The voting fraud now going on this country is truly stultifying. The most obvious example of this is the fraud committed by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). According to “Voter Fraud Watch: Could ACORN Scandal in Washington Have Been Avoided With Photo ID?” by Eric Shawn and Becky Diamond on FOXNews.com, ACORN fraudulently registered about 1800 voters in Washington in 2006. As Washington Secretary of State, Sam Reed stated, “`There is nothing more fundamental to a democratic republic and to a citizen of the United States than participating in selecting your public officials. For people to undermine that and try to perpetuate fraud on the system is an outrage.’" According to the article, John Jones, head of ACORN in Washington, stated that this isolated incident outraged ACORN. ( http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/02/voter-fraud-watch-could-acorn-scandal-in-washington-have-been-avoided-with-photo-id/ ) However, in September 2008, at a joint House Administration and House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on "Federal, State and Local Efforts to Prepare for the General 2008 Election,” James Terry, Chief Public Advocate, Consumers Rights League stated: "`ACORN routinely says it will clean up its act. Yet, given its decade-long history of voter fraud, embezzlement, and misuses of taxpayer funds, ACORN's pattern of fraud can no longer be dismissed as a series of “unfortunate events.”” His testimony is a scathing attack on a pattern of fraudulent behavior at every level of ACORN (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crl-testimony-acorns-voter-fraud/story.aspx?guid=%7B573B31D0-6AB7-4353-B8E7-91300F4DFF81%7D&dist=hppr).
One of the most obvious ways to prevent voter fraud is through a system of voter ID. Routinely, the requirement for voters to present a photo ID to vote is portrayed simply as a means to prevent African Americans from voting (http://truthaboutfraud.org/ ) However, there is never an explanation, short of some conspiracy theory, to prove this allegation. Further, according to a Rasmussen Report, 76% of those polled favored voter ID – including 66% of registered Democrats (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/76_support_showing_photo_id_before_voting)
John Fund in “Democracy Imperiled,” in 2004 noted the widespread voter fraud in a number of cities including Baltimore, Milwaukee, New Orleans, and Philadelphia (where the number of registered voters exceeded the number of adults eligible to vote). Without requiring an ID to vote, “the illegal alien who assassinated the Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was registered to vote in San Pedro, California — twice.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp) Sometimes the solution to a problem is so obvious it’s blinding.
All too often, government prosecutors are loathe to investigate charges of election fraud because, according to John Fund, “… they fear charges of racism or of a return to Jim Crow voter suppression tactics if they pursue touchy fraud cases” This is the problem in Alabama. According to an AP article in the Tuscaloosa News (18 October 2008) entitled, “6 counties have more voters than possible,” “The Birmingham News compared the state’s voter registration numbers with the Census Bureau’s population estimates and found more registered voters than voting-age adults in Conecuh, Greene, Lowndes, Perry, Washington and Wilcox counties.” (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20081018/NEWS/810170236/1007?Title=6_counties_have_more_voters_than_possible) The following chart shows that four of the six counties are predominantly African American, all are impoverished, and all are undereducated – a mixture ripe for abuse by those who will manipulate the system for their own aggrandizement.
A=County; B=%African American; C=Median Household Income (2004); D=%Below Poverty; E=Percent High School Graduates
A......................B.........C...............D........E
Conecuh .........44..... $24,334 ...23.1...67.7
Greene ...........79..... $22,439 ...26.5...64.8
Lowndes .........71 ....$24,967 ...25.5 ...64.3
Perry ..............69 ....$21,640 ...30.4...62.4
Washington ...26 .....$32,147 ...18.1... 72.3
Wilcox ............72 .....$19,682 ...30.4 ...59.5
Alabama .......26.3 ...$37,062 ...16.1 ...75.3
US .................12.8 ...$44,334 ....12.7...80.4
(From: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01000.html)
An article similar to the one in the Tuscaloosa News appeared in the New York Times, “Officials Investigate 3 Alabama Counties in Voter Fraud Accusations” by Adam Nossiter (10 July 2008) detailing the charges of voter fraud using multiple suspicious absentee ballots (a long tradition in Alabama) where six times more absentee ballots were cast in Perry County (where the Black Panthers were founded) than the state average. One of Perry County’s commissioners, Albert Turner, Jr., charged that this was a racist plot. However, Michael W. Jackson, Perry County district attorney, an African-American and a Democrat, doesn’t hold Turner’s opinion of a conspiracy to disfranchise the blacks of Perry County. “`For there to be that many, it’s suspicious. When you get the absentee ballots, it’s a lot easier to pull that off, forge their names, vote for them.’ He added, “`It certainly needs to be looked at, because given the historic significance of Perry County, we want to make sure candidates and the public have a fair process.’” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10fraud.html?_r=7&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=login&oref=login) A number of affidavits in Perry County demonstrate that some candidates, including Albert Turner, Jr. routinely buy votes. One of those who was paid by an associate of Turner stated, “`The last time I voted, I was paid $30,’ Mr. Collins said in a telephone interview this week, adding: `It’s pretty common. It ain’t nothing new.’” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10fraud.html?_r=7&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=login&oref=login)
The real tragedy of unchecked voter fraud is that as more and more people see politics as a game without rules, voter turnout will continue to decline. John Fund notes, “This growing cynicism diminishes respect for the nation's institutions and lowers voter participation. Only 11 percent of the 18- to 19-year-olds eligible to vote for the first time now bother to go to the polls. The United States ranks139th out of 163 democracies in the rate of voter participation. The more that voting is left to the zealous or self-interested few, the more we see harshly personal campaigns that dispense with any positive vision of our national future.” In short, ignoring voter fraud undermines our democracy and elections degrade from a debate over philosophy and ideology into a vituperative combat of personalities.
