind.

Expect additional ugliness.

Bush is “Teaching us a Lesson”

I totally forgot about this in my notes this morning: Bush wants us all to die to teach the Democrats a lesson. Seriously. For those of you who don’t know anything about this issue, here’s the (substantially pared down) skinny:

A long long time ago, when senators and representatives got mad that the president had too much power and couldn’t seem to use it properly (Nixon: Watergate, et. al.) they passed a law (FISA) that said (among other things) that when the president wants to spy on somebody he has get a warrant from the judicial branch. This law did not say that the president couldn’t spy on people, but that he would have to prove things like, the person deserved to be spied on.

Well, after George Bush became president, he immediately started using the NSA and various telecommunications conglomerates to spy on people…without warrants! But according to President Bush and friends, the president doesn’t have to obey laws. He’s above the law (seriously). And since the president is above the law, if he tells someone to do something that is illegal, then they are above that law too.

When the illegal spying on Americans was discovered Bush & Co. they said that 9/11 made it necessary for them to spy on Americans…y’know…to protect us. Except, it turned out, they had been doing it all along! So, who, exactly, were they spying on while they weren’t taking the terrorist threat seriously enough to do anything about it? The world will (likely) never know.

But, at any rate, the FISA legislation might legitimately have some restrictions that need updating given the particular nature of international terrorism in an increasingly mobile and connected world. So Bush said that Congress had to pass The Protect America Act. He basically said that if PAA was not passed, all Americans everywhere would die in simultaneous terrorist attacks everywhere all at once in a really bad, agonizing way and Congress would have no one to blame but themselves; and that’s how they would spend the last horrible seconds of all their lives: wishing they had passed PAA and President Bush, in his last seconds, would be somewhere bleeding nearby saying “I told you so.” And that thought, that mere thought, was enough for Congress to say, “OK fine.” And so they passed it. And ever since America has suffered no new terrorist attacks. Or something like that.

Well. The FISA amendment expires on Thursday. Congress has been considering renewing it but the White House wants to add something extra special to the renewal. Remember those telecommunications conglomerates that helped President Bush break the law? Well, he wants them to get off scott free. He wants immunity for them.

He says that America will become vulnerable if corporations have to follow our laws. Neat! Because, the way I see it, America becomes vulnerable if corporations don’t have to follow our laws. “We are a nation fo laws, not men…” and all that.

Well, Chris Dodd, the senator who recently dropped from the presidential race, has successfully had the debate postponed until this week (Congress was threatened to renew PAA back in December). And, as of yesterday, Dodd successfully started a Democratic filibuster. Because (God on Highest!) the Democrats think that America’s “deliberative body” should start deliberating.

Now, this deliberation could take a little while. And after their done deliberating, assuming they can come to some conclusions, they will have to vote on the bill. The bill will go to the House, which will have to vote on it. Any differences will have to be ironed out in conference, and then PAA can be renewed. Bottom line, the bill won’t be done by Thursday.

The Democrats, who have already been informed by the President that this bill is important lest we all face immediate and agonizing Death by Terrorism, tried to pass a 30-day extension to the current legislation which would both protect America and give Senators time to chat about “the rule of law,” “the fourth amendment,” and “the fate of the free world” and perhaps what to call the new soup offered in the cafeteria.

Well…

Bush threatened to veto an extension. Why? Because Congress should just do what they’re told, grant immunity to multi-billionaire lawbreakers and pass the damned bill. There is no thinking, there is no deliberation, there is no debate. The president says “jump” and bygollybygosh, senators shouldn’t even ask “how high” they should just fucking jump.

So, in effect, making America vulnerable to inevitable attack is the price we pay for Congress’s insistence on representing us in Washington.

Oh! did I mention that because the President childishly threatened to veto a 30-day extension the Republicans voted across the board to not even pass it? Because that’s what they did.

That’s right, every single Republican decided to not even try challenging the President’s will, even though doing so meant (supposedly) making America vulnerable to imminent attack.

