Meet the New House - Same as the Old House?

They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If so, you’ll probably find me there trying to work on blog entries, one day. The combination of work and life projects left me woefully unable to keep up with the intricacies of November’s elections - which was probably good for my mood, really. Despite John Kerry’s stalwart last-ditch attempt to lose the election for the Democrats, we now have a Democratic House, and a technically Democratic Senate - what can we expect?

I don’t know what you were thinking, but I’m feeling pretty dubious, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned. In an election where Iraq was on the minds of most voters, the Democrats as a party haven’t convinced me that they really can offer what matters most - a clear understanding of what they can - and can’t - achieve in that wretched mess.

Don’t get me wrong. At this point, I think the choices left are between ‘Oh crap’, ‘Oh shit’, and ‘Oh no’. Or to put it in more elegant terms, there is no good choice. So, if it is given that the Democrats can offer no magic strategy we are left to find the ‘least worst’ option. The problem is, while some in the Democratic establishment understand this, quite a few do not appear to.

Maybe it’s only to be expected. The ‘troops out now’ option has been gathering strength thanks to spiraling violence and instability. From a political standpoint, there’s almost no capital to be gained from a perceived ‘stay the course’ strategy (Where anything other than ‘get the troops out’ is equated with ‘staying the course’) - especially if you’re a Democrat. Finding a Dem who’s willing to increase troop numbers in Iraq is like finding a Republican interested in meaningful lobbying reform. So I had high hopes when the top Generals in Iraq came to testify at the Capitol a couple of weeks ago. With a new atmosphere in Washington, would they finally come out and say they wanted troop cuts?

Well, not quite. In fact, General John Abizaid came before the Senate Armed Services Committee and rejected both the ‘let’s add more troops’ approach of John McCain and the ‘let’s get all the troops out now’ approach of Carl Levin, Democratic Senator and presumably the head of that same committee once the new Senate is sworn in when January rolls around. It’s hard to put a good face on the immediate troop withdrawal plan when the Generals themselves flatly reject it to your face - under oath and on camera, no less.

So, without the endorsement of the leaders on the ground, the possibility of recommending an immediate troop pullout is starting to recede (though given Bush has no need to worry about re-election and has that all important veto, it was never really a likely outcome in my mind). This of course leaves the Democrats - in fact, the government as a whole, let’s be honest - rooting around for some kind of solution they can present to the American public as offering a way forward. Given that there is no good solution, as previously noted, one must get very creative.

Both parties are now starting to lay the groundwork for the mess that is to come by shifting goals and assigning blame. Some Democrats have been extremely eager to start down this road, which strikes me as a position so deeply rooted in fantasy as to be laughable. Even the Republican neoconservative administrators didn’t have that much gall - mind you, given they gave the orders for disbanding the Iraqi military and carving up of the country’s power base, it would have been a bit hard for them to claim innocence for the result.

Iraq is a failed state at this point, which is a reality which has previously been too bleak to contemplate. Is it the fault of the Iraqi government? Perhaps they can do more than they have, but it is difficult to see how any government or leader could have done well under the circumstances. The American Administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremner failed. The followup appointed government failed. Now the elected government is failing. There is some irony in the fact that life under a dictator was, broadly speaking, safer for an average Iraqi than life under democracy. It makes democracy a tough sell, and shows that calls for the Iraqis to take more responsibility more about dodging blame than offering helpful strategy.

What to do? According to some experts, it’s time to pick a side among Iraq’s warring factions and be done with it. Of all the options, I think this is one likely to get a serious hearing, because on the surface it sounds reasonable. It has the attraction of sounding ‘realistic’ and offers a new way forward. Unfortunately, picking a side is fraught with even worse dangers than dealing with the security situation as it stands and will almost certainly accelerate the fragmentation of Iraq. In the absence of anything from the Democrats that accepts American fault for the current situation, such false pragmatism seems to be what we can expect in the coming months.

I don’t really know what I expected from the Democrats, to be fair to them. I certainly don’t think we’d be in Iraq now if the 2000 election had turned out differently, but that ship has long sailed. Either way, reminding the public of who got us into the mess is no longer enough. The Democrats have two years to prove that they can look beyond the blame and make some tough decisions, and trust in the electorate to remember they were voted into clean up someone else’s mess. So far, it’s a shaky start.

Posted by union_jack at 11:57 PM | Comments (0)

Nation Building 101

Well, so much for weekly updates! I blame work. If I got paid for this, you could get daily updates instead of these infrequent episodes (be thankful I have a day job). Speaking of jobs, wouldn't it be nice to have a well-paying job? Maybe even one where you didn't have to be asked awkward questions about qualifications and ability? Where the only criteria for hiring was political fealty? Working on a political campaign? Not exactly - unless that's how you define Operation Iraqi Freedom...

The use of contractors in civil and government work is very common. A lot of the tasks that used to be done by troops are now performed by private companies. While you might think this work was limited to non-combatant logistics work such as meal preparation or truck driving, it may be more startling to consider that in the modern world of globalization, even the protection detail of the US Ambassador in Iraq is made up of private security guards. The burgeoning antiterrorist missions in Afghanistan and Iraq are well staffed with contract workers doing everything from interrogation to translation work. Often times, these contract workers are ex-military or ex-government - and are earning more than their former colleagues, performing the same role. An article from Slate earlier this year gives a revealing look into what it is like to be a contractor on the streets of Iraq.

Nowadays private involvement in the war on terror has reached a point that the armed forces simply cannot complete their mission -without- the assistance of multinationals. It seems to be a very good time to be a private entrepreneur, but not so great of a time to be serving the country for simple patriotism. After all, there's no money in it. From recruiting sergeants to interrogators, we are seeing civilian faces. Is this good for the military? Is this good for the country? Personally, I have my misgivings.

Still, one can understand the need to ramp up force numbers in an emergency by hiring outside help. Many of the private firms are staffed by former special operations and intelligence officers with extensive links and experience in their area of operation, and so one can be assured that in theory at least, they can perform the task for which they are hired, whether that be securing an airport or protecting a VIP (I'll leave aside the fact that some of these security firms have very close ties to the GOP Administration and Bush white house - that should be no surprise to anyone). But what about rebuilding an entire nation? Surely that would be done by experts at the State Department and Pentagon?

You might think so, but this week the Washington Post published adaptations from a recent book that claimed the exact opposite was the case. Far from recruiting the most able, it was revealed from examining the record that in many cases political leaning was the determining factor. It is difficult to argue ability trumped ideology when a 24 year old was put in charge of rebuilding Iraq's commercial stock exchange. The Democratic party are now lining up at the gate to hold hearings on the matter. While they do not control the House or Senate, one can be sure that if they manage to take one (or both) bodies in November, such hearings will be at the top of the agenda. It remains to be seen what the American public - and the world, for that matter - will make of this. If it is proven that the current Administration did in fact fill the CPA with loyal staffers rather than pragmatic professionals, history will not be a kind judge - and nor should the American people.

Posted by union_jack at 08:16 PM | Comments (1)

We Drew the Line

If you've looked at some countries on a map (particularly in the Middle East) you'll find the borders of those countries are surprisingly ... regular. They don't follow mountain ranges or rivers or other natural features, and instead cut across the desert like a knife. Did you ever wonder who was responsible?

The New York Times offered a surprisingly thoughtful glimpse into Iraq's Imperial past in a recent article. Back in the days of Empire, Britain decided on Iraq's borders. It was quite usual in those days for agents of the crown to parcel off things in this manner and sprout new countries with carefully hand-picked rulers. The law of unintended consequences oft holds true, and Iraq does seem to be the poster child for this. It's sobering to think of soldiers fighting and dying there a hundred years ago for reasons and justifications eerily similar to those given today.

If you have time, I invite you to check out the story's main link - the 'Gertrude Bell Project'. I certainly never heard her name before this story, but she seems to resonate through her diaries and papers, which contain hundreds of tidbits on the attitudes and politics of the times - not to mention being a joy to read just for her turn of phrase. As she commented in 1919, regarding British presence in India 'If India were not so much divided, Hindus against Islam, native princes against Nationalists, it would be a much graver matter, indeed if India had the homogeneous population of Egypt, we could not hold on at all.' (This was the old 'divide and conquer' rule; if you're invading a country, make sure they hate someone else more than they hate you, and then when they're both worn out, you take the spoils).

The ghosts of Empire, those men and women drawing lines in the sand and deciding the course of history, still have the power to reach across the years and affect us today. So the next time someone asks 'Why is Iraq such a mess?' - you can always blame the British Empire...

Posted by union_jack at 05:44 PM | Comments (1)

Absentee Ballot Blues

When is a runner not a runner? When he's Tom Delay!

In a strange turn of events, a court ruled this week that Tom Delay, erstwhile unrepentant hammer of Congress, must appear on the ballot in his Texas district this coming November. Those of you who were following this story no doubt recall Delay purportedly moved to Virginia with the express intent of getting -off- the ballot; what with those pesky will-they-won't-they criminal charges looming, he felt it best to retire and get out of the way, so that the local party could nominate a replacement. Alas, this doesn't look like it will be happening. The Democratic challenger, Nick Lampson, is no doubt filled with inane glee as he can now run against a man who has said he doesn't even want the job anymore. Such is the power of name-brand - whether positive or negative.

Speaking of name brand, who hasn't heard of viagra! I'm told it's wonderful. Rush Limbaugh thinks so too. From the Department of 'Well it seemed like a good idea at the time' comes the story that Rush was caught rushin' through the airport with bottles of the drug made out to another man. I am left puzzled as to why Limbaugh thought having his doctor make out the prescription to someone else - to keep matters quiet - wouldn't bite him hugely in the ass later, given his track record with prescription painkillers. Maybe he should have just embraced it and gone on the record as a spokesman instead. 'I'm Rush, and I stand tall and lean to the right - thanks to Viagra.' What worried me more wasn't the bogus prescription label so much as the fact someone, somewhere, is prepared to jump into bed with Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by union_jack at 06:42 PM | Comments (1)

Ken Lay - Gone Today

One of those stories you have to read twice to be sure it's not a phony, but it's true; Ken Lay, former Enron CEO died in his sleep today of natural causes. While I do extend my sympathies to his family who are no doubt grieving, it did leave me feeling.. oddly cheated. Ken will never see the inside of a prison cell now. While his obituaries will probably make much of Lay's fall from grace, it would not add up to the sight of him in handcuffs, escorted off to start sentence.

Perhaps Ken had the last laugh after all.

Posted by union_jack at 06:47 PM | Comments (1)

The Glorious Fourth

Since coming over here to live, Independence day has always aroused somewhat mixed feelings in me. After all, it has its roots in the Revolutionary war. While I do believe America would have achieved its independence without a war sooner or later, and that the British were not that bad (compared to other conquering empires, that is) America did fight and win its freedom back in those early days. So it is quite right to celebrate independence; in fact, among the results of the war was the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, which I think still stand as two of the most world-changing political documents ever written.

So I have a reasonably positive view of America; what it could be, what it should be, despite its flaws. It seems lately though that my view isn't shared by too many at home - a recent poll indicated British opinion of America has .. well I suppose 'plummeted into the abyss' would not be too far of an exaggeration. Given that British troops fight alongside American, and our foreign policies seem to be inextricably linked at this point, this may be a point of concern. I guess you can take comfort that most Britons seem to like the American people - well, they find them tolerable at any rate. Maybe after the next presidential election we can be friends again...

I hope you all have a safe and happy Fourth - remember, be careful where you aim the fireworks, and you may want to stock up on the pepto-bismol if your plans include anything like Joey Chestnut's.

Oh, and last but not least - no, Independence Day is not celebrated in Britain. In case you were wondering (yes. I have actually been asked this).

Posted by union_jack at 01:27 PM | Comments (0)

Time flies!

Are we done with Spring yet? I hope so. Flash flooding and heavy rain for days on end. It almost made me feel homesick. As you may have suspected, it has been an uncommonly busy spring for me, which is why the lack of updates. Well, that plus that the news has been, not to put too fine a point on it, rather depressing. There's only so many times you can discuss Iraq or Katrina's after effects or Wal-Mart without it getting a little tired. So in the best traditions of spring cleaning, there will be a slightly different format over the summer months! Shorter articles! Bite size and yet not fattening. Of course, as the November elections loom, I reserve my right to run away at the mouth. So what has happened over the past six weeks (ish) that caught my eye?

I suppose first was the decision by the Republican party and Administration to heavily tout an Amendment to the Constitution regarding Gay Marriage (that is, they're apparently not in favor of this). While Democrats and others accuse the Republicans of political point scoring to take the public's mind off of current woes, it's not as if this is the first time they've brought this up. This is not a fly by night political pointscoring exercise; this is a long term political pointscoring exercise carefully polished and wheeled out whenever things look a little wobbly for the party in power. The amendment didn't carry in the Senate - this time - but it will certainly be back. A note to the Log Cabin Republican organization - why are you with that party? I mean, seriously.

The Democrats have been trying mightily to look squeaky clean of late, to make the most of their 'culture of corruption' slogan (they've finally started trying to come up with slogans). Unfortunately, a certain Congressman allegedly caught on tape discussing bribes, and then having bales of cash taken out of his freezer (I've heard of freezing your assets, but not like this) is proof enough, if any were needed, that corruption in politics knows no party line. If it's of any comfort, it seems that British Civil servants are setting the yardstick by which corruption should be measured. While cash for votes is unpleasant, we don't yet have Ted Kennedy leaving cups of vomit in Arlen Specter's office closet (and a breakdancing competition in the Senate would be worthy of recognition as a new and terrible crime against humanity).