Will state and federal investigators have the courage to pursue the loss of civil rights (whether it’s by ACORN or the Perry County commissioners) resulting from such flagrant voter fraud in the face of charges of racism, or will they, as has happened several times in the past decade in Alabama, simply abandon the people (of whatever race) to a political cabal that manipulates both race and political parties for their own aggrandizement?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
911 -- We Have Forgotten
This year marks the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the US (we’re not allowed to say “Moslem-led” attack lest we offend somebody), and few people in America can tell you the exact year it happened. As we enter the presidential election cycle, it is horribly obvious that we have forgotten what happened to us. Instead of focusing on the real issues that face this country – security, energy, education, health (in no particular order) – we focus on whether or not Barrack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118046&srvc=2008campaign&position=6). He didn’t. Even if he did, so what? There are bigger issues facing this country than name calling. Instead of holding the candidates’ feet to the fire on important issues, the press keeps giving us bizarre sound bites and non-stories. Does it really matter that Obama’s middle name is Hussein or that Palin’s daughter is pregnant out of wedlock? Perhaps the lack of a strategic energy policy is a tad more important than these personal issues.
Unfortunately, journalists are, generally, not intelligent enough to report or discuss the real issues. Important issues are reported with the same intellectual rigor as one would expect in People or Us. The media continues to oversimplify all political issues. This is most apparent in describing foreign policy. They simplistically divide the world into two groups: those who are our friends and those who are not currently our friends. The second group will become the first group if we give them McDonalds and democracy (in that order). Unfortunately, the reality is that the world is, in fact, divided into two groups: those who are currently screwing with us and those who are not currently screwing with us. The voters should make their choices accordingly.
Rather than being real patriots, taking control of our government, we sit by, dull wittedly, while the bureaucracy controls our lives through the “Patriot Act” (a scurrilous piece of doublespeak) and the politicians concern themselves exclusively with getting re-elected. This presidential election is the same as the last several ones. Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, we have to vote for the person least likely to screw up the country.
Unfortunately, journalists are, generally, not intelligent enough to report or discuss the real issues. Important issues are reported with the same intellectual rigor as one would expect in People or Us. The media continues to oversimplify all political issues. This is most apparent in describing foreign policy. They simplistically divide the world into two groups: those who are our friends and those who are not currently our friends. The second group will become the first group if we give them McDonalds and democracy (in that order). Unfortunately, the reality is that the world is, in fact, divided into two groups: those who are currently screwing with us and those who are not currently screwing with us. The voters should make their choices accordingly.
Rather than being real patriots, taking control of our government, we sit by, dull wittedly, while the bureaucracy controls our lives through the “Patriot Act” (a scurrilous piece of doublespeak) and the politicians concern themselves exclusively with getting re-elected. This presidential election is the same as the last several ones. Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, we have to vote for the person least likely to screw up the country.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Thank you, Dan Kreider
From 2000 to 2007 Dan Kreider was the best Steeler. I don’t mean he ran the most yards, caught the most passes, or scored the most touchdowns, the normal types of stats for fantasy football freaks. Rather, Kreider embodied everything great about the Steelers – the type of player the true fan appreciates. Kreider is a pure fullback. His purpose in life is to open holes for the running back to break through and score. During his time with the Steelers, he never sought the glory. He just did his job. And he did his job better than anybody else at that position – just ask Ray Lewis. One of the great memories I have of Kreider is when he came flying around the edge and pancaked the “greatest linebacker in the universe” not once, but twice in one game. Beautiful. Watching Kreider work was like watching a great artist. His arms and shoulders were his brushes, the opponents were his canvas, and their pain was his paint. Okay, that’s a bit over the top. But to watch Kreider work was to watch a thing of beauty. Kreider’s version of hard-working, grinding, smash-mouth football was the type of football all Steeler’s fans appreciate (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06229/714195-66.stm).