Of course the reality is that PAA is not and has never been necessary. The President could always spy on people that he could reasonably show to a secret court were terrorists. PAA did not protect us from imminent attack and the only reason the new legislation is even up for consideration for renewal is because major political funders are at risk of being slapped on the wrist by Congress. I mean seriously, no one’s going to jail over this. Even without immunity the worst that will happen is that ATT (et. al) will have explained to them (again) that just because the president says it’s OK doesn’t mean it is. If FISA needs updating, and it is somewhat uncertain if it does, and it is even more uncertain where it needs updating, then that’s a topic that should be debated and discussed, heavily, in Congress and in the public forums.

Just know that your childish president hopes you die to teach those bastards in Congress a lesson.

Head over to Glenn Greenwald’s blog over on Salondotcom for a much more robust but ultimately more accurate and detailed rundown of the whole thing. He’s been covering it at least since the renewed debate in November/December but his two posts from Monday are as good an introduction as you probably need.

Some Quick Notes

Not a lot of time today so here are some random bits I will be reading about today rather than writing about:

President Bush gave (probably) his last state of the union address last night. He wanted to stress to his audience that over the previous seven years this nation has been tested in ways it never anticipated. Of course, the elephant in the room that he wasn’t talking about was himself.

President Bush, despite being being in the middle of an “unconfirmed” recession, wanted to remind people that, y’know, up until very recently, things have been good. Except they haven’t. Of all post WWII presidents Bush II’s is the second lowest (interesting note: the worst president? His papa!) As a matter of fact, by most measures the growth of the economy of the last seven years are across the board worse than the average growth: GDP is down, consumption is down, investment is down, net worth is down, salaries are down, employment is down. But, good news for CEOs, corporate profits are up! So when Bush says America has enjoyed “an unprecedented 52 months of employment growth” well, that’s true. But a gross addition of one job for 52 months is hardly “good.” (ed. I exaggerate….We gained two jobs a month.) The bottom line is that, compared to Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and Ford–Bush sucks. Won’t be sorry to see you go!

President Bush also says he will be telling executive branch employees to ignore earmarks (pork) that didn’t see the light of debate. Pretty much everybody is angered by this move. Watchdog groups are mad because it doesn’t go far enough. They don’t want earmark cuts just going forward; they want earmark cuts going backward to passed legislation from 2008. Republicans are mad because Democrats and Senate Republicans haven’t agreed to voluntary earmark cuts. And Democrats are mad because, as they see it, the last six years of Republican congress are the ones that made earmarks an intolerable problem and its interesting that Bush isn’t cutting their earmarks but instead is targeting Democratic earmarks. For some reason it doesn’t seem weird to me that a Republican president wants to hurt a Democratic legislature, and it doesn’t seem weird that Bush is an intolerable prick. But I’m sure those wily boys and girls (but mostly boys) in the Senate will figure out a way to get that delicious pork back home.

McCain and Romney are neck-and-neck in Florida. This is like the Patriots-Chargers game two weeks ago. I just want both of them to lose. If Romney wins, it adds to the hypothesis that Republicans are still childishly addicted to big hair, dark suits, and a real “kill’em all” attitude from proven yellow-bellies. But that would be good because Romney is almost guaranteed to lose against Clinton or Obama. If McCain wins, it would be some evidence that Republicans are willing to come to their senses a little bit by choosing a candidate that is somewhat reasonable on important issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, and torture even if it means putting a man in power that wants (GASP) mandatory safeties on fire arms. Unfortunately a victory in Florida for McCain sends him into Tsunami Tuesday with a shit ton of “momentum” which would significantly aid him in claiming the nomination. His nomination makes for the hardest November challenge for Democrats of either shade or gender.