Speaking of the Democrats, I'm getting more depressed at their prospects come November. It seems the Democrats are starting to coalecese around the platform that It's Okay To Not Have A Platform. While this is laudible from a democratic let's-get-everyone's-feelings-and-opinions sense, it leaves me feeling lacking, and I'm a sympathizer. It is Not Okay To Not Have An Easily Articulated Message. One thing Republicans do right is they have a message, they stick to it, and they run with it (that the message may be false, bad, dumb or just plain wrong does not hold them back - which again could be considered a strength. Consistency! Resilience! Steadfastness!).

Last but not least, Bush was in Hungary this week, on a state visit. He compared the Hungarian uprising of 1958 to Iraq's struggle of the present, and declared that the Iraqi people were inspired. I'm not sure what inspiration Iraq may take from a brutally oppressed nation's failure to win freedom while the world (including the United States) stood by and watched, but perhaps I'm missing something...

Posted by union_jack at 09:40 AM | Comments (2)

Gas Grief

Now is the winter of our discontent; made glorious summer by this sun of York...

Well, Shakespeare was almost right – he just got the seasons reversed. That is if you’re looking at this quotation through the lens of someone having to buy gas this summer, which should be most of us. I first came over to the States in 1997. At that time, a gallon of regular was going for around about $1.00 a gallon, give or take. While it’s scary to me to consider that was almost ten years ago (time flies!) looking at the prices this morning made me blink anew – in today’s dollars, it hasn’t been as expensive in this country since the early 1980s. And the price isn’t forecast to go anywhere but up. Can America ever wean itself off of oil? Of course – if by ‘wean’ you mean ‘wun out’.

Energy independence is a perennial political football. Everyone seems to agree that Energy Independence Is A Good Thing (this is not a great leap of political courage). Of course, energy independence can mean more than one thing. For some, it means plumbing the depths of ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve) to chase down a few extra years of oil. Others find hope in fuel cells or wind turbines or thousands of hamsters on wheels (my personal favorite). Waiting in the wings is the specter of nuculer (Sorry, sorry, n-u-c-l-e-a-r) technology, which promises clean and bountiful energy (with only a really, really small chance of complete destruction). Coincidentally, tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

The United States has long enjoyed gas prices that would make people in the UK swoon for joy. To put things in a little perspective, at the time of writing, a gallon of unleaded regular is going for $6.46 on average, back home (ever wondered why we drive those tiny little cars with tiny little engines?). Americans are often mocked for their big, greedy cars and their excessive consumption. Not all of this is the fault of today’s consumer, though; urban sprawl and the sheer size of the place has led to a far greater reliance on the car over here, than in Europe. Back home a 100 mile commute per day would be considered remarkable; here, it is almost average. People here think nothing of driving two hours to pop over to see friends. A two hour drive for me growing up was an expedition!

The town my parents live in is approximately the same size as Portsmouth. The difference is it has (at the time I left, anyway) two competing bus lines and about four cab companies, and a light rail system linking it with Glasgow (Scotland’s largest city, about forty minutes away). Portsmouth, by comparison, has sidewalks. Well, on some streets. And some streets have streetlights, too! If you don’t have a car back home, you can walk to the town center on lit streets, with full paved sidewalks (admittedly, while avoiding drunken yobs who will seek to relieve you of valuables); or call a cab, or take a bus. Over here, you can wait about two hours for a cab to find you, or you drive. Everywhere. America, in general, is not a pedestrian based society. Even those at the lower end of the income scale have at least one car – that’s not a symbol of largesse, but just a reflection of raw need. No car means no job.

To see Bush today deciding to take a stand on ‘high gas prices’ was a source of much amusement for me. Apparently, severe instability in the Middle East, insurgents in the Niger delta, brewing conflict between Chad and Sudan, Venezuelan antipathy, rampant shortsighted greed on the part of the energy conglomerates and an increasing energy demand from the likes of India and China aren’t as influential to gas prices as a few scurrilous station owners marking up prices. Good to know that we’re taking the situation well in hand, George. Oh, and allow them to make more polluting gas, too. That’ll help lower costs – or at least improve profit margins. And hey - just where is that Iraq oil anyway? You know. That oil that was supposed to pay for reconstruction? Ah, well.

What most politicians realise – and yet cannot say – is that America (and most every Western nation) is locked into the global economy. One cannot just ‘take’ the oil anymore, as was done 100 years ago – the taking is too costly, and you’d be fighting Russia, China and India for it anyway – and nor is there enough to go around. Consequently, prices will continue to rise until there reaches a breaking point; when enough citizens have to choose between driving to work and eating, perhaps we’ll finally see some movement on sustainable nationwide mass-transit and move to renewable energy (or a complete breakdown of society and people driving Mad Max tanker trucks around – my money’s on this option). For now though, there’s no political hay to be made by telling people they have to drive less, in smaller cars, or telling industries they have to clean up and be efficient – or heaven forbid, telling Congress that they have to start working together on the problem instead of blaming the other side.

Posted by union_jack at 06:57 PM | Comments (1)

DeLay, Away. Disarray.. Hooray!

At the best of times it's pretty hard for me to feel sorry for a politician of any stripe who is forced to step aside due to allegations of dirty deeds. The protestations of innocence are always the same, as is the lack of credibility. So when Tom DeLay finally had to read the writing (in ten foot high blazing pink neon letters) on the wall that it was time to go, I didn't feel too bad about it. Maybe a little gleeful, even. Few people have personified the current face of Republicanism - ruthless, brazen, hard edged and hypocritical - as the man from the Texas. Newt Gingrich beats him, I suppose - it's a constant surprise to me as to how Newt gets away with espousing family values as he does - but when it comes to all out ball-crushing intensity on crushing your political opponents to goo, Tom Delay should be someone to study for years to come (Note to Democrats : LEARN).

Did DeLay fall or was he pushed? It may have been a little of both. Personally I don't believe a man like DeLay would fall on his own sword against his will. A few members of his own side have been calling for his resignation since last year when the ethics charges first began to bite. In the end, it took the vortex of Abramhoff to finally stack the dice to the point DeLay felt he couldn't win. And rather than fight that losing battle, he thought it was best to step aside - either for the party to win without him or to attempt to save face - you pick. Either way, local Republicans must be breathing a sigh of relief. Though they couldn't let DeLay step down without one last impressive display.

Is DeLay the proverbial canary in the coalmine for the Republican chances in November? I think he just might be. After all, it's not been a good two weeks for the Republicans, especially if you're taking the long view. What with DeLay toppling and Abramhoff sentenced and promising to name names I think we're in for a juicy summer of revelations. The best bit of the news story was the Judge ordering Abramhoff to report to jail in 90 days; and then the prosecution asking for him to remain free for six months, because he's cooperating so nicely. It's one nice thing about such crime; it's very rare that you see someone keeping to any kind of code of silence. Who will be next to be snarled up? Newsweek asked that question, and made a fairly persuasive case for suggesting Conrad Burns had best be practicing his defense skills. What with DeLay's former aide Tony Rudy also taking the stand, the dominos are still toppling. I sure hope so. One particular lobbying job of theirs sufficiently raised my hackles; arguing for legislation that would enable garment manufacturers in the Marianas Islands (a Commonwealth of the U.S.) to claim 'made in USA' on clothing, but without respecting U.S. laws that govern wages and immigration law. The next time you buy a 'Made in USA' t-shirt that was actually made in a remote pacific atoll by some kid earning $1 an hour, you can thank Rudy.

Thankfully, things are going far beyond Burns, Rudy and DeLay; a treasure trove of emails is revealing not only the spread of influence peddling, but how blatant it was. Washington has always been a town of wheeling and dealing of course, but seeing things dragged into the light does make me wonder if future staffers will be required to write meeting minutes in longhand and destroy the papers - or perhaps eat them, if caught in the act. If the emails are to be believed though, the thing that strikes me as ironic is the sums of money involved. $2000 here, $5000 there. Barely enough to fund a good attack ad on a weblog, much less fund a campaign. And it's this level of cash that might ultimately sink the lobbying system? Fat chance, really. As the Boston Globe noted, the current widely touted reforms are little more than window dressing. Washington runs on money, and neither party is going to occupy what scarred moral high ground remains if it means giving up those sweet, sweet campaign donations.

Either way, the Republican party is certainly eating the brunt of the publicity on this issue and it's showing. They may hope that with DeLay gone, the worst is perhapsy behind them. After all, even if he's indicted, he will have stepped down, and can be safely dismissed (or perhaps given a Presidential Medal of Freedom in a few years) to the lecture circuit - and perhaps, pulpit. Apparently after all this, the true reason he's being hounded is because the liberals hate Christians. Still, I'm sure the good Lord will provide. Let's just hope he doesn't remember that thing about the money changers and the temple - or that rich man, camel, and needle's eye thing.

Yes, with DeLay gone, the outlook can only get bright-- wait, what's this? Scooter Libby filing court papers that allege Cheney and Bush were the source of leaks of intelligence reports to make the Administration's case against Iraq? But didn't Bush say he'd fire the source of any leaks? Oooops. If Republicans want to take the summer off to just go and drink beer by the pool, I totally understand. Just be glad the Democratic spin machine is about as strong as the desire for true lobbying reform in Washington* or you'd actually be in real trouble.

* That would be to say, not very strong.

Posted by union_jack at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)

Immigratiationation

I don't know about you, but I hate immigrants. Coming over here, taking our jobs and our women and our Starbucks coupons. Who do they think they are, anyway? They all smell of weird ethnic foods, they live ten to a room, and they're always on street corners looking for work or picking cotton or something. Oh, and they're lazy too. They just come over here to get free healthcare and breed like rabbits. If it was up to me, I'd build a big wall. That'll show em. Speaking as an American, I-- wait, what? I'm not American? I'm an immigrant? Oh. Well then. Immigrants? They're awesome. They should totally all get citizenship. Oh, and their choice of happy meal.

You'd be forgiven a bit of uncertainty on the question of whether immigrants are a welcome addition or a bunch of filthy dirty parasites who should go back where they came from and leave America to the Americans. (Not the Native Americans. They don't count. Besides, they get to bankrupt us at casinos). Going by the yelling between House and Senate this week, you are not alone in your ambivalence, though the bulk of the fighting was (as seems increasingly common) between Republicans, where the giants of WeAreToughOnNationalSecurity and WeLikeLowPaidWorkersJustFine grappled for ascendency.

The House Bill, passed in December, was quite hard-line by any measure. Not only did it put requirements on Employers to more thoroughly vet their employees, it increased funding for enforcement; would make being illegal a felony; criminalizes any aid to illegal immigrants (including aid provided by charities or church groups, from food to shelter to medical care). It was also happily dancing in the land of the sugarplum fairy as it envisioned detaining all illegal immigrants in federal custody pending trials or deportation (as opposed to the current procedure where such people are simply given a court date on a piece of paper, and asked nicely to show up to be deported - somehow, not many of them show up). The President's plan for a guest-worker program was rejected out of hand, which is quite the thing for a Republican-led Congress to do - but then this is an election year, and Georgie won't be around too much longer.

The Senate bill passed last night was by comparison to the House bill far more conciliatory. It offers provisions not only for guest workers to gain a path to full citizenship, but also a way for those already in the country to get into the queue (albeit the BACK of the queue, with extra fines and back taxes and background checks to pass). The bill passed the Senate committee with the votes of all 8 Democratic members, and 4 of the 10 Republicans, enough to put it over the top - and further displaying where the division lines are drawn. The real fun starts now, as both bills have to be reconciled with each other before going before the President. It should be fun to watch. And boy, I'm glad I have a green card already.

What surprised me the most in this whole debate this year has been the mass protests we've seen in California and elsewhere. Aren't mass protests what those crazy Europeans do? Well, five hundred thousand might not count as a general strike, but it's still pretty impressive. In years past, those most affected by the debate - the illegal workers themselves - tend to shy away from publicity, rocking the boat, or anything that would bring attention, really. It has the potential to kickstart the debate into a new level.

Business groups are also standing in support of immigrant's rights groups. Surprise you? It shouldn't; they have traditionally tended to be in favor of anything that meant they got more cheap labor with no real need to check documents too closely. As illegals are more easily exploited than any other sector of the workforce, they're great to hire! You don't have to pay a living wage, or benefits, and you can just fire them at will. Even better though, because you can do that, it makes it easier to offer lower wages to actual Americans, too! After all, if Jose will do your job for $8.00 an hour, that means you'd better do it for that - or less! Competition and capitalism at its finest. It is interesting to see Republicans actually opposing immigration on the grounds it depresses wages for lower-income American workers (a notion debunked by a recent paper from the American Immigration Law Foundation); I guess the notion of having companies pay a living wage in the first place is nicely antiquated.

The entire immigration issue does leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Mainly because it seems so easy for companies to relocate out of State - or even nation - to find the best location. The most tax free, with easiest environmental regulation, loose labor protection laws and highest profit potential. Try and do that as an individual though, and you'll find it's not so easy. Apparently free trade doesn't trickle down to the trade of your skills for a decent wage, if that means crossing a border.

For the most part, those in this country illegally are actually working, making money to either support families here, or their country of origin. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have them legal and paying more taxes and be subject to the same protections and responsibilities, than it does to pretend erecting more fences is going to stop people wanting to come here to seek a better life for themselves and their families. Ultimately, if you're anti-immigration, you're rejecting everything that built this country over the years.

Posted by union_jack at 10:34 PM | Comments (0)

Arabs, Republicans and Ports, Oh My

I really must apologize for the gap in posts of late to my readers (all three of you). Work has a way of grabbing you by the throat. Hopefully this will ease up in the weeks ahead! Speaking of things grabbing you, all of the Senate and Congress appear to have been grabbed by the collective urge to be seen to be Speaking Out On National Security Matters That Affect This Great Nation. Also known as We Don't Want No Filthy Arabs Controlling Our Ports, depending on which spin you want to believe.