The Steelers have chosen to go in a different direction. They no longer need a pure fullback. This will be a mistake. Wilie Parker is a great running back, and Reshard Mendenhall shows potential. But without Kreider’s excellence opening holes for them to run through, Parker and Mendenhall will have 500 fewer yards rushing than they would have had running behind Kreider. Parker knew this when he said, “`He's like an extra lineman that can run and can move side to side. He's a great blocker and he takes pride in what he does. It would be kind of disappointing [if he were cut]. It would be surprising. Sometimes you want to stay away from a lot of that, if they cut him. I don't want to talk about my man like that. He takes pride in what he does and I love what he does.’" (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07235/811494-66.stm)
Thank you, Dan Kreider. I hope the Rams know what a phenomenal player they have in you.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The New Munich Conference
The EU’s extraordinary summit meeting to address Russia’s naked aggression against Georgia released its statement on 1 September (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,575761,00.html). This was a propitious date as it marks the 69th anniversary of the German invasion of Poland that started World War II in Europe. Perhaps the EU could have waited until the 16th, the 69th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland. But I think the EU should have released their statement earlier, on 28 August, to commemorate the Munich Conference. This was the conference where the West, lead by the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, appeased away Czechoslovakia’s freedom to avoid any possible conflict with Adolf Hitler.
It’s no wonder that the eastern members of the EU were the ones most interested in passing some kind of meaningful sanctions against Russia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiiw85psm-Q; http://www.president.pl/x.node?id=20043119). After all, they have experience in being sold out by the West to Russian aggression. They certainly remember the Soviet’s imperialism following World War Two.
Appeasement is a discredited policy. Knowing this, President Nicolas Sarkozy’s and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s actions are motivated by craven cowardice. Georgia is learning that treaties and promises are meaningless without the will to enforce them. As already demonstrated in the former Yugoslavia, the EU lacks the will to enforce collective security. It is as emasculated as the League of Nations. Without the will to project its force in issues crucial to its very existence – such as, for example, freedom – one must question the legitimacy of the EU itself.
Perhaps “national self-determination” has become passé for the Eurocracy. Perhaps the sufferings of people in one “country” (now considered an outmoded construct in our post-modern world) are of little concern for the greater good (for a truly pathetic assessment of the glories and qualities of the post-modern world, including “The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of self-enforced rules of behavior,” and “Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability,” see Robert Cooper, “The Post Modern State,” http://fpc.org.uk/articles/169).
Or, perhaps the Eurocrats’ post-modernism is just a cover for cowardice. I think the latter.
It’s no wonder that the eastern members of the EU were the ones most interested in passing some kind of meaningful sanctions against Russia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiiw85psm-Q; http://www.president.pl/x.node?id=20043119). After all, they have experience in being sold out by the West to Russian aggression. They certainly remember the Soviet’s imperialism following World War Two.
Appeasement is a discredited policy. Knowing this, President Nicolas Sarkozy’s and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s actions are motivated by craven cowardice. Georgia is learning that treaties and promises are meaningless without the will to enforce them. As already demonstrated in the former Yugoslavia, the EU lacks the will to enforce collective security. It is as emasculated as the League of Nations. Without the will to project its force in issues crucial to its very existence – such as, for example, freedom – one must question the legitimacy of the EU itself.
Perhaps “national self-determination” has become passé for the Eurocracy. Perhaps the sufferings of people in one “country” (now considered an outmoded construct in our post-modern world) are of little concern for the greater good (for a truly pathetic assessment of the glories and qualities of the post-modern world, including “The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of self-enforced rules of behavior,” and “Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability,” see Robert Cooper, “The Post Modern State,” http://fpc.org.uk/articles/169).
Or, perhaps the Eurocrats’ post-modernism is just a cover for cowardice. I think the latter.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Organized Labor is Run by Idiots
I’ve been a Democrat for about 30 years. When I was a kid growing up outside Pittsburgh, just about everybody was a Democrat. Most parents were working class. Some were farmers, others worked in the mines, and some worked in the steel (pronounced “still”) mills. Even those parents who were in management had grown up working class (like my father who was raised on a farm). Most of the families in my neighborhood were second- or third-generation Americans from places like Germany, Italy, Ireland, or Poland. We thought of ourselves as Americans. Most of the people in my neighborhood were Catholics. In other words, we were the bedrock of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, in the late-60s and early-70s, the Democratic Party was taken over by middle-class, college-educated elitists. Their goals and, more importantly, their attitudes toward the traditional values of the Democratic Party were very different. This observation is nothing new. The “Reagan Democrats” were the traditional Democrats who felt abandoned and ostracized by their Party. The working class was now seen as some kind of “noble savages” or just idiots because they didn’t know what was good for them. Thank the Mother Goddess that new, better (used in a moral sense) educated individuals knew what was best for the rest of us idiots (See, for example, David Brooks, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There).
Through it all, the leaders of organized labor have steadfastly remained loyal to a political party that takes them for granted. I remember at the North American Labor History Conference in 1994 the big news was that the Clinton Administration had promised organized labor the 4-day work week. Still waiting. Democratic presidential hopeful, Barrack Obama, has promised organized labor that his administration will opt out of (if not actually repeal) NAFTA (then again, maybe he wouldn’t: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227/) This is another shibboleth. NAFTA doesn’t cause the loss of nearly as many jobs as does businesses like Wal-Mart buying more and more goods from China. The US opting out of NAFTA would be like Germany opting out of the EU – and just as likely to happen.