Bill Clinton, the “first black president” has basically stood in front of a crowd of “big tenters” and said that “the black candidate always wins South Carolina–you ignored Jesse Jackson because his campaign was ridiculous, now ignore Obama.” Previous race baiting by the Clintons was tolerable only in that politics ain’t beanbag and all that. But it seems to me, he has (they have) finally crossed the line. Clinton was probably going to get the nomination without ridiculous knocks on the race of the candidate who “isn’t black enough.” Now if she wins the nomination critics and voters will say that she split the Democratic vote down racial lines. Divide and conquer politics is pretty standard but dividing down racial lines is a horrible risk. Democratic voters are showing up to the primaries in almost general election numbers. I haven’t seen the figures but I would guess that big part of the surge in attention is because black voters who have largely felt they aren’t represented (even by black candidates like Bill Clinton) feel that they are on the verge of having a powerful voice in Washington. If pundits start claiming that the only reason Clinton won was because of appealing to White America’s racist subconscious she could lose the black vote in November. They probably won’t vote Republican, but they could just sit at home. It may seem prudent now to attack Obama for his inability to get the white vote (not having captured more than 35% of it any primary or caucus) but what is Clinton’s chances in November without the black vote? What happens to Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA etc and other Democratic “chocolate cities”? Not only is race baiting the Democratic golden boy a politically unsound strategy (I should add) it’s also morally despicable. So stop it already.

So Long, Suharto

It is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of the second half of the 20th Century that Indonesia remained an abysmally small, weak nation with no US allies within striking distance. Because, if Indonesia had had the ability to strike out against one of our allies, we might have developed the wherewithal to hack him and his followers to pieces like he did to so many of his own people. Instead Suharto lived large off of American and British paychecks and died comfortably. Most people in this country will never know, and many that do will forget, that he was one of the century’s worst dictators, slaughtering over a million of his own people. Many of his victims were communist activists who’s names appeared on lists given to him by the CIA.

But if he had launched an attack against a different dictator, with more money, or access to more raw materials, with a separate and perhaps more public relationship with the US, if that had been the case, then whichever great and glorious “war president” was in office at the time could have proclaimed that in honor of “democracy” and “freedom” and “decency” and “God” that Suharto should be overthrown. He could have been tried for the war crimes he certainly committed and he could have swung from the gallows as a word of warning to future dictators. He could have faced, that is, the same fate as once US ally Saddam Hussein after invading Kuwait.

Instead, after his death yesterday the White House presented a paean to the ex-dictator and mass murderer lauding him for his 30 years of “service” to Indonesia and his genius at improving the Indonesian economy.

Yes, it is true, when you slaughter a million people, you will raise your per capita earnings.

Even the much-vilified Muslim news outlet Aljazeera had very little good to say of the Muslim dictator:

Between half a million to a million people were killed as the army organized Muslim groups and ordinary citizens to take their revenge on the Indonesian Communist Party.

Hundreds of thousands of others were jailed, killed or simply disappeared as Suharto cracked down on opponents and stamped Indonesia’s rule on territories as far apart as Aceh in the west Timor and Papua in the east.

With the blood of as many as one and a half million people on his hands, and allegedly billions of dollars of state funds in his bank accounts, the wily former dictator has never faced court or had to account for his actions.

I’m not saying I advocate the death penalty, even for total pissant bastards like Suharto. I’m just saying that he was allowed to die peacefully and now serves as an example that with the right friends crime does pay. Suharto, along with Pinochet and Trujillo and several others, is proof that America does not go to war to “defend democracy” or “fight for freedom.” Even under the twisted logic of Communist containment, for what world were we fighting if winning against Communism meant that people like Suharto would get rich from American banks and businessmen and be permitted to kill 1.5 million of his own people?

And the American government can’t, even after his death, find the nerve to remember him as he was–a disgrace to humanity, hacked to pieces by machetes for eternity in Hell in the imaginations of every living Indonesian. America’s obsequious eulogy is as disgusting as it is shameful. I don’t blame you Ambassador Cameron Hume, you were doing your job in piling accolades on the corpse that rightfully deserves to be ripped apart and trampled on by the living victims of his 30 year raping and pillaging of the land he “served.” I blame the petty tyrant that gave you the instruction to do it.

David? (A response to a link left in the comments section).