The Dubai Ports World takeover of P&O, a venerable British company, was one of those deals that in other times would have passed unheralded and uncommented on except for some notes in the Wall Street Journal. These are not those times, and it seems natural that foreign investment may be given a little more scrutiny given that a sizeable chunk of the world doesn't seem to like America very much at the moment. Apparently, scrutiny was given to the deal to the point of the company agreeing secretly to provide additional information to US Government agencies. Was this enough to reassure? Clearly it was not.

Is the criticism of the deal legitimate? I personally have not seen so many politicians scramble to be on the right side of an issue since Jack Abramoff's fall from grace. With even a cursory glance at the evidence, very little supports the self-serving rhetoric that swirled the halls of power. US Port operations, like those of many industrialized nations, are run by many international companies. Some of those companies are American. Some are European. Some are Chinese. Personally if I had to worry about a foreign owned entity, it would be one that may be partially controlled by the Chinese military. Not because I don't like the Chinese - their crab rangoon is the best - but that military involvement in supposed commercial entities just worries me, no matter the source.

To hear talk of the deal, people I spoke to seemed to think that at any second, New Jersey was about to be struck by a tsunami of robe-wearing sandal-flopping men riding camels around Newark, spitting cloves in the street and mocking the Great Satan of America. Little wonder that opinion polls put support for the deal at around 17%. When a few facts were brought into the picture - for example that the US Coast Guard controls port security along with other Federal and State agencies - opinion changed from outright rejection to wariness and requests for more details. Which is a much smarter way to approach the issue. Unfortunately a lot of the acceptance or rejection seem to split along party lines at least among the populace, if not politicians.

Right up until the end of last week, I was wondering if Bush would actually have to exercise a veto for the first time in his Presidency. Congress attached a rider derailing the Port purchase to a bill that provided funds for Katrina relief and Iraq; a bill that Bush would have had a very hard time throwing back. Unfortunately this nailbiter came to a very anticlimactic end as the company at the heart of the controversy announced it would transfer its US assets to an as yet unnamed "US entity". The deal has yet to be worked out, and so there may yet be controversy. If the company divests its interests cleanly the matter is likely resolved, for now. Instead, they could attempt to shuffle paperwork to satisfy the letter, if not the spirit of their statement and then we can look forward to it flaring up again.

While the GOP has been split along free-trade vs. security lines (two uneasy bedfellows at the best of times) it has been up to the Democratic party to attempt to make hay with a brazen shamelessness that would make the most red-blooded GOP spinmaster proud. Many of the luminaries of the party, among them presidential hopefuls, have been loudly declaiming their opposition to the deal to talk show hosts, newspapers, television, and soon, bumper stickers. Polls seem to indicate it may have worked. It is fortunate for politicians in this era that the average voter could tell you more about their local baseball franchise than matters of state*.

It's very depressing that the Democratic Party still has no coherent national message after six years in opposition, so I can understand you have to take your shots where you can. Better hope Bush is caught on camera eating a baby between now and November; with that plus Iraq, plus the Medicare disaster, plus the deficit, plus the economy, plus the widening gap between rich and poor, plus the lack of affordable healthcare, plus the failures of No Child Left Behind, plus the lobbying scandal, plus the bribery scandal, plus the Tom Delay scandal, plus this ports deal... you might pick up a couple of seats!

Not that I'm bitter about your ineptitude lately, or anything...

* This upsets me not because people don't share my morbid interest in politics, but just that they like baseball. Watch more rugby, people. Now THAT's a sport.

Posted by union_jack at 07:48 PM | Comments (0)

Pass The Parcel and other legal games

The trial of Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling is just beginning in Houston. I don't envy the jury involved - or the prosecution team - given the Byzantine nature of the scandal. White collar financial crime doesn't always leave a convenient body or fingerprints. Speaking as someone who can barely balance a checkbook, having to keep track of who did and said what and tracing multiple shell companies who transfer holdings back and forward would make my head spin. While Lay and Skilling have been given plenty of press, there was a development in the Enron case this week that didn't make the front page here - though it certainly raised a lot of hackles in Britain. What does Britain have to do with Enron? I didn't know either, so I did some reading.

At first glance, the story - three British bankers extradited to the United States to face trial in connection with the Enron scandal - did not arouse much interest in me. While I am always pleased to see the greedy and powerful brought low and humbled, what was one more banker? Well, the reason it caused so much controversy in Britain is not so much for what the men did, but the powers exercised by the United States in bringing them to trial in this country. At heart, this is a revealing look at how legislation changed since 9/11, and its perhaps unintended consequences. It is also a good example of how American power is perceived overseas, and the negative reactions it draws to this country. Or in layman’s terms, one answer to the question I'm so often asked here; 'Why does everyone seem to hate us, what did we ever do to them'? Well, this isn't something that causes hate, but a perfect example of 'just one more thing' where the Yanks have to get their way...

In 2003, Britain enacted the Extradition act. This was brought in without a great deal of Parliamentary review and with the stated goals of making it easier to extradite suspected terrorists to trial in foreign countries. The concern was that people could fight their deportation in the courts for months and years, tying up resources and money, rather than volunteering to go to face trial like good little terrorists. However, the act itself didn't specify only acts of terrorism; rather, it was any crime that could be punished with a prison term in both Britain and the country requesting extradition (in essence, you can't be extradited for something that is not a crime in Britain). This laid the table for a much broader possible application of the law.

The case of these three bankers is a great illustration of just how far this Act can reach. I don't know just how fascinating you find white collar crime, but here's the deposition of an FBI Field Agent on the matter. It covers the alleged offenses of the three men in great detail. To summarize, it is claimed that they created a holding company in order to take advantage of asset transfers between Enron and the British bank National Westminster in order to divert funds to themselves, in violation of various British banking laws. The offenses took place variously in London, the Cayman Islands, and New York. Thanks to a part of it being done in Wall Street, that puts these men within reach of the US Government to face trial in Texas.

Civil rights groups are protesting this decision. Not because they're pro-embezzlement, but because they recognize this for what it is; the US Government is engaged in a high-wire act to convict Lay and Skilling. If they can bring additional charges and perhaps encourage a plea deal with the British Bankers that will implicate Lay or Skilling, that helps their primary goal of putting the two big dogs behind bars - but given that their alleged offenses occured in not one but three countries - and the 'victims' of said offenses would have largely been the British bank and its shareholders - it seems a bit of a reach to drag them across the Atlantic to stand trial in Houston, when a trial in London would surely suffice.

This isn't the first time that British businessmen have run afoul of the new global cooperation in the war on terror. Last year another financier was charged under the act and put under threat of extradition for crimes that (if proven) largely occured in Britain rather than the United States. The British business community is getting very antsy at this turn of events; at this point, any company executive whose business dealings brush on US jurisdiction is now at risk of extradition. Ironically, this may be the impetus needed to amend the law. Nobody really minds when people are imprisoned without charge in Guantanamo for years - they're terrorists! But start going after White Guys With Money and the whole dance changes tempo. If there's one thing Rich White Guys With Money don't like, it's being dragged into court. That can lead to being turned into a White Guy With No Money, which isn't nearly as much fun.

Surely though, with all this easy cooperation between the UK and US in criminal cases, this also means London can now demand American businessmen (or terrorists) stand trial in Britain for crimes that occured there? Well, possibly - but it's far from easy. The final straw for most civil libertarians and commentators on the whole affair is the lack of reciprocity in the deal. When British law enforcement wish to extradite a US citizen, they must provide what is known as a prima facie case - that is providing US agencies with evidence on the accused that would meet the legal burden of proof of a 'reasonable standard of guilt'. The US on the other hand, need only show that the person has been accused of a crime that, if convicted, would result in a jail sentence of at least twelve months in either country.

The US is often accused of double standards around the world; it makes use of 'rendition' programs to spirit accused individuals to torture and uncertain fate without the need of a trial; it supports democratic elections until those elections result in inconvenient results; it supports International Courts until those courts ask for jurisdiction over American troops; and in this case, is quite happy to demand extradition of foreigners, while not offering the same in exchange. Of course, I can't blame the US Government for this one entirely - they didn't pass the Act. In fact, I should thank them; their zeal in going after Lay and Skilling and using the NatWest trio as additional ammunition may just provide the impetus needed back home to get the Act repealed. Then that awkward little thing called 'proof' may be needed before shipping citizens overseas to an uncertain fate.

Posted by union_jack at 03:11 PM | Comments (0)

An Apostle, a Rabbi and a Prophet walk into a Bar...

Sometimes I read a story and think it will be of momentary interest, perhaps worth mentioning in passing to somebody, and then am taken completely by surprise at its unfolding direction. If you've been following news from Europe, you will have heard about the cartoons published by Danish newspaper Udland Jyllands-Posten that depict the Muslim Prophet and the ensuing furor. Is this conflict about cartoons or is it a symptom of a deeper gulf between societies? Should freedom of speech supercede respect for the beliefs of your fellow citizens? Should people of faith learn to tolerate those outside their religion speeking freely?

The current controversy stretches back longer than is first apparent. The very first cartoons appeared not a couple of weeks ago, but back in September of last year. There it might have stayed, if not for the decision by several European publications to re-print the cartoons in the name of press freedom, secular principles.. and just perhaps to poke a stick in the eye of the protestors, metaphorically speaking. Why were the cartoons made in the first place, though?

As explained by Carsten Juste, Editor of Jyllands-Posten, the seeds of the dispute were laid when researching a children's book on the life of the Prophet. Somewhat unlikely roots, you may agree. When this book was being written, the author attempted to find an artist to illustrate the work. No artist could be found that was willing to put their name to the book; they would only agree to anonymously contribute, largely for fear of hostile reaction.

They obviously felt this was worthy of report. Why should artists in a country that is not an Islamic theocracy feel bound by the tenets of that - or any - religion? Do artists hesitate to illustrate figures from any other religion? State censorship is one thing; self censorship is another. Given the West's long fondness for political and satirical cartoons throwing acid barbs at every public figure imaginable from God to Britney Spears, it seems to follow that major religious figures will, sooner or later, be lampooned. This is not to say cartoons do not cause controversy; they do. Controversy seems to be a mild way of describing current events as they stand, however.

Islamic integration in Europe has been fraught with tension, particularly since the events of 9/11. A number of European countries like France have considerable minority Islamic populations. It was France that created new rules for schoolchildren, banning most public religious dress in schools, with considerable public support. Although it was ostensibly aimed at all religious symbols, the recommendation was largely seen as attempting to counter Islamic fundamentalism and enforce a secular policy. The riots in France that shook the country in the fall of 2005 had their roots in the tension between immigrants of a mainly muslim background and the greater French society.

Perhaps such tensions exacerbated feelings in France, when French publications reprinted the cartoons earlier this month in the name of freedom of expression. They were joined by news outlets across Europe. It was at this point that the original intent of the cartoons - exploring self censorship among illustrators - morphed into something much larger, pitting Western style freedom of speech against religious tenet - though freedom of speech is somewhat misleading, as most European countries have no such 'constitutional' right. This is a much bigger subject and much more prone to hijack by demagogues who are only too pleased to start anti-US protests over the affair.

So far the most surprising thing to me about this whole affair has been the retiscence of the US Press to actually publish the images in question. It is somewhat ironic given the protests have been more focused on anti-US sentiments than the true origin of the cartoons. I can't think that antipathy towards the US in the Middle East and across the greater Islamic world could be much lower at this point even if the cartoons were front page on the Wall Street Journal. Even cartoonists are divided, and few seem to want to put their head above the parapet (or minaret).

Personally, I can't say I blame them. Hazard pay or fatwa insurance isn't usually part of the benefits package of a syndicated editorial cartoonist.

How have things spiraled so far, so fast? The digital age. When riots can be propagated by text message and civil protests organized by instant messenger, rumors fly a lot faster than any official response - most of which are ignored anyway. If anything worries me about the whole affair, this does; almost any controversy can now be shaped and molded to focus public anger on something convenient (the United States and the West at large) and away from anything inconvenient (lack of democratic participation in many Muslim countries*).

In the end, the willingness of the European press to publish cartoons-and-be-damned gets a certain admiration from me. It's certainly more than I've seen from most US press so far. I am not particularly religious, though I do try to respect the fact my fellow men and women may hold such beliefs; but their right to belief stops where my right to say what I think about that belief without being put in fear for my life starts. Ultimately, if they're right, I burn in hell anyway. So what does it matter if I draw a very bad cartoon before I go?

In closing, I'm not going to link to the cartoons here, mainly because this isn't my website. However, clever little internet user that you are, I will give you one hint : Starts with 'G', and ends in 'oogle'. And if you can't find the cartoons with that, you don't deserve to see them.

They really weren't all that funny anyway, come to think of it. Dilbert is better. And that may be the final irony. If they're going to start World War Three, they should at least make me laugh.

* Of course, when I say democracy, I mean democracies that the West has already endorsed as being appropriate for public consumption. These inconvenient Palestinian elections that Hamas won aren't REAL democracy, right? Democracy only counts when you vote for who we want you to vote for, kids.

Posted by union_jack at 06:27 PM | Comments (1)

Do You Hear What I Hear...

Since the story about the National Security Agency's surveillance broke several weeks ago, the Bush Administration has been on the defensive. While traditionally a strong GOP issue, national security concerns are an area in which the Democrats have been trying hard to make inroads. This can make for some uncomfortable jostling for position when civil liberties are also high on your traditional list of interests. For the Republican side at least it appears such wishy washy worries are safely discarded - after all, if you're against eavesdropping, then you're for the terrorists and should promptly die in a fire. It's nice when life is simple!