The most glaring example of the Democratic Party taking organized labor for granted is the Party’s continuing support for the same level of corporate welfare favored by the Republican Party – welfare for corporations but not for individuals. Take, for example Kmart’s bankruptcy. This was one of the largest bankruptcies in history. Kmart emerged from this debacle by screwing their workers and private stockholders. Over 37,000 workers lost their jobs while Kmart restructured (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2658539.stm). Despite this widespread suffering, Julian Day, who engineered this restructuring, received a $1 million bonus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2968785.stm). And while private stockholders had to eat their losses, banks and bondholders were taken care of. How did emerging from bankruptcy on the backs of workers and individual shareholders work out for Kmart? Apparently, remarkably well, because, within less than a year, Kmart was able to buy one of its competitors, Sears, for around $11 billion (when you’re talking billions, it’s hard to be precise). Eleven billion bucks is a lot of money for a recently bankrupt company to come up with. One of the ways the company did this was, no surprise, on the backs of its workers and former workers. Sears retirees, many of whom had worked for years for the company, now found themselves without health benefits (ht to http://politicalman.blog-city.com for this information). The Democratic National Committee, the defenders of labor, did nothing to stop this egregious form of corporate welfare.
In a similar vein, General Motors recently balanced their books on the backs of their former salaried workers by taking away their health benefits (ht to http://politicalman.blog-city.com for this information) (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/BUSINESS01/80715107/1118/rss). How long will it be before they do the same for hourly retirees?
Even if you accept the limited definition of “corporate welfare” advocated by the Cato Institute, the government was spending $75 billion on these benefits – and that was in 1996 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html). In 2000, Ralph Nader, in one of his more lucid moments, laid out an impressive list of abuses by both Parties on the backs of the American consumers (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWelfare_Nader.html). For example, Nader argues that the S&L bailout was “Perhaps still the largest corporate welfare expenditure of all time” and was the result of the cooperation between both Democrats and Republicans. Of course, at the time, he never suspected the debacle of the Mortgage Bailout. While the act proposes $300 billion for the FHA to help save the banks at the expense of taxpayers, an editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer points out that there may be $1-2 trillion in bad loans (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/373835_Housinged.html). It’s a safe bet that the taxpayers will eventually bear this cost. Instead of defending 95 per cent of taxpayers who are making their mortgage payments on time, including the majority of the working class, the Democrats have chosen to support their financial supporters. Maybe we can count on Congress to stop shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to big business. Or, maybe this will be Congress’ response: http://comics.com/wash/opus/archive/opus-20080727.html.
The leadership of organized labor must stop using the workers as the whipping boys of the Democratic National Committee. They need to stop being taken for granted. I would not urge the creation of a Labor Party in the US because it’s not necessary. Both political parties are simply a loose coalition of interest groups. One or more of these groups periodically attain a dominant position within the party. Thus, for example, Evangelical Christians have an influence in the RNC greater than their numbers within the Party. Likewise, pro-abortionists have a similarly disproportionate influence within the DNC thanks to NARAL. And this points out why these groups have so much influence – they are organized. It’s time for trade union leaders to start throwing their organization around. They should sell their votes to the highest bidder. If the parties are just loose alliances of interest groups, the trade unions must look at themselves as just one of these interest groups. If they want to really protect workers they must seek to influence one of the two parties – it really doesn’t matter which one because there isn’t a great deal of difference between the two (http://aspatula.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-might-be-paranoid-but-i-might-not.html). If the Sen. Obama wins the presidency and then screws labor the same way Clinton did, then the leadership should investigate what the Republicans have to offer. Remaining loyal to a party that is not loyal to you is idiocy.
Unfortunately, in the late-60s and early-70s, the Democratic Party was taken over by middle-class, college-educated elitists. Their goals and, more importantly, their attitudes toward the traditional values of the Democratic Party were very different. This observation is nothing new. The “Reagan Democrats” were the traditional Democrats who felt abandoned and ostracized by their Party. The working class was now seen as some kind of “noble savages” or just idiots because they didn’t know what was good for them. Thank the Mother Goddess that new, better (used in a moral sense) educated individuals knew what was best for the rest of us idiots (See, for example, David Brooks, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There).
Through it all, the leaders of organized labor have steadfastly remained loyal to a political party that takes them for granted. I remember at the North American Labor History Conference in 1994 the big news was that the Clinton Administration had promised organized labor the 4-day work week. Still waiting. Democratic presidential hopeful, Barrack Obama, has promised organized labor that his administration will opt out of (if not actually repeal) NAFTA (then again, maybe he wouldn’t: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227/) This is another shibboleth. NAFTA doesn’t cause the loss of nearly as many jobs as does businesses like Wal-Mart buying more and more goods from China. The US opting out of NAFTA would be like Germany opting out of the EU – and just as likely to happen.
