Deep Thought

Just in case you don't know how the conservative money machine works, the American Conservative Union got caught in the shakedown in a legislative dispute between FedEx and UPS.

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”

The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO...

In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS. Keene did not return a message left on his cell phone.

Now, the whole dispute is about unionization at FEDEX. One would think a conservative group would automatically back Fedex in this disupte just as I automatically back UPS. But it's nice to know that their principles only go as far as they can be bought.

Why shouldn't a judge on the United States Supreme Court use her personal knowlege as gained by life experience as one component of what goes into making decisions?

Conservatives claim to be 'strict constructionists,' regarding the Constitution and claim that judges should relate everything back to it (well, except for the fourth amendment, the fifth if accused of a drug crime and the sixth regarding Jose Padilla, and portions of the first, also not Article 4, Section 1 as relates to marriages performed in New England states.) They blithely preach the Constitutional gospel like it is the answer to all life's questions, even though the founding fathers themselves took pains to make it clear that it only served as a guideline. For example, conservatives love to remind you that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. There doesn't have to be, thanks to the ninth amendment which explicitly states that the fact that a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does NOT construe that there is no such right. It's up to judges then to enumerate what additional rights the ninth amendment refers to and more than 90 years ago they decided that privacy was one of those rights.

Obviously to conservatives though these apparent contradictions of their dogma with the Constitution are mere inconveniences. According to them, Ben Franklin and John Adams must have agreed (and agreed with their view) on medicinal marijuana and funding for English learner classes, it's in there if you look hard enough. And then see what you want to see.

Only problem is, if it was that easy the case wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court in the first place. If the Constitution clearly spelled it out then you wouldn't even need judges at all, just a bubble sheet with questions about the case on it and a computerized flowchart.

The cases that the SCOTUS even accepts have been appealed all the way up through the process precisely because there are often contradictory Constitutional provisions, clauses or amendment which can be construed as favorable to either side. In other cases there is simply no Constitutional precedent at all.

In these cases, why isn't it apropos for a judge to use all sources available to arrive at a decision, including her own experiences? The Constitution may not provide a clear enough answer to a problem that was not even conceived of two centuries ago, and in that case the judge has to have something to go on, be it her own judgements, international law or whatever else. So why make it a bad thing to use her best judgement?

Labels: judicial activism, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court

Lost in all the discussion about how Sarah Palin's resignation will affect her future and her feud with a nineteen year old stud (how many 45 year old politicians get dragged into public spats with a teenager anyway), is the disaster she has been as Governor of the 'last frontier.' But today a story is out that is a prime example of how things have been going up there: Feds suspend Alaska's in-home health care programs.

ANCHORAGE — State programs intended to help disabled and elderly Alaskans with daily life — taking a bath, eating dinner, getting to the bathroom — are so poorly managed, the state cannot assure the health and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve, a new federal review found.

The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements.

No other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

My question is this: what exactly has she done competently since she's been in Government? Anything? And this is who some conservatives want for President? Man, if she ever becomes President there may even be some people who will miss Dubya, that's how bad she is.

Labels: Alaska, incomptence, Sarah Palin

Maybe the legislature didn't get a budget done that could pass muster, but it's nice to know that as the time crunch came, they were working hard on these kinds of bills:

Authorized seven new special license plates, including one for fans of the Arizona Cardinals (HB 2222; signed by Jan Brewer.)

Legalized sparklers and small fireworks in Arizona. There is a minimum age of sixteen to buy fireworks but no minimum age for their use, so I'm sure that people living in areas with a high fire risk will be thrilled to know that their neighbor's sixteen year old can now buy fireworks and give them to the five year olds to go keep themselves entertained (HB 2258.) AND, just to put the double whammy on this one they also passed SB 1421, which limits the amount by which local districts (including fire districts) can raise their levy to cover new expenses (oh, like let's see-- maybe the cost of putting out a bunch of new fire calls caused by children playing with fireworks.) The Governor has not yet signed or vetoed either HB 2258 or SB 1421 but what I hear is that she will probably sign them. I bet the few cents you might save on your fire district tax won't cover the amount your homeowners insurance will increase by.