Of course, life is not simple, unless you're on the Simple Life (in which case life is so simple its borderline retarded). What is curious about the whole debate is you have to look hard to find a Democrat who is anti-surveillance. They are quite happy with surveillance! What they object to is a lack of Congressional oversight, not the bugs themselves. The decisions taken by the current Administration speak volumes as to the mindset of those at the White House. Given the choice between working within existing law or appropriating new powers into the President's hands, they went for the latter course - as they have in most every other situation where the Executive branch has bumped up against the Judicial or Legislative.

The FISA program, oft-derided by the President and his team, provides for a secret court that meets in secret to provide secret warrants for secret surveillance to secretly listen in on foreign elements secret conversations (it is very secret). The main thrust of the debate is not so much listening in on Evil Foreigners - which everyone agrees is important - but that the tools given to the security services are not then turned around and used to spy on citizens of the United States. This topic reminded me of revelations in Britain in the 1980s, where MI:5 (the British Domestic Security Service) was found to have kept secret files on labor leaders, left wing activists, and others deemed a possible Threat To Our Way Of Life. In this country, we need only look back to the Hoover files to see what happens where an Agency is given carte blanche to poke around at their whim. FISA does not offer a great deal of protection in this regard - at least, certainly not public oversight - but it does give Congress a means to determine what is being done in the name of the public, and by whom.

The Adminstration's opionion on FISA and surveillance has changed in the years since 9/11. As an article in the Los Angeles Times reports today, the lawyers working for the White House actually -opposed- lowering the legal standard for intercepting traffic. This is the opposite of what they want today of course, which is lower requirements, using the 'We are at war, just trust me' approach to swaying the argument in their favor. Personally, I am not particularly swayed. Given that the current amorphous war on terror has no determined end whatsoever, the notion that we must shelve all criticism and questioning of our leaders because 'we are at war' swiftly translates to 'do not question those in power, ever, because that is bad for the country'. Not exactly the principles upon which this country was founded.

Congress is debating new limits on spying in general with Democrat and Republican party members expressing unease at the decisions taken, among them Arlen Specter. The debate is gloomily predictable, though it does have some wonderful quotes, among them John Kerry's principled stand that "What [Rove is] trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer." The growing debate that is diverging lawmakers along party lines isn't so much that surveillance is needed (everyone is pro-bug) but that whether or not the Bush Administration broke the law by brushing aside the FISA requirements with reference to the Congressional resolutions passed shortly after 9/11.

If you were to believe some of the heated rhetoric on this, you might even think that Congress would consider impeaching Bush. Senate Democrats are increasingly dubious about the rationale for bypassing Congressional oversight, deeming it a slap in the face to Congress - which it manifestly is. What confuses me is why this should surprise anyone; Bush certainly has no record of going out of his way to 'appease' anyone, especially when he's convinced he's right in the first place. Impeachment of course is about as likely as Jack Abramoff winning Washington DC Personality of the Year. While it's alright to impeach a President for lying about interns during a war on terror, it's okay to give them a pass when they creatively reinterpret laws, I suppose.

What does the general public make of this? Polls so far have been mixed. The most entertaining one by far was run by the New York Times. I will leave the full analysis to you, gentle reader, but will share with you two findings that made me laugh. Firstly, that

"53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism"; 46 percent disapproved. When the question was asked stripped of any mention of terrorism, 46 percent of those respondents approved, and 50 percent said they disapproved."

Proof positive that repeating 'Terrorism' over and over is a perfectly viable way of swaying people. The winner by a landslide though was

"In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."

Sadly, what differentiates ordinary Americans from suspicious Americans was never fully outlined. But that's okay. You can trust the government to make the decision for you. Right?

Posted by union_jack at 10:01 AM | Comments (4)

New Year, New Lobby

A happy new year to all! I hope your celebrations were safe and happy, and did not involve digging for a diamond earring in heavy snow atop a roof in downtown Portsmouth, as mine did (we found the earring though - perhaps that is a good omen). This year is shaping up to be full of interesting times, in the sense of that ancient chinese saying. Bird flu, a shaky Middle East peace process (not that this is new, really), forecasters saying bigger and badder hurricanes, a new and probably bitter Supreme Court nomination fight, Iraq, and now, on top of it all, lobbyists have been found to be influencing the political process! Quelle surprise.

The right to lobby is one that is enshrined in the Constitution. This might surprise some people who are reading the reports of favors, golfing trips and influence peddling, but then again I'm not sure that the framers really intended the 'right to petition for redress of grievance' to turn into a multimillion dollar old boy's network of the well-heeled, their aides, former Congressmen and Senators and their staffs. Intent or not though, it is the way of things that those who have money will have more access than those who do not - even without lobbyists, money buys you airtime, op/ed columnists, think tanks, and in extreme cases, 24 hour news networks.

Scandal seems to be a cyclical phenomenon in Washington. It is approximately ten years since Newt Gingrich's 'Republican Revolution' swept the House with a call for less corruption, smaller government, and a Contract With America. Very grand and impressive claims of a new start, but after ten years at the trough the likes of Jack Abramoff always seem to return. And why not? The money is excellent, it's indoor work, you get to schmooze with the rich and powerful, and best of all, since you're behind the scenes you get all of the trappings without the accountability - at least, until you get too greedy even for the beltway.

Catching the ear of the powerful and connected has always been part and parcel of politics. What makes things slightly different in this case is the extent to which lobbyists and the GOP leadership were intertwined, to the point that lobbyists were offering highly paid jobs to personal staffers (and family members) of the House leadership, and being -consulted- on proposed legislative changes by Representatives, to boot, rather than the other way around. Corruption of a single official such as Randy Cunningham is easy to pass off as a 'bad apple'. It's much harder to do this when the collusion is in the open and not only is it not prevented - it's almost encouraged as 'the way we do business here'.

As scandals go, this one has the potential to be quite a doozy. Not only has it single-handedly caused Tom Delay to abandon all hopes of recovering his leadership position, it has caused quite a few sleepless nights in the capitol among other representatives (and no doubt, their staffs). The public are not impressed in the least, and it just may be that the newly exposed greed at the top will topple the GOP from power in a manner the Democrats could only wish they could achieve. No doubt they will attempt to make as much hay from this as possible, but it is somewhat ironic that the GOP are the ones who have ultimately damaged their own standing.

Personally, I'm not surprised by it. The old saw that power corrupts holds as true today as it ever had; those who seek power root out corruption, while those who have power seek to maintain it. It's astonishing how things suddenly become palatable once you're the party in charge - things that while in opposition were the grist for the mill of attack politics. Politicians scratching their heads and wondering why the general public thinks 'a pox on both their houses' don't have to look all that far for the reasons. The incestuous relationship between Lobbyists, Politicians, their relatives and staff all combine to form a conflict of interest a mile high - or at least, the length of K Street.

Will this scandal bring down some House members? I'm looking forward to see if it does. In the meantime, the GOP is starting a race for the new House Leader and making earnest sounds about 'cleaning up the lobbying game'. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt is pushing hard for the post, while calling for new limits on lobbying. This is somewhat ironic, given his own son is a lobbyist and he has amassed a political operation to rival anything Tom DeLay amassed; whether the American people will be impressed by the fox earnestly declaring that these chickens are safe with him, is as yet an open question. Whoever wins, it seems likely that the winner will be as enmeshed in the 'new system' as anybody else on the Hill - with its inevitable impact on public trust in government, and those who govern.

Posted by union_jack at 12:54 PM | Comments (4)

Unite, Workers! (Unless I miss my train)

So for now it looks like the transit workers in New York are back on the job, while mediation continues. An outside observer would be forgiven for wondering what they gained - a three day strike, heavy punitive fines for union workers (and possible jail time for the union leadership) for no contract, and no guarantee. Strikes are rare in this country - far rarer than in Europe - so it was interesting to me that there was a strike at all. Was going on strike justified?

First we must ask, what constitutes justification? To the MTA board and Michael Bloomberg, I doubt there is any such thing as a 'justified' strike. From the standpoint of union workers on the other hand, who are faced with shrinking health and pension benefits and rising costs while the MTA sits on a surplus of funds, a withdrawal of labor is fighting for hard-earned conditions and fairness.

The dynamics of a strike have come a long way. The history of the labor movement in this country (as well as Britain) is a story of violence and extraordinary courage in the face of blatantly amoral exploitation from politicians and industry barons. It's important to note that a mere hundred years ago, child labor was commonplace here, in sweatshops and factories where businesses thought nothing of children working eleven hour days in appalling conditions in the name of profit. Now of course it's in China and Indonesia, so it's far easier to ignore - besides, I need my cheap sneakers.

Striking workers of the period were subject to harassment, assault, and risk of death by employer-hired thugs or even federal troops. In many cases, strikes did not achieve the stated goals of the workers, but what the strikes did achieve was to raise the consciousness of the country. It is remarkable to me that despite the fact that strikes were often broken, people were still prepared to withhold their labor to fight for fair and safe working conditions. It is because of the bravery of the workers in the late 19th century that workers today enjoy laws protecting them. The right to organize, the right to assemble and the right to withhold labor are to me natural rights that any worker should enjoy. There are limits to such rights in the name of maintaining national stability and security, but those limits need to be carefully applied.

The organized labor movement is going through some tough times. In this country, recent research offers some stark statistics - 12.5 percent of private sector workers in a union (down from 20 percent in 1983), and 36 percent of government workers. The industries that lent themselves well to collective bargaining are disappearing from the labor landscape; blue collar assembly and manufacturing is destined for the Far East or parts unknown, and white collar workers have never been significantly unionized by comparison to start with. That government (which includes local and state government) workers are more unionized is no surprise; it is much harder for a town to fire its entire police force or teaching staff and recruit new workers overnight than it is for a small business to fire a difficult employee and place an ad in the newspaper for a replacement. Public sector workers have that leverage of being more difficult to replace that most private sector employees do not enjoy, along with the fact the public sector workers are the only game in town; there are not multiple firefighting firms competing for your business, for example, as used to be the case many years ago.

While many of the benefits unionized workers have fought for, like health and safety legislation, benefits both public and private sector, other benefits like guaranteed contracts, pensions and work hours are unique to those fortunate enough to be in the union. There is a very wide gulf today between those workers - particularly those on contracts like those at the MTA. How many private sector employees do you know whose employer provides a pension plan? Not a 401(k); an honest-to-God pension plan. For that matter, how many get premium-paid health insurance? Or have the right to retire at 55 and collect on their pension? Not all that many.

The upshot of this is public sympathy for strikers is on the wane (though it should be noted such sympathy has never been particularly high in this country, as it seems unions are still regarded with suspicion, as if hairy horrible communists will emerge any second to drag the nation into a pit of Bolshevik anarchy). Public opinion is what drives people to the polls and to the voting booth for elections, referendums, propositions and anything else that might affect public (or private) sector labor law. Any union going out on strike has to consider public opinion to their cause carefully, if they are to avoid being demonized when the next election rolls around and corporate special interests are seeking to roll back labor protections as they invariably do. A badly timed or ill-supported strike could do far worse than cost a fine - it could do lasting damage to legal protections in that state where the strike took place - or even at the federal level.

With this in mind, the transit strike had little positive going for it, strategically. Public support was at best mixed. Wall Street brokers had private coaches chartered to take their suits to the office, and Mayor Bloomberg certainly wasn't inconvenienced in his daily commute. For the myriad of little guys and gals out there who need to get to work or they /don't get paid/, though, the strike was truly painful. The TWU perhaps should have taken a page from the London Underground RMT playbook; they tend to exercise what are known as 'wildcat' strikes; strikes pre-publiclized and only lasting a set period. The disruption is annoying, but not quite as bruising, and it certainly has an effect.

In closing, given that the transit workers were being faced with - heaven forbid - having to pay for healthcare(!) and starting to feel the demographic squeeze of pension commitments which have already burnt thousands upon thousands of workers across the country, I am not overly sympathetic to their plight. I truly wish they didn't have such choices to make, or have to start paying more money to secure retirement or healthcare. The tactics of the MTA were definitely not conducive to an easy resolution to this dispute. The fact is though, such demands are not much worse in comparison to the struggles the average unprotected worker is going through. The TWU were not 'thugs' or 'terrorists' for striking - far from it. I support their right to do so, and I think they were very brave to take the stance they did. Unfortunately not the right time or the right fight, and it just may have done more harm than good, long term.

The average American worker no longer looks at unionized workers as 'one of us' but increasingly as a protected enclave interested only in their own goals. If the labor movement persist in actions that hurt the weakest of the workforce while attempting to dent the strongest, it will come back to haunt them at the ballot box.

Posted by union_jack at 09:51 PM | Comments (1)

Tis the season…

I was thinking of writing about Christmas from the standpoint of over commercialism, crazed, panting mall denizens fighting over the last Xbox360, commenting on the pollution of other nations with Westernized materialism masquerading as religion, bemoaning the lack of ‘genuine holiday spirit’ and mocking the current perception that liberals hate Santa and Jesus in equal measure this week (It’s true, we do. Honest. Damn that Jesus and his message of love, tolerance and forgiveness, none of which are liberal values, I guess). I could do this, but it would be somewhat predictable (and I did, I’d have nothing to write about next week). Besides, I kind of like Christmas, much as I’m loathe to admit it. So for once, a post about more personal recollections! Next week we can talk about how spoilt brats need to do manual labor to earn gifts.

When I was much younger, Christmas was certainly magical. I definitely bought into Santa, and his myriad arcane powers. In fact, my belief was a little too strong. As my mother found out shortly after I was able to talk (and write lists), I had no guilt feelings whatsoever about asking for the biggest shiniest thing on the shelf. After all, since Santa was bringing it, mum’s checkbook simply was not a factor to be considered. Thankfully I’m not a parent, so I haven’t yet had to deal with that careful dance between magical elf-created Playstation consoles and crushing reality (It must have been easier fifty years ago when more toys were things like wooden trains. Santa can apparently make iPods now, and his elves work out of a sweatshop in Beijing).