The most glaring example of the Democratic Party taking organized labor for granted is the Party’s continuing support for the same level of corporate welfare favored by the Republican Party – welfare for corporations but not for individuals. Take, for example Kmart’s bankruptcy. This was one of the largest bankruptcies in history. Kmart emerged from this debacle by screwing their workers and private stockholders. Over 37,000 workers lost their jobs while Kmart restructured (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2658539.stm). Despite this widespread suffering, Julian Day, who engineered this restructuring, received a $1 million bonus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2968785.stm). And while private stockholders had to eat their losses, banks and bondholders were taken care of. How did emerging from bankruptcy on the backs of workers and individual shareholders work out for Kmart? Apparently, remarkably well, because, within less than a year, Kmart was able to buy one of its competitors, Sears, for around $11 billion (when you’re talking billions, it’s hard to be precise). Eleven billion bucks is a lot of money for a recently bankrupt company to come up with. One of the ways the company did this was, no surprise, on the backs of its workers and former workers. Sears retirees, many of whom had worked for years for the company, now found themselves without health benefits (ht to http://politicalman.blog-city.com for this information). The Democratic National Committee, the defenders of labor, did nothing to stop this egregious form of corporate welfare.
In a similar vein, General Motors recently balanced their books on the backs of their former salaried workers by taking away their health benefits (ht to http://politicalman.blog-city.com for this information) (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/BUSINESS01/80715107/1118/rss). How long will it be before they do the same for hourly retirees?
Even if you accept the limited definition of “corporate welfare” advocated by the Cato Institute, the government was spending $75 billion on these benefits – and that was in 1996 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html). In 2000, Ralph Nader, in one of his more lucid moments, laid out an impressive list of abuses by both Parties on the backs of the American consumers (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWelfare_Nader.html). For example, Nader argues that the S&L bailout was “Perhaps still the largest corporate welfare expenditure of all time” and was the result of the cooperation between both Democrats and Republicans. Of course, at the time, he never suspected the debacle of the Mortgage Bailout. While the act proposes $300 billion for the FHA to help save the banks at the expense of taxpayers, an editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer points out that there may be $1-2 trillion in bad loans (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/373835_Housinged.html). It’s a safe bet that the taxpayers will eventually bear this cost. Instead of defending 95 per cent of taxpayers who are making their mortgage payments on time, including the majority of the working class, the Democrats have chosen to support their financial supporters. Maybe we can count on Congress to stop shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to big business. Or, maybe this will be Congress’ response: http://comics.com/wash/opus/archive/opus-20080727.html.
The leadership of organized labor must stop using the workers as the whipping boys of the Democratic National Committee. They need to stop being taken for granted. I would not urge the creation of a Labor Party in the US because it’s not necessary. Both political parties are simply a loose coalition of interest groups. One or more of these groups periodically attain a dominant position within the party. Thus, for example, Evangelical Christians have an influence in the RNC greater than their numbers within the Party. Likewise, pro-abortionists have a similarly disproportionate influence within the DNC thanks to NARAL. And this points out why these groups have so much influence – they are organized. It’s time for trade union leaders to start throwing their organization around. They should sell their votes to the highest bidder. If the parties are just loose alliances of interest groups, the trade unions must look at themselves as just one of these interest groups. If they want to really protect workers they must seek to influence one of the two parties – it really doesn’t matter which one because there isn’t a great deal of difference between the two (http://aspatula.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-might-be-paranoid-but-i-might-not.html). If the Sen. Obama wins the presidency and then screws labor the same way Clinton did, then the leadership should investigate what the Republicans have to offer. Remaining loyal to a party that is not loyal to you is idiocy.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
China's Olympics
We should give them the Olympics. If they are on the world’s center stage, they will settle down and join the world community. They will act with more restraint and be more cooperative. Further, they will know that we have moved on and put past animosities behind us. They need not worry about our intentions towards them, and, as a result, they will cease their massive rearmaments and attempts to destabilize governments throughout the world.
And look. Our efforts must be working, for they have significantly reduced (perhaps eliminated, oh we hop e so) their persecutions of religious and ethnic minorities. Yes, clearly, giving them the Olympics has worked beyond our wildest dreams. Surely, we will now enjoy peace and, more importantly, prosperity, in our time.
These are the sentiments expressed by many today. They are the same sentiments expressed by the same sorts of folks in 1936 during the Nazi Olympics. And we know how that turned out for everybody concerned.
If you’re watching the Olympics (I’m not), enjoy China’s Nazi Olympics. The slave laborers in their prisons (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DF163FF933A0575AC0A967958260; http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16577), their persecuted ethnic and religious minorities (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/xinjiang.htm; http://cecc.gov/pages/hearings/2008/20080618/fu.php), and the oppressed Tibetans (http://www.freetibet.org; http://www.tibet.com) won’t share your enjoyment.
And look. Our efforts must be working, for they have significantly reduced (perhaps eliminated, oh we hop e so) their persecutions of religious and ethnic minorities. Yes, clearly, giving them the Olympics has worked beyond our wildest dreams. Surely, we will now enjoy peace and, more importantly, prosperity, in our time.
These are the sentiments expressed by many today. They are the same sentiments expressed by the same sorts of folks in 1936 during the Nazi Olympics. And we know how that turned out for everybody concerned.
If you’re watching the Olympics (I’m not), enjoy China’s Nazi Olympics. The slave laborers in their prisons (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DF163FF933A0575AC0A967958260; http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16577), their persecuted ethnic and religious minorities (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/xinjiang.htm; http://cecc.gov/pages/hearings/2008/20080618/fu.php), and the oppressed Tibetans (http://www.freetibet.org; http://www.tibet.com) won’t share your enjoyment.
