The Right's Newfound Fear of Executive Orders.

If you still listen to conservative talk radio (despite its rapidly decreasing relevance in the American political scene), you've probably noticed that guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage are beside themselves in the wake of the Democratic takeover of the federal government. This is all easy to understand when you consider how far and how fast the GOP has fallen since the election of 2006. It's difficult to believe that the Republican Party had attained a complete consolidation of national power as recently as little more than three years ago. Things have definitely changed, and many pundits are having difficulty making the proper adjustments. That may be a shame for their followers, but it can also be quite entertaining.

One topic of intense consternation on the extreme Right is the presidential power of executive order. Obviously, while George W. Bush presided, uber-conservatives were only too happy to welcome his heavy-handed governance, and Cheney's construction of "the unitary executive". This approach made the Bush administration one of the most overreaching political bodies in modern American history. With the complicity of much of the media, Bush and company were able to reign almost completely unchallenged in Washington. And indeed, much of their agenda was prosecuted via executive order. Obviously this category of proclamation that carries the force of law is an important tool in the presidential arsenal.

Regardless of your interpretation of the legitimacy of Bush/Cheney, there can be no arguing that they fully embraced the concept of ruling by fiat. For a complete list of executive orders passed from 2001-08 (broken down by category), you can consult this site. If that math is correct, Dubya issued 284 executive orders during his eight years in office. He put out eight in the first month of his first term. Even more telling, he wrote five during his last working week as the president. Of course this accounting doesn't apply to the other directives and signing statements he made while occupying the Oval Office. For guys like Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity to bitch about Obama's activity so far is laughable.

Obama's critics are frothing at their collective mouth because they know he is a formidable leader who will actively work to undo a lot of the damage of his predecessor. It's especially amusing to see them try to hide their assaults under the banner of concern for the US Constitution. But when they hyperventilate about the "unprecedented" total of Obama's executive orders (I count five on the official White House site), they rarely if ever get into the details of their opposition. Do you have any idea what type of policy that Obama is trying to execute with his directives? You certainly don't if you listen to Conservative hack radio. They'd rather try to frighten with lies than enlighten with facts.

Let me provide a quick breakdown so far, Three of our President's executive orders fall under the banner of defense policy objectives. He is closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (1). He is setting up new standards and practices for the interrogation of detainees in US custody (2), and he is establishing a Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition (3). Furthermore he has sought to hold executive branch appointees to certain new ethical requirements (4) and established a policy to make Presidential records more accessible (5). Make a quick analysis of this list and tell me which of these E.O.'s present a danger to our rights under the US Constitution...

Who Put That Summum in My Backyard?

Christians are feeling harassed nowadays. At every turn they are facing persecution, denial, and even hostility. Their religion is on the brink of irrelevance, and the historical role it has played in American history is being ignored. So say the loudest among the 77% of the nation that self-identify as Christians. Frankly, this is a refrain I'm losing patience with. For someone with roots within the religion, but a lifestyle in which that heritage takes a background role, the constant whining is starting to grate. The reality is that it's difficult to go an entire day without running into a series of "God's messages"- along the road, through traditional media, and even in the workplace. But for some adherents, too much will never be enough.

One more in a string of controversies over this issue is playing itself out in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, and in the US Supreme Court. Within that small community lies Rose Garden Park, which has been home to a sculpture featuring the Ten Commandments since 1971. In 2003 a group of believers from the Summum religion donated a statue containing "The Seven Aphorisms" (which contain the tenets of their faith) to Pleasant Grove with the intention of having it displayed alongside the other works at the park. Unfortunately for the faithful, the mayor and the other town fathers rejected the gift. But when the Summum group brought the matter to the courts, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor.

At issue was the characterization of private speech in the public sphere. If the Judeo-Christian message of proscription is private, then those who decided to display it in Pleasant Grove, and to exclude "The Seven Aphorisms" of Summum, have violated the intent of our Free Speech guarantees. The Appeals Court judged the action to be content-based discrimination. Yet a dissenting judge in that decision claimed that the Ten Commandments sculpture represented "government speech" because the monuments in the park were subject to city control. Somehow the contestants in this case both cite Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, wherein American beef producers sued to defy a congressionally-mandated marketing campaign.

It seems odd to me that the basis of argument in this case is "free speech" rather than "freedom of religion". I have no qualms about saying that the action of the Pleasant Grove municipal leaders has violated the Establishment Clause. If this is (as they contend) "government speech", then they should not be allowed to favor the doctrines of one religion, while discounting those of another, more obscure faith. That seems obvious to me, and in fact this doctrinaire approach was something that our "founding fathers" were trying to escape when they distinguished us from European society. In the years since our promising start, Europe has evolved out of its reliance on religious law, and we have been "Left Behind", so to speak.

There's an inherent danger in prying open our government to the influences of any established religion. Even among Christian sects there are plenty of disparities that distinguish one from another. And there are still millions of citizens who subscribe to other faiths, or forego them altogether. Legal authority should be kept separate from spiritual authority. Objections that Christianity is indelibly connected to our history are beside the point- slavery, genocide, sexism, and exploitation are also tied to our past. If you open the door to one set of faith-based ideas in the public sphere, you must welcome (and even seek out) the balance of alternate views. It simply doesn't matter how odd you find them, or how much you disagree.