Anyway, my firm belief in Santa’s omnipotence changed one memorable night. My parents were out for the evening, and I was being babysat. Having got it into my head that the babysitter REALLY, REALLY wanted to play a board game with a brat who just wouldn’t go to bed at a decent hour, I rummaged through various closets and cupboards. I remember being intent on my mission, pushing various parcels and boxes out of the way before I finally noticed something was amiss. They were gift wrapped. They had labels. Labels marked as for me! But in the place on the label marked ‘From’ it didn’t say ‘Mum and Dad’. Instead, the dreaded words FROM SANTA. But.. it wasn’t Christmas yet! While I don’t remember the babysitter’s name or anything about them for some reason, I still remember the crushing looming realization that everything was not as I thought it was. I remember saying ‘Oh…’ in a very quiet voice and carefully putting things back and closing the cupboard almost like I was closing the door on a chunk of my world. I suppose it would be the equivalent of a fervent Intelligent Design advocate looking at Paris Hilton and finally realizing there’s just no way some intelligence produced that - or if it did, it was a diabolical joke on the rest of mankind.

With that heartbreaking tale out of the way, I feel it is important to note that this did not in any way prevent me from enjoying the toys with their bogus labels. I was an extremely mercenary little brat. More stuff may be tainted with the fake-Santa label, but it was still Stuff. And Stuff is good. I don’t remember if my demands got less intricate after this new de-mystified Christmas; I do remember still poring over gift catalogs for hours on end, so I don’t think so, at least in terms of providing a large list of things. While I knew I wouldn’t get everything, the cardinal rule was you ask for a lot and bargain down - handy skills to craft at whatever age.

When do you know that you’re finally grown up? I think Christmas is one of those holidays that mark that shift from ‘fun’ to ‘socks’. When you get socks (or a tie, or aftershave, or strange perfume, or an obscure kitchen ‘time saving appliance’ like an apple core recycling juicemaker) then welcome! You are now an adult. You will never again wake up breathless on Christmas morning wondering what Santa gave you, though you may wake up breathless in mid January when the mailman brings the Visa bill. Somehow, it’s just not the same kind of magic.

However you spend your holiday season, I hope it’s a happy and safe one. And you don’t get too many pairs of socks.

Posted by union_jack at 10:08 PM | Comments (2)

Redemption vs. Responsibility

Should the death penalty be abolished? Can clemency ever be justified in a capital crime case? Can someone guilty of murder ever be considered 'redeemed'? I think the answers to all three questions are 'yes'. If you've been following the news lately, the case of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams will certainly have crossed your eyes. This man, found guilty of four murders in 1979 has reached what appears to be the end of the long appeals process with the rejection of clemency by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Did Arnold do the right thing? Yes. Why do I think so?

I have been a death penalty opponent for many years now. The United Kingdom has fully abolished the death penalty; the final act of law which removed it from my country was the ratification of Protocol 6 of the European convention of Human rights. We are not alone in this - all other European member states have also signed up to this convention. Despite this, there is still a reasonably solid measure of support for the death penalty in Britain. Whenever a particularly gruesome crime occurs, it is usually accompanied by an upswing in support for the penalty, with various supporting arguments. Support seems to oscillate from 40 percent to well over 60 percent, depending on the source. It would be fair to say we as a nation are divided about it, as is the United States.

Is being against the death penalty the easy option? It is interesting to me that opponents of the death penalty are often derided as 'weak', 'soft on crime', 'spineless', and so on. I take the opposite view. It's a lot harder to -not- kill some of the offenders than it is to spare their lives in some cases. I offer as one such example the case of two men accused of shooting to death an American nun in the Amazon. From a completely emotional, visceral standpoint it would give me nothing but pleasure to have the opportunity to return the favor. Sadly, shooting the guilty parties would not bring the victim back. It would give me pleasure, yes; perhaps even a sense of restoring balance. Would it make society any safer? Perhaps, if it is assumed such men, if free, may kill again. Perhaps, if it assumed such a fate would prevent others from doing the same. Unfortunately, that is a lot of assumption.

The flaws in the justice system - in fact, in any human system - lie at the heart of my opposition to death as a State response to crime. It is no surprise to me that those on Death Row in this country are disproportionately minorities (newsflash : it's not because they commit more murders, but that they're more likely to be convicted). No system can be guaranteed as perfect. Since it cannot, it is inevitable that innocent men and women will die as a result. My second opposition is cost. It may come as a shock to some (it did to me) that the cost of incarcerating a prisoner in this country for life is actually LESS than putting them to death. * This is because when you factor in the appeals and greater scrutiny of the court that is attracted to a capital case, the State ends up paying far more in lawyer's fees than they do on providing a cell (In fairness, this particular reason is more US-centric; in countries wtihout much of a fair legal system, it's often cheaper to execute them after a five minute trial; but then we get back to the fallibility argument). Finally, I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. I feel strongly that no-one has the right to take a life; and that restriction starts with the State. Some families who have been victims of murder (in some cases their own children) feel the same way. Not all victims demand death as a punishment. And finally, in the case of the truly abhorrent murderer, it's too quick. I'd gladly pay for keeping someone in a cell for forty years rather than offering them a fast, painless hanging. To me? That's money well spent.

To focus on Williams' case, I did not know anything about him before it started making headlines. When I first did read about it, my instinctive reaction was that a man who has made an attempt to change his life and atone for crimes should be recognized. On the face of it, a Nobel-prize nominated prisoner who has worked for years to teach children of the failings and ultimate end that the gang life can lead to, has been the focus of numerous appeals from churchmen, actors, activists and members of his own community.. well. If he's not deserving of clemency, who can be? What message does it send anyone if the State says, in effect 'nothing you do after the conviction matters or makes a difference to your end. You are in prison. Prison is a place to rot, not to reflect and find a new path.'. Amnesty International offers a useful summary of the case here.

The other side of the case presents a starkly different view. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office recaps the entire path that led to this juncture, starting with describing the crimes in detail. The methodology employed and the nature of the murders are quite simply, revolting, with nothing whatsoever to offer in terms of mitigating circumstance. It goes on to illustrate a plot orchestrated by Williams to attempt to break out of jail shortly after his arrest. It details Williams' refusal to offer insights into the gang he once was a part of, and ends on the reasonable observation that there have been 24 years of appeals and hearings and at ever step of the way, Williams' conviction has been upheld.

What is the 'right' decision?

Even on the face of the repugnant nature of the murders, I would be prepared to support clemency in this case. This is not because I oppose the death penalty; since I believe the penalty for such premeditated murder should be life without parole, the only function of clemency in my world would be to actually allow the inmate back on the street at some future point in time. That was never an option for Williams; even had Schwarzenegger offered clemency it would have been to reduce the sentence of death by injection to death by passage of time. He would still die behind bars; the only difference would be the date. I would support clemency because it is the human thing to do. If you say someone is completely beyond redemption, you strip them of their humanity and reduce them to an animal. The hope that someone can change their ways has to be at the heart of our justice. Without it, there is no future once convicted - and precious little motivation to try to change.

All that I believe. But not for Williams. He doesn't qualify. Firstly, he has never taken responsibility for even being involved in the crime, much less the man behind the trigger. Moreover, his refusal to talk to the authorities about his former gang ('Tookie don't snitch', apparently) gives the immediate lie to true reform. A true reformist, not to put too fine a point on it, snitches. The instinct to not 'rat' on your friends is a very powerful one. We see it in many walks of life; when police don't report corrupt colleagues, when communities don't testify in trials. (In Boston, they recently banned the sale of 'Stop Snitching' shirts. Though I disagree with the ban, based on First Amendment rights, I also disagree with that message. Stop snitching, save a drug dealer? I don't think so).

The argument he deserves clemency also crumbles when his books and nominations are offered in support. Being nominated for a Nobel prize sounds far more impressive than it actually is; any University Professor can nominate someone for a Nobel prize. George W. Bush himself has been nominated for a Peace Prize (a fact that should stick in any peace activist's craw). Williams' books and comments on the gang lifestyle are worthy. Perhaps they have helped reach some people - I hope they have. But the very first step on the road to redemption is responsibility. If he does not take responsibility for the crimes that put him behind bars he has not truly begun to redeem himself.

I think the execution - any execution - is a waste of a life. It will not bring back the victims or bring peace to the streets. While behind bars, Williams could offer more to society as an example and a symbol than he will in a coffin. But to argue for clemency because I oppose the death penalty would be intellectually dishonest. While I do not support the death penalty, as long as the people of California vote for it (however misguided I feel it is) it is the law. Williams knew the penalty for murder when he committed the crimes. He has had years behind bars to offer remorse and truly work against gangs and gang violence. He has not taken those opportunities or applied that knowledge. His fate, ultimately, has been sealed by his own hand.

Posted by union_jack at 07:57 PM | Comments (5)

Freakin’ Channel Choosing

It’s always amusing to me when you get to see two different spheres of corporate interest bumping up against each other. In particular it gets entertaining when the traditional allies of corporate interest are thusly torn between which of their patrons to support at any given time. The tap-dancing that ensues in the halls of power is a mighty rhythm indeed. We saw a little hint of this with the FCC’s recent (and to some, surprising) ‘re-appraisal’ of last year’s report that stated that ‘a la carte’ pricing models in cable television would drive prices up for consumers.

In case you don’t hold with all those fancy French words for describing matters in this country (I could call it ‘Freedom Cable’ too, if it’d help), a la carte pricing is essentially the notion that a consumer should be able to pay for only those channels in the cable lineup that they want, rather than have to deal with bundling packages, as we do today. On the face of it, this seems an eminently reasonable consumer driven notion that dovetails nicely with the concept of a free market, red in tooth and claw. Successful channels prosper, and unpopular (read : unprofitable) channels will go the way of the dodo.

The Federal Communication Commission undertook a study last year to look into the matter, at the behest of Congress. Let’s go back a year first of all to look at what the Washington Post said about the FCC’s findings in the grand ole year of 2004. The big conclusion was that the ‘average’ consumer could expect a rise in prices of up to thirty percent, if they bought the specific channels, rather than a bundling package. In addition the report rejected the notion of government regulation in favor of fostering competition and technology to lower prices in the long run. How you can ‘foster competition’ in a monopoly environment without government involvement is a strange question to me, but we’ll let this slide. The main point is the FCC was very pro-entrenched business interest in its outlook.

All this changed when the new FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, did a complete about-face on this finding, when he stated that a la carte pricing models would lower cable bills and allow greater parental control. Why the sudden turnaround? Surely the cable companies are as anti competition as they have ever been (in fairness, as any company is. No company likes competition). Well, they are not the only forces in play here.

The first opposition to cable companies are the the traditional phone companies like Verizon and AT&T - they have no problem at all with a la carte offerings. How altruistic and public spirited of them! Well, not really. The reason they love the idea is they’re trying to break into this monopoly market; anything that reduces the death-grip held by cable companies in conjunction with the big networks is music to their ears. Naturally, if the shoe was on the other foot, they’d be the first in line protesting that a la carte pricing just wasn’t possible, but I digress.

The second -and perhaps more politically awkward- force involved is that of a rising social conservative influence; nominally this is the pro-family pro-parent lobby, ably embodied by the Parents Televisoin Council. They had some great things to say about last year’s FCC findings - you can see the best here. I will share one quote directly.

Why should people be forced to pay for anal sex on FX when they want the Disney Channel? Why should they be forced to pay for South Park’s characters masturbating a dog to the point of ejaculation when they want The Discovery Channel?

Now I'm not a huge fan of channel bundling myself, but saying it's the slippery slope towards unwanted anal sex and dog jacking is a bit of a logical leap. Two points here. Firstly, I’ve yet to find any anal sex on the FX channel. If there is some, tell me what time and day. And secondly, that was a really funny South Park episode. *

Getting back on topic, the PTC viewpoint is clearly stated, and they have every right to their opinions, and every right to lobby their elected officials. Since it is pretty unlikely that cable channels will be subject to outright censorship (that old First Amendment protection), their ‘next best’ goal of a la carte price models is fair enough. I think they’re right; they shouldn’t have to pay for a channel if they find it objectionable, whatever the reason. (The fact parents can and should be spending time with their kids and making sure they’re not watching South Park is another discussion).

When the forces of social conservatism versus big business fight it is always uncomfortable for the Republican party. It is hard to be business friendly and allow them to merrily screw consumers when some of these consumers happen to be your electoral base. Until businesses are given the vote directly (don’t laugh, it could happen), they have to at least be seen to be attempting to placate the social conservatives of their party. This is why I think we’re seeing the rumblings from the brand new FCC chairman, who feels their pain and wrings his hands over ‘coarse programming’.

The real irony at bottom is the government didn’t budge an inch when the arguments for a la carte pricing (consumer choice, free market, let the best channels win) were purely business related; if one is supposedly for the free market, and yet encourages monopoly manipulation of that market, then one is a fool or a liar (or bought). Bring in the anguished forces of concerned conservative parents, though, and suddenly the government wishes to be seen to be concerned and doing something!

Business can take heart though; Forbes magazine at least sees little to fear. After all; the networks don’t like a la carte, and they’re the ones providing content. As long as they insist you get MTV with Nickelodeon, or FX with Cartoon Network, the a la carte proponents will face an uphill battle.