David,

I approved your comment because I don’t see any cause to not spread reasons to not vote for McCain. I don’t agree with those reasons, but since McCain represents the strongest threat to a Republican victory in ‘08 I support whatever reasons Republicans want to take with them in order to not vote for him either in the primaries or the general election.

But, to be fair most of the reasons are, well, questionable. To be clear, I haven’t read your blog until today and I don’t know who you are supporting but your ridiculous assertion that Obama is a socialist combined with the fact that within your top 20 reasons for hating McCain are the very things that make him the most threatening Republican candidate in November gives me a few clues.

Some of the top 20 things I either don’t know enough about or agree with you on, but I will comment on a few things:

Reason #1. We shouldn’t vote for McCain because he vows to fight global warming? Seriously? Who are you? A villain from the Captain Planet cartoons? Only a few creation theorists and oil execs are still fighting whether or not global warming exists, what its causes are, and whether or not we need to start reversing the trend toward total annihilation. Global warming was a certainty when I started reading about it in the late 80s/early 90s. In the intervening two decades the science has come irrevocably “in.” Any presidential candidate who is to be taken seriously (or any political advocate for that matter) has to look at the world the way it is and not as we would want it. Global warming and its causes is certainly a setback to pro-globalizing, pro-big business, pro-deregulation conservatives, but facts are facts. How McCain (or anybody else) acts on a pledge to fight global warming is up for criticism, but the admission that we have to do something about is not. McCain’s recognition that global warming is one of the world’s greatest challenges is an asset and a reason to vote for him, not the other way around.

Reasons #2 and #9 are in direct odds with one another. After McCain was written up by the ethics committee he set about rewriting campaign finance laws so that the activities he was criticized for would be considered actually criminal rather than just ethically ambiguous. It would seem that if you really dislike McCain for being one of the Keating 5, you would support McCain-Feingold…but you don’t. Weird. I’ll also add that the S&L scandal at the heart of the Keating 5 scandal was a shady financial arrangement brought about Reagan’s deregulation of the industry and that George Bush’s uncle profited heavily from and then used his brother (the first president Bush) to pass legislation protecting him from lawsuits from the people he defrauded. For some reason, I doubt you hate either Bush or Reagan as much as you hate McCain, even though they were more than “heavily involved in the Keating 5.” And just for giggles: you list “McCain-Feingold” as reason number 9 and the fact that it’s a failure as reason #18. It seems that if #18 were true, then #9 is moot.

Reason #5. Personally, if this is true, I don’t think it matters. But, I suppose I’m glad that evangelically-inspired conservatives are sticking to their guns on this one. I assume this means you also don’t support the thrice-married Giuliani or the Mormon Romney (whose great-grandfather left this country to live in Mexico so that he could live with multiple wives.)

Reason #8. A request to normalize relations with Viet Nam is a good thing. As Bush’s refusal to normalize relations with North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela has made clear, when we marginalize world powers they seek support amongst themselves. By ignoring other nation’s we make it harder on us to effectively control their domestic and foreign policy agendas. There wasn’t really an “axis of evil” before Bush, but there is now. McCain’s wanting to normalize relations with the government that tortured him shows restraint, and maturity. It also displays a “turn the other cheek” mentality that Christians should support not denigrate. I’m assuming from some of the things I read on your blog that you’re a die hard Christian.

Reason #6 makes me think you hate Newt Gingrich as much as hate McCain but, for some reason I doubt it. Why is it that people will forgive in people they admire the exact same things they condemn in the people they hate?

Reason #11. Mudslinging grouch? Well, that eliminates everbody. I can only assume you aren’t voting for president in ‘08, or ‘12, or ‘16. Whatever. This is a clear grab. You can dislike it, but you hating McCain for it hardly offers any instruction on who one should vote for.

Reason #15. Lies about own religion. There never has been and never will be a president that follows the mandates of his (or her) religion. All presidents that have mentioned their faith as a reason they should be elected are liars. All of them.