What is ACORN and Why do Republicans Hate it?

Now that John McCain's attack ads on Barack Obama's character and "associations" have mostly been exposed as signs of impotence in an increasingly desperate campaign, the McCain/Palin has implemented a new strategy. No, it doesn't have to do with presenting a broad platform to address the growing economic concerns of the middle class. Nor is it a bold new program seeking to stabilize our financial markets. It's not even a new strategy to contain Iran or to track down al Qaeda in Pakistan. To the contrary, it has little to do with anything that will occur after the first week of November. John McCain's staff has decided to to attack the Obama campaign with accusations of "cheating", and they mean to cast doubt on the results of the coming election.

The recent GOP disinformation blitz has to do with ACORN- which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN was founded in Arkansas in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado. Its broad mission has always been to advocate for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care, and other social issues. Its activities have included programs to address better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, and better public schools. ACORN has generally been aligned with the Democrats, due to their focus on helping segments of society that are less advantaged.

The current "controversy" revolving around ACORN is its voter registration drive. Since 2004, they have been the target of investigations in a small number of the many locations in which they have been active. These challenges to its existence have been overwhelmingly initiated by conservative politicians, free market advocacy groups, and the rightwing media. The latest charges accuse ACORN of systematically engaging in and encouraging the practice of submitting fraudulent voter registration forms. Yet the organization has been quick to point out that they have consistently demonstrated full cooperation and public support for the investigations of rogue employees, and has fired them when found guilty of voter fraud.

Duriong this election cycle the McCain/Palin campaign has attempted to make its case against ACORN by "revealing" that its employees turn in forms that are later discovered to be ineligible. What they (and their "Conservative" operatives in the mediasphere) fail to mention is that workers involved in most voter registration drives are mandated by state law to turn in every form they collect, without alteration. It is left solely to the discrimination of state election boards to determine the eligibility of these prospective voters. Defenders of ACORN have rightfully pointed out that the only reason fraudulent forms have been brought to public attention is because its employees are in the practice of flagging those that are suspect.

But none of this matters in the brutal political climate that the GOP has fostered. Regardless of the reality of the situation, the Republicans are determined to follow up on Sarah Palin's Convention speech slurs against community organizers. The Mccain/Palin ticket is no longer trying to claim that the profession has no "real responsibilities". They are attempting to place Obama in a supposed conspiracy plot. They have accused their opponent of being a community organizer for ACORN in the early 90's. This is patently false. In his capacity as an attorney, Barack once represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law.

Meanwhile, it turns out that John McCain was "associated" with ACORN as recently as 2006, when he appeared at a rally to address immigration reform. I guess in his mind it's OK as long as his own "maverick" political ends are being achieved.

John Ewing III, "Life After Death" (2007).

It's rare that I'll take the chance on a DVD without reading a single consumer review beforehand. But there was something about the packaging of Life After Death that inspired me to overlook the complete absence of critical attention. It didn't hurt that I was able to buy a copy of it from an Amazon independent seller for about $5 + shipping and handling. I probably wouldn't have chosen to order it alone, but since I was basically indulging myself in a mass purchase, I figured I'd assume the minimal risk. Now after watching it, I can't say that I'm overwhelmingly satisfied. While it wouldn't be entirely correct that it was a waste of time, I will admit to being misled into believing it would be something that it wasn't.

Basically what John Ewing III delivered with this movie is a series of interviews with black men and women who have spent significant time in the nation's prison system. Before I get into the content, I feel it necessary to comment on its form. This is one of the most poorly produced documentaries I have ever seen. It appears that very little money was wasted on things like sound mastering or professional editing. The former is especially problematic since many of the interviews are delivered in a garbled, heavily slang-inflected manner. If you are used to the cadences of urban inner-city accents, then you may have an easier time with this. Even so, the volume levels vary wildly throughout the film.

As far as editing is concerned, what we have here is a series of full frontal segments with former prisoners. All throughout there is an undercurrent of gangster rap that can be subtly distracting. To top it off, some of the footage is simply repeated or interjected in a seemingly random fashion. At other points interviewees are cut off in mid-sentence, or seem to be responding to questions that are only barely audible or consistent with the delivered answers. In between clips, we get to see shots of anonymous prison interiors, with no hint of where they were taken or who took them. I suppose they were included to provide the proper Mise-en-scène. At any rate they are only partially effective.

Yet all this criticism is tempered by the authenticity of Life After Death. Many of the stories related by the ex-cons are both compelling and effective. For the most part the inquiries made elicit frank and descriptive talk of life inside our penal institutions. Much of it will probably come as no surprise to students of the subject. But for those with only minimal exposure to information about our nation's prisons, this should be an enlightening viewing experience. Obviously the viewer should keep in mind that the participants are capable of exaggeration. This indeed is endemic among the incarcerated population. However I'd be shocked if the spirit of their accounts wasn't true, especially given the nature of some of their admissions.