In closing, those who favor a la carte programming in the name of consumer choice and a fairer market should be very wary of this newfound FCC enthusiasm and their new strange bedfellow in the social conservative movement. After all, the goals of the PTC are to prevent indecency in programming (in part by having FCC indecency standards apply to cable television broadcasts, something the FCC chairman has seemed to favor). One is left with the suspicion they’d not be protesting bundling at all, if the only channels available were suitably ‘decent’. Now that would be the ideal! Bundled, anticompetitive monopoly run cable television that is all safely decent and predictable, so you can park the rug rat in front of the tv with confidence. It’s pro family AND pro business!

* Though not as funny as the one where Cartman proved you’d poop out your mouth if you shoved food up your.. well, yeah. You can guess the rest, you’re an imaginative lot.

Posted by union_jack at 11:00 PM | Comments (0)

Signs o' the Times

You know what makes a good topic? Well for me, it’s something that when you read about it, you instinctively think ‘I agree with this’. Then you read it again and think ‘wait, I disagree’. Then you read it a third time and say ‘screw it, I’m off for a beer’. Far more interesting than the cut and dried, right or wrong issues. Today’s story that the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a man against having to carry a sign admitting wrongdoing for stealing the mail was one such topic for me. Is it a fair punishment or is it unconstitutional, cruel and unusual?

I went to the trouble of rooting out the appellate court decision (the internet is handy dandy stuff) which you can read in full here if you’re curious - it’s actually highly readable for a court opinion, so give it a go. I recommend digging into things like this, because often you’ll find elements of the case they don’t bother to relate in detail in the news story; for example the fact the accused in question was arrested (and convicted!) for stealing mail while waiting for a hearing on THIS case of stealing mail. In addition, the guy had a criminal record encompassing criminal mischief, various driving violations, battery, and other things. So, not to put too fine a point on it, the guy is a punk. Now, punkness aside, the question is whether or not the sentence at hand was reasonable (and for that matter, constitutional).

To give the highlights of the ruling, the majority of the court stated that since prison recidivism was so high, and that the likelihood of being shamed or subject to cruel treatment in prison was so high, public shaming was neither cruel nor unusual by comparison (I would go along with this, if not for the fact that the public isn’t allowed to visit a prison and stare at the inmates, yell things, mock them, or otherwise get entertainment from the fact they’re behind bars). The court also held that since the sign-wearing was a sentence in conjunction with jail and community service, the overall goal of the sentence as a whole could be considered, rather than each part of the sentence individually (which is important, because waving the sign in the absence of any other punishment likely would have been regarded as unlawful).

Public ‘naming and shaming’ is nothing new in the United States, or many other countries around the world. In days of yore, the pillory (or the ‘stocks’) was oft used to imprison debtors and the like for the public’s entertainment. In more recent times, DUI drivers have had their pictures posted in the local paper. In fact, it was not so long ago in the grand scheme of things (in this country, a couple of hundred years, give or take) that such public shaming punishments were a more common alternative to prison; prison costs are much more significant than the price of some rotten fruit or a branding iron, after all. The concept of humiliation as a method of punishment is therefore not unusual.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Here’s where my knee-jerk reaction kicked in. I started thinking ‘no’, swayed towards ‘maybe, in certain cases’, then to ‘definitely, for some cases’, then all the way back to ‘no’ again (I pride myself on my wishy washy feebleness). This case was really interesting to me because it strikes to some of the fundamental questions of crime and punishment. Is the punishment for crime intended to deter? Is it intended to correct and rehabilitate? Is it intended to protect society from the criminal ? Is it to satisfy the victim (and by extension, society)’s need for retribution?

These four major goals (deterrence, rehabilitation, protection and retribution) form the basis of law. Criminal laws are drafted with these goals in mind, with greater deference given to different ends, depending upon the opinions and agenda of the author. Shaming punishments definitely satisfy that innate urge for retribution, and to a lesser extent, perhaps, deterrence.

I think deterrence is hardest to quantify, as one does not often see opinion polls of what crimes did NOT take place due to a punishment (“I was going to kill him, but then I realized I might go to prison, so I didn’t…”). Deterrence, for me, is the most shaky foundation to base a law on. People are not deterred by punishment; rather they are deterred by the likelihood of getting CAUGHT. But even if it were possible to catch 100% of people that would break the law, there would still be crime (crimes of passion, of misadventure, of ignorance of the law). So, deterrence as a theory doesn’t hold a lot of water for me.

Second to deterrence is retribution; what is fitting retribution for one crime may not be for another. In particular, the victim of a crime might demand a punishment that someone uninvolved in the case would consider excessive. In murder trials for example, sometimes the victim’s family forgive the accused, and sometimes they do not. Which family is right? An impossible question to answer, for me.

As a shaming punishment falls firmly (to me at least) in the category of retribution, this is why I am dubious as to its merit. Firstly I think ‘fitting retribution’ is a subjective judgment, and thus difficult to evenly mete out - what might cause shame to one person would to another may just inspire contempt or amusement. Secondly, and more importantly, the reason we have juries and judges is to provide impassive, sober consideration of a case on its merits, and then unbiased and logical judgment at its conclusion (well, at least in theory). We then rely on the state to carry out sentence in an impartial and fair manner to all. To make society a part of a sentence by deliberately setting out to humiliate a person in a public spectacle invites almost a lynch mob mentality. Justice must be done, and be seen to be done, but justice should be meted out by sober professionals, and it should not become a circus entertainment.

However, the Supreme Court let all this stand; apparently there is nothing unconstitutional, or cruel and unusual, about such scarlet-letter style punishment in this day and age. This is a pity to me. There has been crime throughout recorded history, through regimes and punishments far more terrible than anything meted out in the United States or Europe today. Crime will always be with us, which is the ugly fact. How we approach the problem speaks in large part to the kind of society we are. Do we excoriate, humiliate and take gleeful vengeance, or do we look beyond instinct to the larger questions of rehabilitation and prevention?

Sadly, just when I’m settled on the notion of humiliation being an ineffectual and inappropriate method of correction, then I picture the likes of Ken Lay or Jack Abramoff in a set of stocks wearing a sign like ‘I WIPED OUT YOUR LIFE SAVINGS’ or ‘I BRIBE CONGRESS’. And then I’m not so sure that I don’t like the idea of public shaming. But then I crash back to earth. Guys like this don’t feel shame, or they wouldn’t do what they do. But what they do fear is poverty. Even better than the image of Ken Lay wearing a sign of remorse is Ken Lay wearing a McDonalds outfit, working out his retirement. Much better - and I don’t need him wearing the circus signs to enjoy it.

Posted by union_jack at 11:51 PM | Comments (8)

Limey Laptops?

It's probably not what you're thinking by the title. The only 'Limey Laptop' I could name would be the hoary old Sinclair ZX Spectrum; back in days of yore in the UK this was the principal duelist to the Commodore 64. No XBox or PS2 for us, oh no; in my day, we had 8 bit sprites in two-tone color. And we were lucky! We also had to walk uphill to school every day in the snow (both ways). Oh, the stories I could tell; like how my Commodore had a huge crack splitting the keyboard, the result of an angry fist - my mother would ask 'why do you get so upset at losing a game?' and I'd retort 'Because it's just a game!' (My logic being at the time that if a mere game could beat me, I would respond with a healthy dose of violence. The game still won, but I felt better). Memories... but I digress. So what are these Limey Laptops?

Actually, they're not Limey Laptops - but they are lime-colored. You may have heard some buzz about them, because it's the sort of story that leaders like to trumpet as evidence of their concern for the teeming masses. The program is the brainchild of Nicholas Negroponte, of the MIT Media lab. As reported in many stories over the past few weeks, the 'Limey Laptop' is in essence a tiny computer, intended to aid children in developing nations in getting a head start in technology and learning. The program was lauded at the recent United Nations World Summit on Information Technology. The goal is noble; I'm sure noone would (on the record, at least) begrudge a child a chance at a better life through education.

So why is it my visceral reaction to this program was not 'Hurrah, computers for all', but rather 'I won't be too surprised if the first email from a lucky recipient says something like "d3ar un1ted stAtes, th4nk u 4 teh lApt0ps. plz send f00d. w3 r hungRy."'?

In the interests of fair disclosure, to you, gentle reader, I will note here that I've worked in the technology field for almost ten years now. As a result of this, my enthusiasm for the magic of computers has been somewhat tempered by the bitter experience of server crashes, network failures, viruses, bugs, memory leaks, hacking attempts, beeping pagers, incessant emails, and false claims. I swear, if it wasn't for the pornography, I wouldn't bother with a computer at all. Did I say pornography? I meant the complete works of Shakespeare. Honest. *

Getting back on topic to this 'One Laptop Per Child' program. It is a snappy title for a program. Simple, visionary, and bold. I like it. It gives you something to aim for. Sort of like 'No Child Left Behind', or 'Peace In Our Time', or 'There's Always Room For Jello'. Unfortunately, I think it'll take more than slogans to actually get something done. I would agree laboring to give kids a chance is no bad thing at all. I don't doubt the sincerity of the men and women of MIT who want to bring this technology to people. I just doubt their common sense.

To me, the entire program smells a little of hubris, and a lot of elite ivory tower academe thinking. One goal, as quoted by Fortune Magazine, is that children will teach themselves how to read and write, once someone shows them how to boot up the machine and fire up some friendly speak-and-spell type application. Now, I suppose being in some ghetto or wartorn village will give kids a lot of incentive to figure out a way out of there, but are they really serious here? Let's contrast that with kids in this country, many of which leave High School barely literate as it is - and they don't have to worry about insurrectionist movements taking over their school and turning it into a bomb factory. I think they're expecting a little much of the children involved. "Here, kid. Crank this sucker, teach yourself English, and you can start sending Nigerian spam email through your mesh network to feed your family."

This notion that children will teach themselves seems to be a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that many - some would say most - of the children that these programs are intended to reach may not have schools, classrooms, teachers, or for that matter, homes. The notion that parachuting in a laptop will act as a magic panacea to cure these bedrock inequities in society is more insulting than it is laughable. I'm all for teaching someone to fish so they can feed themselves, and so on. But this is sort of like giving someone in Sub-Saharan Africa a DVD of 'Sport Bass Fishing For Beginners'. They might need, you know. A rod. Some water. Oh, and some fish to catch.

The initial delivery of these laptops is intended for foreign governments, who will then make the laptops available to their citizens, among them China. Yup. When I think about free and open access to information technology, I think China! There is also interest closer to home; It seems Governor Mitt Romney down in Massachusetts is thinking about investing in this program. This really DID make me laugh. Maine provided iBooks to their K10 students; Mass. is going the hand-cranked route. Oh, the social stigma for the kids. 'I have an XBox 360!' 'I have a wind-up green thing.' 'Ahahhaha! You SUCK!'

With optimism characteristic of this program, it is hoped that the machines will be so ubiquitous and prominent there will be 'community pressure' that they don't get sold (for say, food). I like that label. 'Community pressure'. Maybe the sort of community pressure that forces kids into warlord armies, or into sex slavery, or any number of horrible fates. Yeah. I can see the social stigma of stealing laptops from children and stripping them for parts would really deter people. I'm kind of waiting to see the laptops delivered to some sweatshop, the hand crank converted to a pedal-powered system, then lining up ten 5 year olds, shackling them to a bench, and forcing them to pedal so they can power a Zimbabwe porn operation made up of linked-together lime laptops. 'The customer says the server is slow! Pedal faster, brats!' 'But we were supposed to learn English!' 'Shut up! No soup for you!'

Naturally, that's a worst-worst case scenario. I admit, my thinking tends to the pessimistic when it comes to any program that relies on the intrinsic good of mankind to prosper; mainly because if mankind had intrinsic good, we wouldn't NEED these programs. Oh, well; if nothing else, it forces development of cheap technology that might make its way to those who can use it to help themselves. Without optimists setting goals, we would have nothing at all to aim for. Optimists have to think up programs like this - but I think they need a few good pessmists to run it.

* If you were looking for a link to pornography, I'm sorry to disappoint. Besides, if you can't find any, you're honestly just not looking hard enough.

Posted by union_jack at 08:51 PM | Comments (0)

Prisons? I don't recall that, Senator.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, this week's news that the Central Intelligence Agency was operating 'Black Prisons' in Eastern Europe was excellent fodder for speculation. I should probably note here that 'Black Prisons' refers to the intelligence designation of 'Black' which is, I suppose super duper extra top secret. At least, super duper extra top secret enough to go unnoticed for a couple of years before the airplanes dropping off bound and gagged guys in orange jumpsuits caused comment, I suppose.

These secret prisons are supposedly run by the CIA to interrogate prisoners from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries. The reason that prisoners are located outside of the United States is a legal convenience; rules governing the treatment of US detainees do not apply when not on US soil (the Guantanamo base was deemed to be 'not US soil' for the purposes of holding prisoners). Guantanamo, run by the Department of Defence, is a separate operation from any CIA facility.

Guantanamo is the most famous facility with some disturbing accounts leaving its walls along with the few prisoners who have been released. About the only thing that can be said with any certainty is the detainees have been imprisoned for a number of years, most of them without charge, and have as yet no clear route to a trial and determination of their status. For the most part we (as in 'we the people') don't know who these people are, where they were apprehended, what the evidence is against them, or how long they are to be held. This bothers me - not least because, as an immigrant to this country, theoretically I could end up in Guantanamo if I suddenly turned around and started saying nice things about Osama.

While justice in this country (to be fair, in most any country) is often a matter of money, the basic rights of a prisoner in the United States - to a trial, a lawyer, an impartial judge, and a hearing - are pretty solid, no matter who the defendant is. Even Jeffrey Dahmer got a trial (true, he was beaten to death once in prison, but hey, you can't have everything). But for detainees in the 'War on Terror' there is no such right. This worries me. The concept that this country, which is really a beacon when it comes to human rights, can merrily make people disappear from the face of the earth without due process - and be happy about it! - just strikes me as wrong. I guess I'm a wishy washy hippy, but the idea of justice being done, and being seen to be done, always resonated with me. Indefinite detention by faceless State agencies is the antithesis of a free society, if you ask me.