Prevented cities, counties and other jurisdictions from removing political campaign signs along roads or otherwise in public right of ways (SB 1022 following a strike-all amendment.) Nice to know they're looking out for themselves. No word on whether the Governor will sign this one or not.

Religion in the schools. Allows students to use religion as a basis for their classwork, for example they can submit an essay saying that the earth is 6000 years old and receive full credit if they claim it is based on a religious viewpoint. Schools also can't ban students from wearing clothing with a religious symbol or message. (HB 2357; I'm taking bets on how long it takes before this backfires on conservatives and they get irrational when female Islamic students actually take advantage of this bill and start wearing a head scarf or a burqa to school.)

Recognizing July 25 as the national day of the cowboy (SR 1003).

Well, you can always cry in your beer. They did double the production limit for microbreweries (HB 2301; signed by jan..... brewer.)

Labels: Arizona legislature, fireworks, Jan Brewer, stupid legislation

I hadn't posted on this story, largely because so many other Arizona blogs have done a very good job of coverage, but now that it's gone national, I'd mention that in Keith Olbermann's countdown on July 8 he names our own state Senator from here in Navajo County, Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-ignoramus) as the 'worst person in the world.'

watch Olbermann naming Allen.


The original remark by Allen is here:



The whole issue started when Senator Allen was speaking on the senate floor in favor of uranium mining. She was against environmental restrictions and she said that because the earth has been here 6,000 years, long before environmental laws but we haven't damaged it yet by mining uranium there was no need to be concerned about environmental restrictions. After she made the 6,000 year comment someone (apparently someone who realized what she'd just said) tried to cut her off. Instead they only interrupted her train of thought so she started again with repeating the six thousand year thing.

What is most amazing is the way she said it. When for example a Mike Huckabee or a Sarah Palin say something like that they emphasize it, which to me makes it clear that they know that what they are saying isn't true and they are only chucking that in there to appeal to the fundamentalist crowd. But the way senator Allen says it makes it pretty plain that she believes that as a matter of course it simply is; sort of like if you or I began a sentence with, "The sun rises..."

Even leaving the 6,000 years aside, the fact that she also believes that there was no environmental damage before there were environmental laws and that uranium mining doesn't hurt the environment is also breathtaking in the level of ignorance that it displays. There is a good reason why they want to mine uranium now in the area around the Vermillion cliffs and the Grand Canyon. It's because in the place where they used to mine it, on the Navajo reservation, Navajo Nation president Joe Shirley has banned any more uranium mining. Maybe she should visit the reservation or have lunch with president Shirley (who four years ago passed up a lot of government and private money when he refused to allow uranium mining to begin again on the reservation.) There are still dangerously radioactive (as well as chemically hazardous) tailings piles on the reservation from the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's when uranium was mined there. That's besides the thousands of Navajos who worked in the mines or lived near them who have become sick and died over the decades from diseases, especially cancers very probably caused by exposure to uranium dust. Joe Shirley is a Leader (yes, that's with a capital 'L') who puts the welfare of his people first, something that is unfortunately a rare commodity in our state.

Our district, legislative district 5, abuts but does not extend onto the reservation. In fact, Senator Allen voted for the June 4 budget (the package which was transmitted to the Governor just in time for her veto on June 30, which is why we now have the special session.) The budget cut a great deal from rural hospitals and other institutions, so much so that our Republican state representative, Bill Konopnicki crossed party lines to vote against it. I pointed this out in a letter to the Holbrook Tribune. Senator Allen (who I had emailed several times before to express my opinion on issues) emailed me back saying she was annoyed at the letter. She disputed portions of it, but I know very well what was in that budget and the truth is she voted to gut healthcare and schools in her own district, and apparently doesn't know that she did vote for that.