Ultimately I'm not sorry I ordered this. There are multiple opportunities for folks to view or read objective accounts by so-called "experts" presenting outsider views of prison life. On the other hand, it's relatively rare to encounter unvarnished commentary by those who have 'walked the walk'. Even firsthand memoirs are often delivered by non-traditional inmates, who are blessed with ample skills of articulation. The men and women in Life After Death seem generally representative of the African-American population currently housed in federal and state prisons. They are a cross-section of people caught up in a depersonalized and controversial system. I'm glad someone made a document of their voices.

Should We Judge Obama By His Associates?

I caught myself in a humorous misconception the other day- I was outside taking a smoke break, and it occurred to me that the national political scene was quiet this summer. Of course this is a ridiculous idea. Upon a bit of reflection, I realized that I would have no idea how much is happening on the national news front. During the hot season I don't listen to hack radio. I don't watch television, nor do I read the newspapers. I don't even surf the net for current events. And because I'm learning nothing about what is going on outside of my localized personal bubble, I don't start conversations about politics. I remain oblivious unless something happens that is so dramatic that people are talking about it on the street.

I guess that's more common in the United States than I realize. Whenever I bring some topical matter up during the rest of the year, and I am met with blank stares, I wonder how it is possible to be that out-of-touch. The truth is that I forget my own state of ignorance from the previous summer. This whole phenomena has been brought home by recent inquiries about how I feel about Obama. I have many friends who are passionate in their support for his candidacy, and they are aware of my own history of investment in his prospects. I've been quite vocal in my advocacy. So in the face of apparent controversy over his ongoing statements and positions, I guess they look to me for reinforcement.

The reality is that, from the little news I have heard, there is reason for concern. Some of the people he has surrounded himself with are shifty at best. For example, Cass Sunstein (close Obama adviser and University of Chicago Law Professor) recently made comments rejecting the notion of holding the Bush Administration legally responsible for such crimes as illegal surveillance of citizens and torture. Supposedly he is concerned with the "criminalization of public service". He says that Democrats should "avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it." His position is that only "egregious crimes should not be ignored".

Naturally this leads me and my friends to be a bit suspicious of Sunstein's mental processes. What exactly does he mean to insinuate by his remarks? If Bush should find (beyond any reasonable expectations) anyone in the White House willing to blow him, then we shouldn't raise much of a fuss? Sure, I'll go along with that. Anything capable of distracting him from the strenuous pressures of leading the nation should be heartily encouraged. Hell, I'd be happy to see him pick up the bottle again if it would make him embrace his lame duck status. An inactive Bush Administration is about the best we could ever expect. But I don't think Sunstein is limiting his proposal of retroactive immunity to sex acts.

Only a complete idiot, or someone who believes the executive branch should be above the law, would characterize the activities of Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. as "non-egregious". The most relevant question is how closely do Sunstein's expressed sentiments reflect those of Barack Obama? Has our would-be leader taken the investigation and prosecution of a rogue White House off the table? If so, we need to take a close critical look at a prospective Obama presidency. Now I admit that judging the man based upon his associations is a bit unfair. I held that conviction when the conservative hate machine started talking about Jeremiah Wright- but in the case of Sunstein, we have a guy that could be considered for a high level position in an Obama cabinet. That's a genuine threat.

The Lamest Duck of All.

The phrase "lame duck" was originally used to describe an 18th Century London broker who couldn't pay his debts. In a more literal sense it refers to a bird who can no longer keep up with the flock, thus making it easy prey. Obviously we in America use it when talking about a politician in the last year of his/her term, with no chance of being re-elected. George W. Bush is a "lame duck". There are people all over the nation, and indeed throughout the world, that couldn't be happier that he has at last reached that status. Unfortunately this president has not been the type of leader to recognize the prevailing mood and/or will of "the people". Instead of aging gracefully, he's clamoring about trying to construct a legacy.

No doubt Dubya has already assured that he will be remembered for a long time. There is already plenty of discussion regarding his potential status as "Worst President of All Time". The 25% (or so) of America that still supports him is the vanguard in the fight to deny that label. They have an uphill battle, and Bush is not making it any easier for them. Right now he is in the midst of two important Congressional conflicts. He is trying to uphold his "right" to conduct warrant-less surveillance. And he is working to preserve his power to torture suspects in his War on Terror". These are not positions that many citizens would identify passionately with. But it doesn't matter to this Commander-in-Chief. After all, he is the "decider"!

It doesn't appear that George W. Bush has ever been all that concerned with the will of the people. His definition of democracy doesn't stretch wide enough to accommodate dissenting views. Throughout the past seven years I've occasionally wondered if his negative ratings have ever weighed heavily upon his esteem (or conscience). I've always come to the conclusion that they don't. But speculation on this matter isn't necessary- because he's spoken many times on the subject. Here are a few direct quotes:

"“If you’re sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign." George W Bush, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 16th February 2000.

"I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007 .

"I don’t care what the polls say. I don’t. I’m doing what I think what’s wrong." George W Bush, New York Times, 15th March 2000.