Back home, Tony Blair is fighting political opposition to his plans to increase State powers to combat terrorism. In the wake of the London Underground bombings, changes to British law were proposed. Thanks to the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles, we've had a Prevention of Terrorism Act in law which has provided for, among other things, the jailing of a suspect for a fixed time while evidence is gathered. Until recently, this was 14 days. Blair's government has proposed extending this to 90 days. Their explanation is that in the current environment, investigations span multiple agencies and countries and therefore police require more time to gather and present evidence to a judge.

Some members of Blair's own political party rebelled against this, joining with the opposition parties in Parliament to inflict the first defeat in the House of Commons for the current British Government. While I think some of the resistance was political point-scoring, not all of it was. There is genuine unease about extending police powers, even in the face of terrorist threats. Civil liberties organizations were positively up in arms about the proposals. Personally, while I don't like the idea of detention without charge, it's sort of strange to me that there would be such concern over a mere three month detention versus three years of dropping off the face of the earth entirely.

Over here, discomfort over the prisoner question seems to be rising. John McCain recently submitted a bill in the Senate requiring that detainees would be subject treatment under the Army Field Manual, no matter where they were located. It was passed by the senate 90-9. Getting the US Senate these days to agree on anything 90-9 is a minor miracle in itself. If anything is a mandate, this is. Unsurprisingly to me, the White House is very opposed to this notion. Dick Cheney has been making the rounds in the halls of the Senate trying to get exemptions from these rules for the CIA - who of course, run the aforementioned super secret decoder ring prisons. McCain has since promised to attach this prisoner treatment amendment to every Senate bill, until one comes across Bush’s desk he can’t veto (Based on this, it is my suspicion McCain needs to hire aides to carry his brass balls around for him in a special ambulatory device, as they are just too much for one man alone).

So, what is the answer? Clearly, governments must fight terror. Government must protect their citizens. I don’t have a problem with detaining suspects to protect the public. However, protection takes many forms. And one of the most fundamental is protection from being disappeared on secret evidence from secret accusers. I don’t want my Government interning people based on flimsy unseen evidence. This will not improve my security one whit. As for torture, while it might be satisfying on some raw emotional level to dole out pain to someone who bombs innocent people, once you start down that road, it becomes possible to rationalize all sorts of evil. Freedom has its price, and part of that price is not becoming that which you detest, in the pursuit of its protection. The end does not justify the means. In closing, I'll quote John McCain directly.

"The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

Posted by union_jack at 08:40 PM | Comments (1)

Say Cheese!

This one is just a quick entry (fear not, my verbal torrent of bad grammar will continue tomorrow) to hold you all over. If you don't read The Smoking Gun, I do recommend it as a regular stopover in your daily web-crawling. Sometimes it has pictures! And not only of scantily clad women. I give you these pictures in evidence that sometimes, we little guys (and gals) win one. If you're like me, CEO greed is something that really annoys you. These guys are already filthy, steaming rich; but too much is never enough for some people. So we get to see Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz 's mugshots as they report to prison. You may recall these were the men at the helm of Tyco, convicted of grand larceny as they plundered that company like Blackbeard on a serving wench. Have a nice time in the big house, fellas. Try not to drop the soap.

Posted by union_jack at 11:29 PM | Comments (0)

Wal-Mart is Hiring! (No Fat Chicks)

Do you shop at Wal-Mart? I do, occasionally. Every time I do, I always feel like my karma is being tarnished in some small way. I'm not sure why, exactly. For me, I guess it's kind of like that feeling if you have to park in a handicapped spot for a couple of minutes to run in and retrieve dry-cleaning or something. I've worked retail in a former life (Virgin Records alumni represent) but working Wal-Mart retail has always seemed a little worse than regular retail to me. Maybe it's that damn blue vest with 'How Can I Help You?' emblazoned on it. If you're like me, helping those whiny bastard customers is the last thing on your mind - especially as a Wal-Mart employee. At least we got to wear black t-shirts at Virgin.

I guess I'm not all that servile to begin with. I'll help someone, certainly; but I have difficulty putting myself into an obsequious our-customers-are-everything sort of mindset. Let's face it, folks; nobody is in retail because they have some glowing shining light that says this is their calling. That's for astronauts or actors or brain surgeons or something. If you're working retail, it's because it's a job that pays the rent. I respect that, too. It's a lot harder to get up and go to work at something that -isn't- your life's joy, just to make the rent and make sure the kids have food. So any time I'm in Wal-Mart - or any retail establishment - I do my best to be decent to the people working there, and I hope you do too.

I say all of this, because it's pretty clear that Wal-Mart themselves don't give a flying fuck about their employees. I know, right? This is news? Well actually this week it was news as Wal-Mart Corporation released a detailed memo entitled 'Reviewing and Revising Wal-Mart's Benefits Strategy'. Now, as one who has some experience with corporation doublespeak, when you see a headline like that, you'd better curl up into the fetal position ahead of time, because the chances of them actually announcing free punch and pie for all along with company-paid healthcare and an extra week's vacation for everyone.. Well, you get the picture.

The memo - which the New York Times was kind enough to post in its entirety here - makes for a good read. Some of the more telling statistics quoted within are Wal-Mart specific, but some actually raise some questions about the private sector as a whole. To focus on Wal-Mart though, the memo gives some thought provoking facts. For example, 46 percent of Wal-Mart Associates' children are either on Medicaid or have no insurance at all, and last year, 38 percent of Wal-Mart Associates spent more than 16 percent of their income on healthcare related costs (to put this in some sort of perspective, the average Associate is making $17,000 a year - before tax. 16 percent of that, monthly, is roughly $225. This is a real bite out of your budget at that level).

The document goes on to bemoan the fact that on average, Wal-Mart Associates are less healthy than the population at large (given that on average, Wal-Mart workers tend to have lower household incomes, I would suggest this is only to be expected, since it's already been noted in several studies that health problems disproportionately affect those at the lower end of the economic scale). It suggests mandatory physical activity as part of an Associate’s duties in order to make the job ‘less attractive’ to a certain demographic. It also contains the stunning revelation that an Associate with seven years of experience makes more money and costs more money but is not more productive than an Associate with one year's experience!

This 'revelation' irritates me greatly, perhaps moreso than anything else in the memo. See, if you think about what a typical retail person does, they really have very little control over their daily routine. You work your shift, you assist the customers who come to your queue, you stack things, you gossip about that slut over in women's fashions, and so on. But as someone manning a cash register, do I have a magical ability to move more product per second over the beeper and handle a credit card transaction faster than the person next to me? Not really, no. After initial training, these tasks become very generic, with little variation between employee (unless one is really really hungover and forgets how to operate the damned machine, which never happened to me, and I deny all). Seven years experience of manning a cash register does not confer super powers of keypunching. But the way they phrase it seems to expect otherwise. I have to wonder if any of these corporate monkeys have ever spent time in the trenches, in between getting their community college MBAs.

Let's also quantify the numbers, because Wal-Mart was kind enough to do this within the memo with handy impressive charts and graphs. You know it's good scientific data, because it has charts and graphs. They lose points for it not being in color, though. So, what is this princely sum the seven year veteran is earning, that is pinching poor Wal-Mart's purse-strings? $14.03, with $5.49 of taxes and benefits. To put this in some kind of perspective, the Associate with one year’s experience is, by this chart, earning $9.06. So basically, it takes them six years to get that extra five bucks. Wal-Mart refers to this as ‘pricing an Associate out of the labor market’ and thus making it more likely they’ll -stay with- Wal-Mart - the last thing they want, if you’re one of these unhealthy types who actually uses his or her medical insurance.

Broadly, this memo is a revealing look at how the private sector is dealing with the question of benefits and employee satisfaction. I don’t personally believe Wal-Mart is more evil than any other company*; I will just refer to my commentary on companies in a prior article on disaster relief. Companies want to MAKE MONEY. They do not want to pay you more than they have to. They want to MAKE MONEY. They do not want to give you more benefits than the market - or the government - requires. They want to MAKE MONEY. They do not want to give you paid time off. They want to… are you getting the picture, here?

This memo is going to have greater relevance as the year progresses. The steps taken by Wal-Mart - individual health accounts, higher costs for spousal coverage, and manipulation of employee duties to exclude the less healthy - will be scrutinized by competitors. As the 900 pound gorilla in the market, what Wal-Mart does will have a cascading effect throughout the industry. Most tellingly, the memo recommends that Wal-Mart become engaged in - and reframe- the national debate on healthcare, in terms that are more advantageous to the company.

Will these terms be more or less advantageous to the guy or girl wearing the blue vest behind the counter?

I’ll give you three guesses.

* Okay, okay. I do believe they’re more evil. But only because they’re bigger. I don’t for a second think that K-Mart or Sears, in their position would be any less evil.

Posted by union_jack at 10:36 PM | Comments (1)

Money, it's a Gas

Strange as it may seem, when discussing politics and its ilk, I'm far happier when I'm wrong in my suspicions about the evil motives of various political parties and people. This is because usually I'm the one fortelling doom, gloom, and other things ending in 'oom'. When I'm wrong, this usually means one of them has surprised us with noble deeds that lift up all humankind in an example of what we can aspire to. Sadly, this week didn't have many of those stories. What it did have though, was a few news articles doing a wonderful job of displaying the current priorities of the Republican party. Let's take a look...

First on the list is predictable, but interesting nonetheless. The Washington Post went into some more details of the planned spending cuts in the wake of the hurricanes, in order to pay for disaster relief. Spending cuts have become a prominent refrain of a wing of the GOP of late. The current presidential urge to tax-cut-and-spend is clearing weighing on the rank and file membership. I don't think anyone would dispute the basic notion that the Government should try not to spend more than it is taking in tax revenues, in any given year (I say try, because years, and needs, are fickle. When the average person is carrying several thousand dollars worth of credit card debt because of unforseen expenses, I find it difficult to hold government to a higher standard of clairvoyance). Say what you like about 'tax-and-spend' liberalism though; at least it recognizes that things must be paid for.

There is a curious disconnect in some people's minds on the question of taxation as it pertains to provision of services. It doesn't matter to the GOP if taxes provide services to the poor; the point is taxes are -bad- (the more income you make and the better able you are to pay them, the worse they are). Taxes do no good and should be avoided wherever possible. Perhaps it's because an average Republican could never see themselves on Medicaid or Medicare; after all, such services are for the losers in society who don't work hard enough, right? All they need is a work ethic, like decent upstanding people!

Taxes, taxes, taxes. Surely the one thing the Republican party -would- be in favor of is at least getting the most bang for the tax laws on the books? Closing down loopholes, going after tax cheats, and enforcing law? After all, they are the traditional party of law and order, are they not? And since tax-dodgers end up increasing everyone else's tax burden by their non-payment, shouldn't they be the first in the firing line?

You might think so, but you'd be wrong, if you were in California, where Arnold has been vetoing bills put forward by the state Representatives that give more power to state tax investigators. These investigators had been working overtime to chase down businesses that were not collecting sales tax, or not paying income tax, to the tune of recovering over four billion dollars in the last fiscal year. This money went straight back into state coffers, helping to avoid cuts in some heath and social services programs. I don't know about you, but this sounds like a perfect exercise. Enforce the existing laws, so there's no tax increase; and yet, tax revenues go up! Win win, right? Wrong. The State GOP and Arnold contend that these measures are anti-business. I suppose they are anti-business, if your business is tax avoidance. But from the point of view of a taxpayer, they sound just dandy to me.

Perhaps it is logic like this that has lead to yet another great law coming out of Florida (I swear, I have less reason to go back to that State by the day. Hurricanes, old people, alligators, and now this). Florida, like most states, is struggling under rising healthcare costs. Healthcare has gone up by double-digit margins over the past ten years, almost every year; far outpacing the rate of inflation - or tax revenues. Clearly this widening gulf is a critical problem for states that have a legal duty to provide Medicaid coverage. The approach Florida is taking? Hand the entire operation over to private insurance companies. I don't know if I'm the only person in this country that regards medical insurance companies as the most raw example of brutality masquerading as capitalism, but let's let that pass for a moment.

This law not only has the state giving money into private insurance plans; it's allowing those insurance companies to dictate what is and is not covered under those plans, rather than the state being the judge. This is a fundamental retreat from the concept of medicaid. Look ahead five years, and you'll see drastically cut medicaid entitlement and services, all for the same price taxpayers are paying now, with no accountability. Where will the surplus go? Profits! But look on the bright side. No more than five percent of medicaid recipients are estimated to be at risk of exhausting their state-paid coverage, per year. Or to put it another way, the most chronically ill five percent of medicaid recipients in the state will also be handed bills demanding payment for treatment the state is not covering. The first instinct of the GOP is not to raise taxes, or enact market-controlling legislation to cap prices, or (heaven forbid!) to assemble a plan for a universal coverage system; the first step is to abdicate governmental role altogether and provide already price-gouging private industry with a new cash cow.

When I relate stories like these, sometimes friends point out that this is why it's not worth caring; the game is rigged, and businesses fund the lobbyists who fund the backroom deals that make Washington go around. All this is true. Yes, business knows who its friend in government is. But there is one thing to remember - even the CEO of a multinational company only gets one vote. Same as you. The power is always there to change things.

Posted by union_jack at 11:28 PM | Comments (2)

Left, Right, Left, Right...