Friday, July 4, 2008
I Might Be Paranoid But I Might Not
Throughout time, humans have willingly given up freedom for what they perceive to be security. Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it more eloquently, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” The trouble is that freedom is always taken. Either we take freedom for ourselves, or we let others take our freedom from us.
The erosion of our freedoms began in 1960 when, during his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy stated, “… ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” While he meant that we should be more active citizens, its unintended meaning is fundamentally unconstitutional, that is, the notion that we exist to serve the state. We’ve lost sight of what John Locke taught us long ago when he argued that government is not our master, rather it is our servant. Since the 1970s our freedoms have not been legislated away so much as they’ve been bureaucratized away. Elected officials aren’t taking our freedoms from us at nearly the rate that the bureaucracy is. This is fundamentally unconstitutional. Individuals we did not elect are making dramatic decisions that take away our freedoms – and we are just letting them. Neither political party is interested in stopping this encroachment.
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, there were calls for federal identification cards. There was actually enough hue and cry over this affront to personal liberty that the plan initially fell through. However, the passport requirements and the enhanced driver’s licenses are the first step towards mandatory federal id’s.
H.R. 10 “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” which was passed on 8 October 2004 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00010 contains some truly frightening infringements on our personal freedom. The most Orwellian part of the law under “Subtitle G – Protection of United States Aviation System From Terrorist Attacks,” contains “Section 2171. Provision for the Use of Biometric or Other Technology,” which calls for the creation of a system that can automatically analyze “the distinct physical or behavioral characteristics that are used for identification.” First, think about how much the government would need to know about you to identify you by your behavior. Secondly, such an automated system would be based on photographic analysis. Look around your town or city; how many closed-circuit “security” cameras are now in service for your protection? One of these cameras taped a truck that caused an accident that involved one of my daughters. After the driver of the truck fled the scene, the Tuscaloosa police said they were not able to use the information on the camera to determine his license plate number (despite having three of the seven digits thanks to a concerned citizen). I assume the new biometric system similarly would be used only against “undesirables” and not those who are part of the elite structure.
One of the central features of the Act appears to be simply annoying, that is, the proviso that all US citizens entering the country must now carry a passport even when entering Canada and Mexico which we never had to do before. These are our two partners in NAFTA. Compare this to the European Union, which, in a historic step, dropped the requirement for EU citizens to carry their passports between members states. However, there are far more troubling aspects of this law than inconvenience. First, “Section 3001. Eliminating the `Western Hemisphere’ Exception for Citizens,” paragraph 5 contains the idea that only the Secretary of Homeland Security can determine what documents might be substituted for the passport. That is, an appointed bureaucrat, not an elected representative (not even the president), has the power to determine what identification papers we must carry. A further paragraph in the same section tells the US citizens exactly who is in charge of them – a bureaucrat:
“( (2) LIMITATION ON PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY- Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the publication described in paragraph (1)(B), the President, notwithstanding section 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1185(b)), may not exercise the President's authority under such section so as to permit any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States from any country other than foreign contiguous territory, unless the citizen bears a document (or combination of documents) designated under paragraph (1)(A).
( (3) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- A document may not be designated under paragraph (1)(A) (whether alone or in combination with other documents) unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the document--
( (A) may be relied upon for the purposes of this subsection; and
( (B) may not be issued to an alien unlawfully present in the United States”
The law gives a bureaucrat the right to limit the authority of the president of the United States.
If you think requiring a passport for US citizens traveling to Canada or Mexico is keeping us safe from terrorists, then you’re a certifiable idiot. Terrorists can get faked passports or simply cross the borders without ones. The only reason we have this absurd law is for the government to keep more control and closer tabs on their own citizens. I don’t believe the government is out to get me. As I’ve told those who actually believe the government is out to get them personally, the real horror is that the government doesn’t give a damn about them as an individual.
“Subtitle B--Identity Management Security, Chapter 1--Improved Security for Drivers' Licenses and Personal Identification Cards,” carries the germ of the “Real ID Act.” In the sections dealing with the standardization of drivers’ licenses and birth certificates and the creation of national data bases to keep control over these sources of information, authority to enforce the regulations is taken from the states and taken by bureaucrats like the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Homeland Security. The standardized identification cards and data systems were supposed to be supported by grants to the states from the federal government.
The “Real ID Act” (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:) was a rider to “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.” The act was tacked onto an appropriation bill that nobody in his or her right mind would vote against. After all, who would vote against providing aid to our soldiers or the victims of the tsunami of 2005?
A good overview of the Real ID Act is available at http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-Real-ID-will-affect-you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html. Once again, the power to issue and maintain the cards and databases is held by the Secretary of Homeland Security. “Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those [already given to the secretary]. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.”