I found those few statements after a three-minute Internet search. I'm sure I could fill up the entire page with more, expressing the exact same sentiments (albeit without the ridiculous gaffes). What it boils down to is that he doesn't care what you (or any of us lowly citizens) have to say. He's got his agenda, and he's sticking to it.

The problem with the surveillance bill is that Congress wants to refuse immunity to communications firms that broke the law at Bush's request. In other words he wants to protect his friends that flouted the US Constitution. But the subtext here is especially interesting, because Bush would be dragged into the courts to defend his role in these violations if this bill were passed. He's certainly not going to allow this to happen, and neither are the Republicans in the House of Representatives. Meanwhile they will play the patriotism card. They will insist that the legislation be passed in order to "make America safe" from "terrorists". It wouldn't be in their best interests to reveal who they are really protecting.

What's especially ironic is that the surveillance bill was unnecessary in the first place. The executive branch already had the right to request a warrant retroactively, after eavesdropping on anybody that they so chose. Somehow that power was insufficient for their needs. And it's pretty obvious why that's the case. Just like under the current circumstances, the Bush Administration wants to be allowed to act on its agenda without ever having to answer for its activities. This is the American government that is finally above the law. This is the dictatorial leadership of the United States. Yet they have the gall to use the bludgeon of "Democracy"- not the philosophy, but the word itself in isolation of reality.

The same applies to Bush's resistance against a proposed prohibition of torture. It doesn't matter that such tactics contradict the banner of freedom under which he claims to fight. Civil rights don't apply to his enemies. This is (undeclared) war! There are no rules. And again the sycophants in Congress struggle to defend him. They want to know why we would give away "our play book". Why should we reassure al Qaeda that we practice what we preach- freedom and democracy? It doesn't matter that the prisoners might be innocent. The USA isn't going to take that chance. They will get their civil rights once they agree to bow down to us. Or maybe not. It depends if we're "safe enough". Be scared. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

"Jane, stop this crazy thing!!!"

I used to have a friend that kept me abreast of all kinds of crazy new technologies. He was a follower of the tech-geek magazine Wire back in the day. I don't even know whether that publication still exists anymore, or if it was supplanted by some other advanced forum. Anyway, I used to make fun of all the outlandish tales he used to tell me. He definitely had a paranoid bent to his personality, and it would manifest itself in all sorts of doomsday scenarios that he claimed would make modern life hell. In fact, he was the guy that alerted me to the Y2K situation (remember that one?). He was ahead of the mainstream media on that story, and he told me about it in 1992. I had plenty of time to think on the possibilities. Unfortunately I'm not in touch with him anymore, and no one has really come along to take his place. For the last few years I have been (somewhat blissfully) in the dark about the insidious prospects of the New Age.

You have to understand that when it comes to technology and science, I am like a medieval peasant. I still believe in the utility of dousing rods and magical incantations. I am amazed that they can transmit images through wires, let alone send interpretable digital signals through the air. Every once in awhile I get the urge to smash my television to get at the little portable demons lurking inside with their sensationalism and bad news. I consider my car mechanic a great and enigmatic shaman. I am ripe for exploitation. That's why I generally try to avoid research about the latest developments in gadgetry. It's anxiety-inducing to ponder the ramifications of this stuff. Rather than be exposed to the terrifying reality, I put my faith in the goodwill of scientific planners. I realize that this a terribly muddle-headed strategy, but what can I do?

I can only imagine how my sole remaining grandparent feels about all of this. What must it be like to remember a time without television or computers? How confusing SPAM must be. She is adapting much better than I am. She constantly forwards me those viral jokes and images of fat middle-aged dudes washing their cars clad only in their underwear. I've warned her about it, but she maintains that it is funny. The Internet has been extraordinarily kind to her. Yet I wonder what her reaction would be if she read some of the future uses that our masters have planned for technology. We've seen such broad leaps forward that I'm afraid it's become too easy to trip and fall flat on our faces, only to become the stepping stones for the youngest generation.

Thanks to this guy's blog, I've become aware of a few of the more frightening future applications that engineers are working on. I've tried to process a little of the information that he's linked to, but I'm having a lot of difficulty wrapping my little brain around it. For instance- this site documents a new way to transmit information, using the weak energy field that surrounds the human body. I ask you... what the hell does it mean? We have become walking conduits in the service of transmitting information. I've always felt that the free flow of information is a good thing. But this has me reconsidering my position. Will we even know whether or not someone is piggybacking on us to look at nasty porn sites. The idea is enough to make me feel dirty all over. Still that seems the least of our problems. What else awaits us? Will the plot be contained on the surface of our skin? It appears not.

Extraordinary advances in nanotechnology have enabled companies to design "digestible bugs". Yes, this is exactly what it sounds like... tiny computers that can be ingested without the host's knowledge. These microscopic machines can transmit data about the conditions of our insides. While that may be promising for the development of new medical practices, it naturally evokes concerns about the preservation of our most elemental privacy. Perhaps there will be forces who employ such devices for shadowy ends. Do you trust that any information gathered from your core will be used to your benefit? Maybe it will be used to bludgeon you instead. Imagine a reality in which warfare is prosecuted on an individual level. Authorities (and interlopers) can divine your most hidden weaknesses and use them to control or destroy you. There will no longer be any sanctuary- you will live your entire life in public. Is this our 'Brave New World'?