Senator Allen was not originally elected to the position, but rather she was appointed by our county commission following the death of the incumbent (thanks, guys.) I will give my own commissioner, J.R. DeSpain, credit for opposing her, but he lost a 4-1 vote. It is true that state law required that they appoint a Republican to the position (since Jake Flake, the guy who died was a Republican) but you would think they would at least look for a Republican who knows the earth was here already before civilization began. There are some, you know. Heck Konopnicki was known to be interested in the position and as the state representative and a member of the same party he would have been the logical choice to run.

Maybe it is clear that senator Allen went to schools here in Arizona. After decades of Republican control of the legislature (even in the rare terms when there is a Democratic Governor) and starving the schools, it seems that the scariest part of having our kids taught in an underfunded educational system is that one day they grow up and take what they've learned in school to the legislature.

Labels: environmental protection, Keith Olbermann, president Joe Shirley, senator Sylvia Allen, uranium mining

Remember back when Democrats had to just about sell out the barn to get three Republican stimulus votes?

The bill was trimmed substantially, from over $900 billion to its final pricetag of $787 billion.

Still a lot of money but even then a lot of economists predicted it would not be enough.

Well, if it isn't then the problem is not even so much the amount of the money as the way what was left was structured. The stated purpose of the bill was to create jobs but what was left does not do that.

Start with the fact that 42% of the stimulus is in the form of tax cuts. At best, tax cuts might be spent to create jobs but in the present environment the chances are than anyone who can afford to save their tax cut money is probably doing exactly that; spending it on job creation is just too risky right now. It would have been far better for the Government to spend the money up front than handing it out in tax cuts.

Most of the rest of it is going to state and local governments which have been using it to shore up their budget holes. That might prevent more layoffs of state workers but again, this isn't really creating a lot of jobs.

What is missing is the direct spending by the Government to hire new workers. Remember all the 'shovel ready projects?' For example, in order to get her support Senator Susan Collins of Maine made them take out every dime that had been in the stimulus for school construction. It's not like there isn't a need for school construction, there is. And right now there are plenty of Americans ready to do it. But in order to garner the votes of a handful of Republicans the portions of the bill most directly related to job creation were removed.

Now, I understand that this is the way Govenrment works (even more so given that at the time the administration had to have at least two Republican Senators or they couldn't have passed any kind of a bill.) However for Republicans to complain about the slow pace of job creation when it was Republicans who in effect structured it that way is at best hypocrisy.

Labels: stimulus bill, Susan Collins

Right after the September 11 terrorist attacks, news outlets reported that it was the first attack on the continental United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) since the War of 1812. They said it was a new phenomenon: a foreign leader who hid in another country from which he had effectively declared war on the United States. When they said that they showed their ignorance of American history, and in matters of foreign policy ignorance of history is a very dangerous thing. There is a saying that those who do not study and learn the lessons of history will repeat it, meaning that they will not recognize a situation they are confronted with and will repeat the mistakes that were made by their forbears. And so it seems to be today, in terms of our war in Afghanistan and our pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

Let's go back to March 9, 1916. Foreign invaders attacked the United States. They first attacked the 13th Cavalry regiment of the United States Army, seizing over 100 horses and mules, then stormed into the town of Columbus, New Mexico, burning much of the town and killing two dozen people (both soldiers and civilians,) some of whom were shot in the head, execution-style.

The attackers came from Mexico and were led by Francisco "Pancho" Villa, already a notorious revolutionary. Villa, despite being pursued by U.S. troops still found time to cross the border again and attack the town of Glen Springs, Texas on May 15 of that year, killing one more American.

Because there were then still Mexicans alive who remembered the Mexican War with the United States (1845-1848) Villa's raid was cheered across Mexico.

This was the first attack by a foreign attacker upon United States territory since the War of 1812 and it prompted an immediate angry reaction from the United States. General "Black Jack" Pershing led 10,000 American troops into Mexico in pursuit of Villa. Their stated goal was to pursue Villa 'to the ends of the earth' if necessary, and either kill him or bring him back to face a court of justice. They had some success with disrupting and damaging Villa's organization (in fact, a young Lieutenant named George S. Patton is credited with killing Julio Cárdenas, one of Villa's top commanders.)