Opposition to the Real ID Act has created some odd bedfellows. For example, both the Maryland ACLU and the Republican governor of South Carolina eloquently have expressed their opposition to the Act. The ACLU points out that, “The Real ID Act creates an unprecedented national identity card and mandates that states expose the personal and private information of their residents to heightened risks of identity theft and data fraud, has a national price tag in the billions of dollars, and fails to establish real security.” (Remember the times that “secure” databases have been hacked? [http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/obamas_passport_file_hacked.html] or [http://attrition.org/dataloss/]) Further, “The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs.” (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/33952prs20080115.html)
Governor Mark Sanford argues in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, that, because the Real ID Act was a rider on an important appropriations bill, it was never debated. He cogently points out, “As a practical matter, this sensitive subject received far less debate than steroid use in baseball.” Secondly, despite the proviso to fund standardized driver’s licenses in the “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” the Real ID Act is another unfunded bureaucratic mandate. Another point he raises in his letter is the continuing power of the federal bureaucracy to coerce the states and US citizens. In this case, the requirement to carry the national identification card to board an airplane or enter a federal building is coercive. Finally, Stanton, like the Maryland ACLU, points out that there are no limits to what the Secretary of Homeland Security can require on the card or require you have to have your papers. (http://www.scgovernor.com/NR/rdonlyres/8EA29AE1-B84F-443E-B54A-3626FE5DEF57/0/Letterf033108RealIDletterDHS.PDF )
There have been some efforts to repeal the Real ID Act, but these efforts have so far failed in the House of Representatives, for example, http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1117.html. But, all 50 states have been given extensions (whether they asked for the extensions or simply stated their refusal to abide by the bureaucratic diktat) to comply with the mandate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-02-realid_N.htm).
Coercing states to abide by a bureaucratic mandate is nothing new. “The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984,” coerced states into abiding by the rule by threatening to withhold federal highway funding unless they complied. However, there is some slight hope this idiocy might be overcome (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119618.html).
We conflate the two terms “government” and “bureaucracy.” But the government is elected and the bureaucracy is not. Unfortunately, the purpose of the bureaucracy has become to preserve the bureaucracy. (For an amusing take on this absurdity, see this clip from the brilliant BBC comedy, “Yes, Minister” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo). Max Weber must be doing summersaults in his grave. http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/readings/WeberBurform.html#Weber In this country, the elected political leaders of both political parties abdicated their governing role to the bureaucracy when they focused all their attention simply on being re-elected.
In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s, The Brothers Karamazov , the arch-bureaucrat, The Grand Inquisitor, triumphantly declares to Jesus, “In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us: `Make us your slaves, but feed us.’ They will understand at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together. Never, never will they be able to have both together! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious.” When our bureaucrats make regulations to protect us from ourselves, they share the Inquisitor’s view of humanity.
We are reaching a tipping point where we are starting to lose meaningful freedoms. Franklin D. Roosevelt observed, “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.” We should now substitute “bureaucracy” for “government.” We’re idiots if we let the bureaucrats take our freedoms.
The erosion of our freedoms began in 1960 when, during his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy stated, “… ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” While he meant that we should be more active citizens, its unintended meaning is fundamentally unconstitutional, that is, the notion that we exist to serve the state. We’ve lost sight of what John Locke taught us long ago when he argued that government is not our master, rather it is our servant. Since the 1970s our freedoms have not been legislated away so much as they’ve been bureaucratized away. Elected officials aren’t taking our freedoms from us at nearly the rate that the bureaucracy is. This is fundamentally unconstitutional. Individuals we did not elect are making dramatic decisions that take away our freedoms – and we are just letting them. Neither political party is interested in stopping this encroachment.
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, there were calls for federal identification cards. There was actually enough hue and cry over this affront to personal liberty that the plan initially fell through. However, the passport requirements and the enhanced driver’s licenses are the first step towards mandatory federal id’s.
H.R. 10 “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” which was passed on 8 October 2004 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00010 contains some truly frightening infringements on our personal freedom. The most Orwellian part of the law under “Subtitle G – Protection of United States Aviation System From Terrorist Attacks,” contains “Section 2171. Provision for the Use of Biometric or Other Technology,” which calls for the creation of a system that can automatically analyze “the distinct physical or behavioral characteristics that are used for identification.” First, think about how much the government would need to know about you to identify you by your behavior. Secondly, such an automated system would be based on photographic analysis. Look around your town or city; how many closed-circuit “security” cameras are now in service for your protection? One of these cameras taped a truck that caused an accident that involved one of my daughters. After the driver of the truck fled the scene, the Tuscaloosa police said they were not able to use the information on the camera to determine his license plate number (despite having three of the seven digits thanks to a concerned citizen). I assume the new biometric system similarly would be used only against “undesirables” and not those who are part of the elite structure.
One of the central features of the Act appears to be simply annoying, that is, the proviso that all US citizens entering the country must now carry a passport even when entering Canada and Mexico which we never had to do before. These are our two partners in NAFTA. Compare this to the European Union, which, in a historic step, dropped the requirement for EU citizens to carry their passports between members states. However, there are far more troubling aspects of this law than inconvenience. First, “Section 3001. Eliminating the `Western Hemisphere’ Exception for Citizens,” paragraph 5 contains the idea that only the Secretary of Homeland Security can determine what documents might be substituted for the passport. That is, an appointed bureaucrat, not an elected representative (not even the president), has the power to determine what identification papers we must carry. A further paragraph in the same section tells the US citizens exactly who is in charge of them – a bureaucrat:
“( (2) LIMITATION ON PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY- Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the publication described in paragraph (1)(B), the President, notwithstanding section 215(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1185(b)), may not exercise the President's authority under such section so as to permit any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States from any country other than foreign contiguous territory, unless the citizen bears a document (or combination of documents) designated under paragraph (1)(A).