Vidocq and the "Rogue Cop" Tradition.

How much confidence do you have in American law enforcement to stick to ethical methods while fighting crime? Obviously we have a very specific legal code which sets limits on what the police are supposed to be allowed to do. On a more fundamental level, all US citizens are granted due process (a guarantee of fair application of the law) by the Bill of Rights. I believe that there are many people who take these rights for granted, and many others who assume that these rights will always be extended if they ever find themselves accused of a crime. Unfortunately, legislation (such as the Patriot Act) has curtailed these essential protections in our modern era. There are many folks who are happy to trade away some essential freedoms for an increase in (perceived) security.

Yet even before 9-11, I think a lot of abuses were perpetrated by authorities on the citizenry. Sometimes these acts came to light through subsequent investigations. Still one would have to be naive to accept the presumption that individual law enforcement agents always play by the rules. The figure of the rogue cop is indeed an iconic archetype in our mass media. In fact, a movie under that title was actually released as early as 1954 (starring Robert Taylor, George Raft and Vivien Leigh). I haven't seen that one, but I'm very familiar with such stories. Abel Ferrara plumbed that vein in 1992 with Bad Lieutenant. In that bleak film, Harvey Keitel stars as a corrupt cop struggling through his life of drug abuse, violence, and sexual exploitation. For the more idealistic amongst us, Keitel's character is an essential wake-up call.

In truth wicked men have walked among the rank and file of law enforcement for hundreds of years. I recently picked up the Memoirs of Vidocq: Master of Crime. One might expect that the author is a notorious criminal- and in fact, they'd be correct. But that's not the whole story. Eugene Francois Vidocq was also one of the most successful and respected detectives of 19th Century France. This symbol of controversy was born in Arras in 1775. As a youth he was inspired to flee his hometown after accidentally killing his fencing instructor. He served in several military units, but continually deserted them after one or another incident of insubordination. From there he graduated to running with gangs of raiders and brigands.

Inevitably Vidocq's life of crime led to a series of imprisonments. He quickly proved himself adept as a prominent escape artist. Despite the occasional attempt to make a bid for the straight life, his penchant for booze, women, and the company of criminals consistently put him back on the path of the outlaw. After being sold out by a conspirator, and in a bid to escape a harsh penalty, he finally decided to volunteer his services to the French Police Inspector M. Henry in Paris. Challenged to demonstrate his sincerity and worth as an informer, Vidocq initiated a campaign of betrayal against his fellow blackguards that astonished and impressed the authorities. His reputation as an underground agent soon eclipsed that of his previous criminal career. After a period of years, he became the legendary head of Brigade de Sûreté (Brigade of Surety)- a plainclothes detective unit.

During a single year (1816) Vidocq made as many as 811 arrests. His facility for catching crooks no doubt rested in his ability and knowledge within the underworld milieu. Notably, Vidocq didn't always go about his work in the most ethical way. He instigated crimes only to later receive credit in reporting them. He also (self-admittedly) employed tactics as diverse as extortion, lying, entrapment, and minor graft in order to "get his man". No doubt he was a con-man, a braggart and a scoundrel- but he was also tremendously successful at putting "bad guys" behind bars. What more could the privileged of French society ask for? No doubt many of them believed that he ends justified the means. And besides... if you weren't doing anything wrong, then you presumably had nothing to fear from Vidocq.

That's a common argument presented by those who would look the other way as law enforcement personnel cut legal corners in order to police society. How do you feel about that? Surely you aren't a criminal, so why do you care? Well... people do sometimes get accused of crimes of which they are innocent. Tough break, huh? What if the authorities decide that they simply don't like you? If they are above the law, then they can hurt you with impunity. You may find all these civil rights inconvenient when other people invoke them, but you may someday benefit from those same rights if they are still respected in our society. Similarly you may trust the current administration, but your enemies may someday seize control and exercise the same powers.

Bye-bye Berto.

A strange migration is happening this August. As George W. Bush prepares to assume the mantle of "lame duck" president, some of the rats upon his ship are jumping off. A couple of weeks ago Karl Rove announced his long-awaited resignation. While this inspired a wave of celebration throughout much of the country, only the most truly naive of political watchers could possibly believe that Rove will no longer hold influence over our hapless president. God only knows what insidious plots he will be cooking up over the next year, but one would have to be extremely dim to imagine that he won't be involved somehow in the 2008 presidential race. It makes the most sense to suggest that his timing has everything to do with the ongoing Congressional investigations that involve him.

Much the same could apply to today's defector from the Bush regime. Alberto Gonzales (US Attorney General) has officially announced his resignation, effective September 15th. Certain members of the media have been predicting this move for months, and the only true surprise seems to rest in the timing of the decision. I've already heard speculation that this is a duck-and-cover tactic, as Congress is set to resume session next month, and Gonzales has been very much a lightning rod for criticism within the Bush administration. But even members of the federal justice department are expressing their shock. They claim that they had no idea that Gonzales would do such a thing. Nevertheless his departure can only be viewed as a significant gift to the American people.