However, Pershing's expedition marched 2,000 miles through Mexico and while they did engage Villistas (and occasionally other Mexican revolutionaries) they never caught up with the man himself. Pershing later admitted to having been "outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." In short, the Pershing expedition was a failure that did more to strengthen Villa by raising his popularity than it did to hurt his military capability.

The expedition eventually ended in January, 1917. The United States was well aware that Villa was still lurking someplace in Mexico and border security was beefed up. Pershing and his troops were soon after on a ship to Europe to fight the Kaiser's army (with more success than they had against Villa, I might add.)

Villa had been celebrated as a hero across all Mexico at the time, as Mexicans were more than happy to see him giving the proverbial finger to the United States. However when Pershing left, Villa was back to just being Villa. And Villa had left a wide trail of bodies all over Mexico as well and made a lot of enemies. So it is not so surprising that a few years later, on July 20, 1923, someone ambushed Villa while he was driving his car and riddled him with bullets. The Federales, Mexican police, claim it was them but many sources suggest they just showed up to take pictures. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Let's fast forward to the present. On September 11, 2001, we saw the second organized foreign attack on U.S. territory since Villa and the first since World War II.

Americans were outraged and the country rallied together in support of a war in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban rulers of the country and their al-Qaeda allies, and either kill or capture Osama bin Laden.

Although I almost never support war, believing it should be a last resort, I felt then that the Afghan war was necessary.

I also felt (like many others, and expressed very directly by Al Gore in the summer of 2002) that we should finish the job instead of putting it on the back burner to go fight another war. However, whatever one may think of Iraq what is done is done and we are now back fighting in Afghanistan.

Much has changed however. Far from being on the offensive, we have become primarily tied down to defending the cities and a few military bases. Our 'support' rests with the popularity of a government that few people outside the capital support or even acknowlege. International borders (especially that between Afghanistan and Pakistan) are either ignored by the enemy or used as a 'terrain feature' by them to their advantage. Recently we have been looking for another way to send supplies to Afghanistan because we can't even guarantee our own supply convoys in terrain that is so mountainous, craggy and rocky that the enemy can literally advance to within a few yards undetected. And, they blend into the civilian population giving our troops the unpalatable choice between sitting and waiting for them to attack us before we can respond or shooting at people who very well may in fact be civilians. In short, we have become the Soviet Union. Ironically, Russia recently answered our call for another land-based supply route and negotiated with other former Soviet republics to allow us to use the same supply routes in from the north that they used to use. One wonders whether this gesture from Putin and Medvedev was made from good will or with a sly grin, because they know very well how vulnerable those other routes are, and can't wait to see us fighting the same war they fought and lost.

Into this situation we have dumped thousands more troops. I wish them success, but I am not optimistic that we will achieve it. There was indeed a window to finish off the Taliban in Afghanistan (and maybe get bin Laden) but that window has long since been closed. A nascent antiwar movement, rethinkafghanistan.com has recognized this too and is calling on American soldiers to be withdrawn from Afghanistan if the present offensive in Helmand does not achieve its objectives and help stabilize the country.

But if we leave won't bin Laden again be a threat to attack the United States?

Yes, he will. But staying there doesn't guarantee that he won't. Further even if we leave there is no reason we can't continue to hunt for him via collection of intelligence, covert operations and the use of unmanned aircraft.

At this point, I would suggest that as long as we stay we are probably helping him hide. He is still fairly popular among the Pashtun, the tribe that is most strongly identified with the Taliban, and among some other Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Being pursued by the United States gives him the equivalent of a 'get out of jail free' card with many of the locals who don't want to make trouble for the man who is still throwing a finger at America. But if we leave he will have the same problem that Villa did-- he's left a wide trail of bodies (including Afghan, Pakistani and muslim bodies) that he will have to answer for, and sooner or later one of his local enemies will catch up to him, just as they did to Pancho Villa.

Labels: Afghanistan, Black Jack Pershing, Osama bin Laden, Pancho Villa