( (3) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- A document may not be designated under paragraph (1)(A) (whether alone or in combination with other documents) unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the document--
( (A) may be relied upon for the purposes of this subsection; and
( (B) may not be issued to an alien unlawfully present in the United States”
The law gives a bureaucrat the right to limit the authority of the president of the United States.
If you think requiring a passport for US citizens traveling to Canada or Mexico is keeping us safe from terrorists, then you’re a certifiable idiot. Terrorists can get faked passports or simply cross the borders without ones. The only reason we have this absurd law is for the government to keep more control and closer tabs on their own citizens. I don’t believe the government is out to get me. As I’ve told those who actually believe the government is out to get them personally, the real horror is that the government doesn’t give a damn about them as an individual.
“Subtitle B--Identity Management Security, Chapter 1--Improved Security for Drivers' Licenses and Personal Identification Cards,” carries the germ of the “Real ID Act.” In the sections dealing with the standardization of drivers’ licenses and birth certificates and the creation of national data bases to keep control over these sources of information, authority to enforce the regulations is taken from the states and taken by bureaucrats like the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Homeland Security. The standardized identification cards and data systems were supposed to be supported by grants to the states from the federal government.
The “Real ID Act” (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:) was a rider to “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.” The act was tacked onto an appropriation bill that nobody in his or her right mind would vote against. After all, who would vote against providing aid to our soldiers or the victims of the tsunami of 2005?
A good overview of the Real ID Act is available at http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-Real-ID-will-affect-you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html. Once again, the power to issue and maintain the cards and databases is held by the Secretary of Homeland Security. “Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those [already given to the secretary]. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.”
Opposition to the Real ID Act has created some odd bedfellows. For example, both the Maryland ACLU and the Republican governor of South Carolina eloquently have expressed their opposition to the Act. The ACLU points out that, “The Real ID Act creates an unprecedented national identity card and mandates that states expose the personal and private information of their residents to heightened risks of identity theft and data fraud, has a national price tag in the billions of dollars, and fails to establish real security.” (Remember the times that “secure” databases have been hacked? [http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/obamas_passport_file_hacked.html] or [http://attrition.org/dataloss/]) Further, “The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs.” (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/33952prs20080115.html)
Governor Mark Sanford argues in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, that, because the Real ID Act was a rider on an important appropriations bill, it was never debated. He cogently points out, “As a practical matter, this sensitive subject received far less debate than steroid use in baseball.” Secondly, despite the proviso to fund standardized driver’s licenses in the “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act” the Real ID Act is another unfunded bureaucratic mandate. Another point he raises in his letter is the continuing power of the federal bureaucracy to coerce the states and US citizens. In this case, the requirement to carry the national identification card to board an airplane or enter a federal building is coercive. Finally, Stanton, like the Maryland ACLU, points out that there are no limits to what the Secretary of Homeland Security can require on the card or require you have to have your papers. (http://www.scgovernor.com/NR/rdonlyres/8EA29AE1-B84F-443E-B54A-3626FE5DEF57/0/Letterf033108RealIDletterDHS.PDF )
There have been some efforts to repeal the Real ID Act, but these efforts have so far failed in the House of Representatives, for example, http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1117.html. But, all 50 states have been given extensions (whether they asked for the extensions or simply stated their refusal to abide by the bureaucratic diktat) to comply with the mandate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-02-realid_N.htm).
Coercing states to abide by a bureaucratic mandate is nothing new. “The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984,” coerced states into abiding by the rule by threatening to withhold federal highway funding unless they complied. However, there is some slight hope this idiocy might be overcome (http://www.reason.com/news/show/119618.html).
We conflate the two terms “government” and “bureaucracy.” But the government is elected and the bureaucracy is not. Unfortunately, the purpose of the bureaucracy has become to preserve the bureaucracy. (For an amusing take on this absurdity, see this clip from the brilliant BBC comedy, “Yes, Minister” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo). Max Weber must be doing summersaults in his grave. http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/TheoryWeb/readings/WeberBurform.html#Weber In this country, the elected political leaders of both political parties abdicated their governing role to the bureaucracy when they focused all their attention simply on being re-elected.
In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s, The Brothers Karamazov , the arch-bureaucrat, The Grand Inquisitor, triumphantly declares to Jesus, “In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us: `Make us your slaves, but feed us.’ They will understand at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together. Never, never will they be able to have both together! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious.” When our bureaucrats make regulations to protect us from ourselves, they share the Inquisitor’s view of humanity.
We are reaching a tipping point where we are starting to lose meaningful freedoms. Franklin D. Roosevelt observed, “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.” We should now substitute “bureaucracy” for “government.” We’re idiots if we let the bureaucrats take our freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