George W. Bush's comments in response to the latest events are appalling, if not expected. In a contentious speech in which he accepted this resignation, he angrily expressed his opinion that it is a shame that politics has forced a good man out of "public service". Evidently our president truly thinks that partisanship had impeded Gonzales from carrying out his duties. Of course this leads one to wonder about the role of attorney general. Is he expected to commit a campaign of perjury in Congressional hearings? Perhaps the job description demands the complete politicization of the justice department?

It's incredible that not too long ago Alberto Gonzales was on Dubya's short-list of supreme court justice nominees. His main qualification for such an honor was clearly his friendship with the former governor of Texas. When it comes to the law (both constitutional and international), Gonzales has consistently failed to demonstrate expertise or even a basic understanding. He was notorious for saying that "there is no express grant of habeas (corpus) in the Constitution". He's been a driving force behind the warrantless domestic eavesdropping program that has been directed inappropriately against US citizens. He's written "legal" arguments describing his belief that the United States Government does not have to honor the Geneva Conventions while fighting the "War on Terror". He's lied about his involvement in the firings of several US attorneys who refused to drink the party kool-aid. He's demonstrated a complete regard (and in some cases contempt) for civil liberties. The only masters he has served have been the stategists in Bush's executive department.

The big question now is- Who will succed Gonzales as the head of the justice department? There are whisperings that Bush intends to push Michael Chertoff forward for the job. The current Homeland Security Czar drew fierce criticism in the wake of the Katrina disaster, due to his neglect of FEMA- a governmental body he was purported to lead before flood. His neglect of that agency contributed to the complete incompetence demonstrated by the federal government in the hurricane's wake. Whomever Bush nominates to take Gonzales' place faces a tougher struggle for confirmation than either of the two previous attorney generals who served at the president's "pleasure". This time around the Democrats control both houses of congress, and there is no way they are going to give a prospective appointee a free pass into office. Even the Republican majority must be wary, given the records of Gonzales and predecessor John Ashcroft.

Rep. Keith Ellison and his recent comments.

The attack dogs on the right have targeted Congressional Representative Keith Ellison (D- Minn) for comments he made in a meeting last week. If you aren't familiar with Ellison, you should know that he is the first avowed Muslim ever to be elected to the United States House of Representatives. When his campaign was victorious in 2006, he faced a rash of suspicion and intolerance from pundits and wingnuts alike. This is unsurprising given the continual assault on our civil rights in the post 9-11, Bush era. Muslims are the new communists, slowly working behind the scenes to undermine our democracy. To get an idea about some of the irrational paranoia, read my previous post about the conservative attempts to and smear Barack Obama. There is no doubt that every word Ellison utters is somewhere being analyzed for hints of betrayal.

Frequent Limbaugh-pinch-hitter Glenn Beck told Ellison in a CNN-interview, "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " This was no surprise to anyone who had ever listened to Beck on AM radio. He is (or should be) infamous for suggesting that the razor wire is coming for Muslims who are not lining up to "shoot bad Muslims in the head." Now it should be pointed out (to his credit) that Beck added that such measures are "Nazi, World War II wrong". But his comments are especially ironic in light of the criticism over Ellison's recent speech to a small gathering of atheists in his home district of Minneapolis.

What Ellison actually did was compare the events of 9-11 to the Reichstag fires in 1930's Germany. For those who are unfamiliar with that event, it was the destruction of the German Parliament (the reichstag) that Hitler used to justify implementing emergency powers which allowed him to seize control over the country. Ellison was making a parallel between the erosion of rights during the rise of Nazi Germany and the current political atmosphere in the United States. He was quite specific about pointing out that he wasn't accusing the US government of planning the 9-11 tragedy. He knows damn well that any kind of suggestion of conspiracy will lead to his marginalization by the media. And it's important to note that he didn't directly compare Bush to Hitler, but rather referred to a specific event in history and its ramifications.

But the way Ellison's remarks have been portrayed on AM talk radio are entirely misleading. Kevin Miller of KDKA 1020 says that the Congressman should be sent to "the pokey" for "aid and comfort to our enemies". He is accusing Ellison of treason. How dare anyone suggest a historical analogy for modern events! Obviously that is not covered by our First Amendment's provision of "Free Speech". It makes one wonder what Bush means when he talks about our enemies and their hatred of "our freedoms". It's OK for Glenn Beck to invoke the spectre of Nazi Germany when he is delivering a veiled warning to our nation's Muslim citizens, but quite another for a public official to criticize the current Executive Department's similarities to dictatorships of the past. Instead of a thoughtful examination of Ellison's points, the radical right is attenpting to quell any meaningful discussion by calling for criminal charges against a member of the US Congress.

Perhaps Ellison was mistaken when he likened the current administration's actions to specific decisions made by Hitler prior to WWII. Maybe the invasion of Iraq, the unlawful surveillance of the communications between US citizens, the suspension of habeas corpus for those "suspected" of "terrorism", the torture of military detainees, government abuses sanctioned by the Patriot Act, etc. are more akin to a democratic system than they appear on the surface. It could be that our Founding Fathers would have liked to see the federal government's separation of powers and checks and balances suspended in times of an undefined and indeterminate war. But that's not my understanding of history.