Reason #16. It is true that his flip flopping on the Confederate flag is shameful. He should just come right out and say it: the confederate flag is a symbol of sedition against the United States government and, since it’s a battle flag, its display by state governments should be construed as a call toward revolution and therefore treason. Those caught displaying the flag should be immediately investigated for and possibly charged with low treason and incitement to riot. The confederate flag is nothing more or less than a symbol of sedition for the cause of promoting slavery.

I’ll stop here, too much defense of McCain will make people think I support the bastard.

PS: Obama is the more progressive of the two Democratic front runners, for sure, but he is a moderate Democrat by any sensible measure. The word “socialist” gets thrown around a lot in American politics. Fortunately or unfortunately it typically gets applied to candidates, like Obama, for whom the label does not apply. The flagrant disregard of its meaning is part of the reason “socialist” has lost the power it once enjoyed. It seems for most people who use the word as an insult “socialist” applies to anybody who thinks that there might be a proper time and place for limits on the free market. By that measure, Bush with his first term steel tariffs and his upcoming approval on sugar subsidies is a “socialist.” The label doesn’t apply to him and it doesn’t apply to Obama.

Furthermore, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with socialism. Socialist agendas are more in line with pure democracy than 50 years of Cold War rhetoric let on. Thanks to socialist ideas we have a protected 5 day work week, a 40 hour work day, anti-trust legislation, anti-child labor laws, and Social Security. But it doesn’t stop there: ideas in line with a socialist agenda made it so that in America and Europe war is now considered a tragic anomaly rather than the status quo. Socialism brought us women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights Act.

If Obama were a socialist, which he most certainly isn’t, I’m sure he would welcome the title. As it is, I don’t like the application not because the concept itself is bad, but because its application is untrue and, if believed, it unfairly sways votes to and from him based on its inaccuracy. Progressive voters that might like a socialist agenda would vote for him despite the fact he would be sure to disappoint them. People swayed by your intended use would be persuaded to vote against him because of an unfounded fear of what he might do.

Hillary Clinton Rigged the Vote

No she didn’t, I’m just hoping to get some web traffic by being “controversial.”

I’ve already commented on this here (although briefly) but rather than dying away the AccuVote “debacle” is turning into an “imbroglio” and soon it will be a “fiasco”and then, before you know it will be in a political “quagmire.” So I’m here, to do my part to nip the whole “debacle to quagmire” process in the bud.

Far be it from me to hinder an(other) independent investigation into this budding fiasco. Far be it from me as well, to say anything good (or even neutral) about the shady denizens of the Diebold company. But, the facts just aren’t there.

Furthermore the shame seems to be settling unevenly on Clinton rather than equally between her and Romney (the other beneficiary of the AccuVote preference); and that just seems to be wishful thinking. Republicans want any Democrat to face the ignominy of election fraud after the shadow of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 settled squarely on GOP shoulders. Fans of Obama need some way to explain away Golden Boy’s loss in New England and, hell…everybody else but Clinton would like to think they got one or two more percent than they did.

The facts though are that Romney benefited from the AccuVote machines too…if Clinton did that is. Going into New Hampshire Obama on the Democratic side was predicted to win and McCain was predicted to win for the Republicans. What happened though was that Clinton won New Hampshire…by a lot.

And McCain won. Which, I suppose means that Romney cheated less…or not at all. So Clinton has to shoulder the accusations that she won because of voter fraud.

Didn’t happen. Let the world be fooled but not the glorious readers of Porch Dog. HRC experienced a bump in AccuVote districts for the same reason that Romney did. He is the candidate for well-to-do Republicans that live in districts that can afford fancy voting machines and she is the Democratic candidate for well-to-do Democrats that live next door to well-to-do Republicans.

Clinton’s win in New Hampshire didn’t come from only AccuVote districts. Her win was from all over. However, consistent with the talking points of this blog it is clear that AccuVote wants a Clinton nomination because she is totally unelectable in November. But, seriously, if AccuVote was going to elect its own president it would have given Romney a bigger bump.