How to: Die at the Hands of the State.

Recently I expressed my position on the death penalty, along with my rationale for feeling the way I do. In short I maintain an uncomfortable support for it. I certainly have my reservations. But I think that if I am going to continue to hold to that position, I should try to imagine myself in the role of the condemned. I don't imagine myself committing a crime that could land me on death row, but I have no doubt that there have been innocent people put to death in this country. And that means that you (or I) could face this fate. What would that experience be like?

If we knew in our heart of hearts that we weren't culpable for the capital crime for which we were convicted, we'd most likely have to go through a stage of denial. No matter the possibility, we really wouldn't be able to accept the fact that it was happening to us. Regardless of whatever speculations we might occasionally entertain, the vast majority of us believe deep down that the universe has some innate sense of justice that would prohibit such a fate as wrongful conviction. Unfortunately this is an irrational belief. The exceptions in this case prove the rule. Innocent people are sometimes killed by the state.

Whether or not we are guilty, if we failed to attain exoneration in the appeals process, an eventual date for execution would be set. In some states we would be given a choice as to how our sentence was to be carried out. What method would you choose? Most localities don't offer death by firing squad anymore. I don't think I'd prefer being shot because it just seems so personal to face a firing squad- although I assume they'd apply a blindfold. Hanging would certainly be my last choice. To my mind it's completely humiliating. If you've ever read an eyewitness account of the type of things that can happen when you are jerking on the end of a rope, then you probably already know what I mean.

I think I'd also pass on the gas chamber. That seems like a singularly unpleasant way to die. Why don't they just light me on fire? Death by asphyxiation is only a bit less alluring. The electric chair is out as well- it's too messy. Plus you face the risk of malfunction and simply smoldering for awhile. No fun. I don't relish the idea of my eyes bursting from the electricity coursing through my body. If I could avoid pissing and shitting myself, that would also be a plus. So I guess if I had to choose, I would go for lethal injection. I'm not afraid of needles, and if administered correctly it is supposed to be painless. I'd slip into unconsciousness and never wake up. Of course my victim's family (if I were indeed gullty) might resent that type of smooth retribution.

There are other decisions you'd be asked to make before being executed. What would you want for a last meal? I'm not sure if I could muster any kind of healthy appetite under those conditions. I might just pick the most elaborate thing I could think of out of spite. If I had been imprisoned for a significant time (which would seem likely under such circumstances), I'd probably just pick my favorites from the prison menu. I've heard the veggie lasagna is especially good. For dessert I know I'd take whatever sedatives would be available. If necessary I would bribe a guard to bring the good stuff.

Another conventional decision I'd face would be whether or not to be attended by a spiritual advisor. I'm not part of any organized religious group, so this would be a difficult decision. Perhaps a Buddhist monk would be most appropriate. I wouldn't turn away a priest- it seems like a no-lose situation to accept Christ in that moment. Absolution for whatever sins I have committed throughout my life might come in handy. "Cover all bases" would be my motto.

As far as last words are concerned, I wonder if I could resist being a wise-ass. That is my normal reaction to fearful situations. Maybe a sincere apology would be in order. Anyway I'd likely have plenty of time to come up with something contextually appropriate. I'd hate to think that I'd resort to a quote. It would be important to me to come up with something original. The indignity of being put to death is a bit too oppressive without a touch of wit and class.

Voter Fraud.

If there is one refrain in the political sphere that drives me up a wall, it is "Get Over it!" This, of course has been the Republican response to charges of widespread voter fraud in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. What bothers me most about this sentiment is that the GOP has incorporated the protection of our "freedoms" into their rhetoric for justifying just about every agenda they have had since 2001. I'd like to know what exactly they consider to be our "freedoms", other than the right of wealthy people to avoid paying taxes. Open participation in a "representative democracy" certainly does not seem to be among their priorities.

Recently there has been a rash of stories about specific incidents of election irregularities. Conservative extremist and harpy Ann Coulter has once again distinguished herself in the nation's media. There are reports that the loathsome pundit has refused to cooperate with an investigation into her personal voter misconduct in a 2006 election. Apparently she voted in a precinct in Florida in which she didn't even live. When Palm Beach County officials sent an inquiry to the address that she registered under, the correspondence went ignored. The reason for this was because it was actually the residence of her real estate agent. Her attorney himself has noted that Coulter doesn't even live in Florida (and she has told FOX News' Alan Colmes that she lives in New York). The positive side is that if Coulter is convicted of the charges levied against her, she could face a fine or prison term (fat chance of that happening). Ironically her right to vote would be rescinded in Florida once she is a convicted felon.

But Coulter's misdeed are relatively minor compared with the horror stories I heard today on NPR. While the Republicans are busy spouting rhetoric about voter fraud (see this detailed expose on the rightwing American Center for Voter Rights scam), house Democrats are proposing legislation to insure that this misbehavior is addressed. They are trying to make it a federal crime to intentionally deceive voters to stop them from casting a ballot. This is a long time coming. I would be shocked that the issue wasn't confronted previously had it not been for the fact that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government until this past January.

-Milwaukee voters (principally Democratic-voting African-Americans) were recipients of a flier put out by the "Milwaukee Black Voters League" (which evidently didn't even exist) informing them that they would face imprisonment if they tried to vote having been convicted of any crime- including traffic violations!

-In Pennsylvania a flier (printed on government letterhead stationary) warned that voter turnout was expected to be so high that authorities were asking registered Republicans to vote on Tuesday (the actual day of the election), and Democrats to wait until Wednesday. Of course by then it would be too late. Whoever composed the letter went on to apologize for any inconvenience this improvised arrangement would cause.

-A similar flier appeared in Franklin County, Ohio. Here's a detailed list of voter irregularities during the 2004 election. Note that the presidential contest was decided in the Buckeye state.

-Last year Hispanics in Orange County, CA received letters informing them that it was illegal for immigrants to vote. How many of our fellow countrymen know that every naturalized citizen is given the right to vote?

-A Republican flier in Prince George's County, MD (last November) fraudulently implied that black Democratic leaders supported Republican candidates for Governor and the Senate. In this case they even included a photo of an unsuspecting politician, who spent much time convincing his irate supporters that the thing was a hoax.


This is only a small list that I gathered from one single article on the internet. It's amazing to think that it's necessary to actually pass new legislation to outlaw such crimes. And it's even more disturbing to see people like Republican attorney Bill Canfield publicly oppose the bill. This is as concerted an attack on our system of government as ever posed by Saddam Hussein. Yet for some reason the perpetrators of these acts have not been targeted by our freedom-fighting commander-in-chief, or the legions of "patriots" with ribbon magnets on their SUVs. What gives?

What do you call a "conspiracy" when it is completely out in the open?

The Pinkertons.

They were hired by private corporations and the government for security, law enforcement and espionage. They have taken up arms against the American people, killing more than a few. They were founded and led by reactionary, ultraconservative men. They've infiltrated lawful assemblies of US citizens. They had the first database of information relating to criminals and suspects across this nation. Who were they? The FBI? The CIA? The United States Military? Halliburton? Blackwater? Nope... none of the above. They were the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. And I was once their employee.

It's ironic that I worked for a company that was widely despised in Pittsburgh. It was the summer after my freshman year at Pitt, and I needed some spending cash. During those long, hot months I was tasked with protecting a Daytimers factory and a water treatment plant (read the details here). That was before I had come around to embracing Western Pennsylvania as my new hometown. I didn't know much of the local history, and I wasn't really all that interested in learning about it. My high school in Allentown certainly never taught us about the labor conflict at the Carnegie Steel Mill in Homestead, PA, nor the Pinkerton thugs who came to wage war with union workers.

Andrew Carnegie was off in Scotland when Henry Clay Frick employed the Pinkerton "detectives" to provide security for the scab replacements filling in for striking steelworkers. When the groups clashed, men on both sides were injured and even killed. Despite the fact that the Pinkertons were eventually turned away, the state militia was called in and the strike was broken. This was both a temporary setback and a longtime rallying cry for the labor movement. The legacy of the events in Homestead still informs the mindset and politics of the region. This bit of history is now a source of pride for many in Pittsburgh (at least for people who have made it a point to learn about the past).

Before the Pinkertons came to Frick's aide, they were already an established presence in the national scene. Formed by Allan Pinkerton in 1851, they were initially used by business leaders to maintain more control over their employees. The company's motto was "We Never Sleep", and their logo was an all-seeing eye. In fact that symbol is the origination of the term "private eye". They first gained national exposure when they were contracted as bodyguards for President-Elect Abraham Lincoln. Through that work the firm made crucial contacts with political elites and the military establishment.

After the Civil War the Pinkertons gained further fame through providing security for the all-powerful railroad conglomerates. They were primarily tasked with tracking down train robbers, many of whom formed notorious Western outlaw gangs. The company operated branches in most of the growing Western cities- including Spokane, Omaha, and Denver. In the 1870's they were given a Department of Justice contract to investigate and prosecute federal crime (they would continue to serve in this role until the formation of the FBI in 1908). Meanwhile the Spanish Government hired them to quash a democratic revolution in Cuba. The early decades of the Twentieth Century saw them once again focused on corporate espionage and anti-union activities.

At the peak of their power the Pinkerton National Detective Agency had more agents than the US Army had soldiers. This prompted the state of Ohio to outlaw the company because of the fear that they constituted a private militia, or were simply mercenaries. They became widely known as the enemy of working people and reformers. It wasn't until the Wagner Act (1937) and the LaFollete Commitee (1937) heralded a change in employee relations that the Pinkertons began their transition to the relatively innocuous private security company that I worked for in the early 1990's. Yet they have continued to dabble in industrial security and electronic surveillance. They also provide consulting services for governmental security personnel.

In the wake of the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act, the Pinkertons have been overshadowed by more insidious private corporations immersed in crowd control, weapons systems, espionage, counterinsurgency, tracking, enforcement, surveillance and even warfare in Iraq. But the Pinkerton National Detective Agency is the father of them all.

For detailed information regarding the Pinkerton's... click HERE.