The Katrina rebuilding process is raising some fundamental questions about the country's spending priorities, taxation and the role of government when it comes to disaster relief and response. It's still shaking out, and I don't think anyone yet knows what the final consensus will be - if there will be a consensus at all. The commentary seems to span the spectrum from 'Washington should take the lead' to 'Why should people in Arkansas pay for Louisiana's problem?' (The latter being an actual quote from a resident of that fine State).

As interesting as all this is, I think the most surprising outcome of the disasters in the Gulf coast is the emergence of clear differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches to the problem. I know, right? DIFFERENCES between them? Like, wow. I always knew, deep down, the differences were there; but it's knowledge in the same way that I knew that Jessica Alba would look great in a cowboy stripper outfit. It's one thing to know it, but it's another to see it right in front of you (if you haven't seen Sin City, I recommend it).

Getting back to the question of government role, it is interesting to me to see both sides of the divide arguing fervently for what they perceive is the best approach. Given the same facts at hand, they are coming to radically different conclusions about what should be done. This, I think, drives to the heart of what is different about the two parties; in fact, what is different between the right and the left in general (whether it be in America, or the Conservative and Labour parties back in the UK, for example).

It's not social issues like the abortion argument, the gay right argument, evolution, public prayer in schools, stem cell research, and things of that ilk, even though they're hot button issues that drive a wedge between people. They're called wedge issues for a reason! A perfect example of using such issues as a wedge was reported at One World today. You can see the full article here, but I feel urged to quote one passage directly.

David Kuo, former Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, testified before the House government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources last June, stating: "[M]any members of the president's own party expressed equal parts apathy and antipathy towards this agenda. Money for the poor? Why, it will just get wasted, they said. We just need to cut the funds and let the private sector take over. We don't need more funds, all we really need to do is make sure that we have a huge political fight over religious charities' right to hire and fire based on their own faith. That way, as I have heard time and time again, Republicans will be seen as fighting for religions and Democrats will be seen as fighting against it."

Divide and conquer; a time honored tactic (used by we British to great effect in Colonial times) repackaged for the modern world. Don’t be fooled. These issues are not defining of party affiliation or fundamental philosophy - you can see proponents and detractors of each issue in both parties. For example, there are pro-life Democrats, just as there are pro-choice Republicans.

So if it’s not wedge issues that define the right and left, what does? Ultimately, the difference seems to come down to how you view the concept of wealth; its acquisition, its distribution, and its taxation. These concepts are pretty deep, and I don't intend to get too sidetracked or we'll be here all day. To summarize as it relates to dealing with Katrina, I describe the differences as follows.

If you are on the right of the political spectrum, you are most likely to view wealth as the personal province of the person who aquired it; taxation is a burden and a pressure on free enterprise. Those with wealth either earned it, or benefit from it by the hard work of their parents or forebears. As such, it represents the fruits of labor that can now be justly enjoyed. With such a view, it becomes evident that the recovery efforts from the hurricanes should be spurred by lowered taxation and regulation to allow businesses to recover and restart the engines of growth.

On the left, you may view wealth as being achieved with the aid of government, its provision of vital services and protections which provide the environment in which personal wealth creation can prosper. As a result, taxation is a responsibility citizens have to provide government with the funding it requires to continue these programs. Since taxation funds vital social services and aid programs, taxation should be maintained or increased to fund recovery efforts and provide guarantees and stability to help businesses and individuals return.

With these contrasts in mind it becomes easier to see why the Republican party is now proposing cuts in Medicaid and other entitlement programs, along with reduced wage regulation in the gulf coast area, in order to - as they see it- speed the recovery (as opposed to, say, milking every possible dollar from the taxpayer). The true historic Republican is a fiscal conservative, first and foremost, and it is this wing of the Republican party which is rising up to protest Bush’s tax-cut-and-spend strategy. The Democratic party - along with some more moderate Republicans - is protesting the moves to cut programs, and recommending the repeal of current tax cuts in order to boost government coffers to pay for reconstruction.

Personally I think the concept of private enterprise 'driving recovery' is missing a few fundamentals of human nature. Even before the first rain fell in New Orleans, people were lining up to scam relief efforts. Companies and private individuals, wanting to make money fast and quick, avoid as many regulations as possible to lock in favorable contracts with government agencies to provide rebuilding services at a healthy mark up, and drive wages as low as humanly possible to maximize profit. This is not to say all companies are bad. Private enterprise can indeed have altruistic noble goals. It's just not very common. Businesses are in business to make money. Even a good honorable ethical business is in business to make money. This is what they do! There's nothing wrong with this goal, but it is important to understand that when you start confusing businesses with humanitarian organizations that things go downhill. Job #1 of a business is not 'do no harm' or 'protect the wild african tree stoat' or 'serve our customers' or 'value our employees'. Job #1 is MAKE MONEY. Just keep that in mind when people start yammering about private enterprise being better suited to provide aid and reconstruction.

I do not understand the notion that continuing the tax breaks for the highest earners in this country spurs recovery, and yet restricting entitlement to tax dollars for affected families by slashing Medicaid and not providing extended unemployment insurance will not hinder recovery. Much talk is made of ‘shared burdens’ and ‘shared responsibility’, and yet, the more money you have, it seems the less of the burden you are expected to share. This is the ultimate goal of the fiscal conservative.

In closing, if you're thinking 'Why should my taxes go up to pay for Katrina?' - you're on the right wing. If you're thinking 'we should all come together and share the load to get the Gulf Coast back on its feet' - you may be more left wing than you realise.

In the end, it's just about where the money goes.

Posted by union_jack at 09:26 PM | Comments (1)

Dude, where's my Bork?

So, Harriet Miers is George's next pick. Harriet who? If you're like me, you never heard of her before the announcement was made. The White House counsel is an important figure in any Administration, but not really the most publicly known, unless the President is being impeached or looking for torture justifications (or maybe just needs a DUI or coke charge to go away). So who is Harriet, anyway?

The far right wing - that is to say, the staunchly conservative liberals-are-the-devil wing - seems to dislike Harriet a great deal. This is puzzling at first glance. She has been the President's personal counsel for close to ten years. She's renowned for her loyalty. George says he trusts her heart! Her heart, man! Surely this should be enough? Perhaps it would have been, four years ago - but now, with that new President smell thoroughly gone, they seem to be losing a little patience. On the face of it they don't have a lot to worry about; they control the House, the Senate and have unparalleled lobbyist access to the levers of power. So why is this such a big deal to them?

It’s the little matter of balance on the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor, the outgoing Justice, is a pretty moderate Republican. By the standards of today's conservative movement that puts her slightly above pond slime. John Roberts as a replacement for William Rehnquist was like for like - Center-right conservative for Center-right conservative. Sandra's vacancy on the other hand, is their golden opportunity to firmly shift the court to a point that might overturn a number of laws - the big one, Roe vs. Wade, among them - and control the philosophy of interpreting the Constitution for the next two decades. Miers is just not a sure enough thing for this chance. Not to them. That's kind of scary when you think about it; a conservative church-going so-far-up-Bush's-bum-she-could-floss-him Texas all-American lawyer gal -just isn't conservative enough-. See, they wanted a fight. A knock down, drag out, winner-take-all fight. They didn’t get Bork, and they’re still pissed about it.

We now get to see the Republican luminaries demanding a thorough investigation of Miers' credentials. Far from wanting a brief 'consultation' and then an 'up or down vote' as they requested for the likes of Bork, Thomas and Brown, suddenly, now they want to question, delay, and perhaps even block their President's nominee! Why now? Well, the schisms in the Republican Party have been a few years coming and are finally boiling over. At bottom, Bush is not a conservative in the mold of the Religious Right; though he owes his election to getting out the vote among this demographic, and he's born again, he's not as fundamentalist as some. Bush has always been his own man, which is something the Democrats took far too long to understand. Bush will gladly do what he thinks is right, despite polls and opinions (and good sense and logic and reason). He's made recess appointments for Ambassadors and Judges, infuriating Democrats and delighting Republicans - who are now on the receiving end of the President's self assured 'I knows best' attitude. Kind of funny.

To read some of the analysis, Democrats are whispering among themselves that Bush finally blinked. Battered by Katrina and Iraq, with mid-term elections next year, they say he was in no mood to face a potentially bruising confirmation fight. The Democrats - who engaged in brinkmanship earlier in the year with the Republican majority to avert the 'nuclear option' of removing filibustering - could have blocked a Supreme Court nominee for months, leaving Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench perhaps through next year. And every day a confirmation fight goes on is a day the White House can't concentrate on other things, like coming up with a new reason for a 'temporary upsurge' of violence in Iraq, or keeping Karl Rove out of Federal Prosecutor's crosshairs.

These are all reasonable and logical sounding reasons, but I think they're complete bullshit. Firstly, Bush can't run again. So next year's mid-terms, while high on the agenda for the House and Senate, don't really factor for a man worried about his long term legacy. As for blinking away from a fight, Bush hasn't started listening to the Democrats - far from it. Whatever the reasons for appointing Miers, it's certainly not to appease Ted Kennedy. So if it's not to shy away from the Big Bad Liberals, then why? Some clues are finally emerging in the form of letters, thank-you notes, and other on the record dialog between dear Harriet and her beloved Georgie. 'You’re cool!' 'Best governor ever!' 'You’re brilliant!' Consider these words, then Bush's assurances that he knows what's in her heart, and that she won't change. Oh, good! Wait, what?

Anyone who considers Bush 'brilliant' is drinking just a leeeetle too much of 'I heart my leader' flavor kool-aid (without even getting into the concept of finding Bush brilliant at all). Blind unquestioning lovable loyalty to your boss is a good trait, I guess (if you're the kind of boss who doesn't like having to justify decisions, being questioned, or, you know, see signs of independent thought in your minions). But Harriet's not applying to be personal secretary. This is a Supreme Court Justice position. If she's going to show blind unthinking devotion to anything, shouldn't it be, like, the Constitution instead of another branch of the Government? What's going to happen if the Supreme Court deals with some legislation or actions taken by the Bush White house - say, Guantanamo torture allegations, something juicy like that - and we have Harriet sitting in justice on actions taken by her Beloved Fearless Leader (with her having advised him of the legalities at the time of the decision). Can we trust her to be objective?

Can pigs fly biplanes? *

Bush has essentially appointed a personal ally (of the most obsequious type) to the Supreme Court. This is not without precedent, but it –is- interesting given the current controversies over crony appointments made without regard for an individual’s qualifications. Bush rates unquestioning personal loyalty far over actual ability and this nomination proves it. I have to say though, conservative pundits complaining about -cronyism- in the Bush White House is about the funniest thing I’ve seen this month.

So what should the Democrats do here? So far they seem to be supporting Miers. This can’t be because they think she’s qualified or suitable – can it? I hope not. Perhaps with a Machiavellian touch, they are subtly endorsing her with the aim of infuriating the Right and stoking this burning resentment into something that can do real damage. Possibly. I wish I could give them that much credit. It’s my suspicion they don’t want to risk the likes of a Janice Brown being appointed instead. While they could filibuster, the Republicans would surely push through the laws overturning this option for any future appointments. So what we might end up with is Democrats supporting her for the wrong reasons and Republicans opposing her for the wrong reasons, too. Surreal.

Regardless, I think Bush has misstepped. He’s infuriated his most fervent base, and cannot now easily appease them without withdrawing the nomination. This may well lead to fissures the Democrats can attempt to exploit next year (or would, if the Democrats had a party political machine of more capability than a retarded armadillo). Unfortunately for him, withdrawing the nomination would admit error, and Bush is more likely to admit to a hot three-way with Michael Moore and Ann Coulter than willingly admit he screwed up. Alternatively, Miers might go into confirmation and lose; a slap in the face for Bush who will then have to find someone more palatable to the conservative ranks, which may, in turn, spark the apocalyptic filibuster-inducing fight we nearly had earlier in the year.

It would be a lot funnier if the stakes weren’t so high, really.

* The answer is of course, no. With the exception of The Red Porker, famous World War One flying ace.

Posted by union_jack at 06:36 PM | Comments (0)

What? No ribs!? I -like- ribs..

Almost buried among George's Evil Empire speech (is it me or is the rhetoric level reaching danger levels? What next, Darth Osama?), the Supreme Court discussing assisted suicide and Lindsay Lohan's latest car crash (Lindsay, just hire a driver already, darlin') a little nugget leapt out at me from the pages of the Times. While the fact isn't news to me, it's the source of the news that is in fact newsworthy news of newsishness. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document that says, not to put too fine a point on it, that, some parts of the Bible, might, in fact, be slightly... not true.

Hold the phone.

If you think about it, this is on a par with Pat Robertson saying that 'gays ain't all bad, y'all' *. It's obvious and true, but the fact it's coming from that source is groundbreaking. This is particularly interesting to me since the Evolution vs. Creationism fight is working its way up to another court squabble in Pennsylvania. In the fullness of time I expect to see this fight hit the Supreme Court once more. I bet they can't wait. Just think. Maybe THIS time they'll decide the First Amendment was only kidding.

Naturally, one of the fundamentals of the Creationism viewpoint is that the Bible isn't wrong when it comes to matters of.. well, creation. I don't intend to get into a scholarly debate on why the Bible may or may not be divinely inspired. I will say in my opinion, to believe a document has passed through forty generations of human fallibility with its meanings unscarred and unchanged is a bigger act of faith than to believe in a Creator. I can believe in a Supreme Entity. Believing in mankind's ability to not be prejudiced, biased, unthinking - or just plain wrong - is a little harder for me.

The New York Times ran an interesting piece on groups of tourists in the Grand Canyon that viewed it with Creation goggles or Evolution goggles on. It makes good reading for the quotes of some of the people involved. It's a shame to me that there isn't common ground on this issue, as I've said previously. Unfortunately, I think it's because Evolutionary Theory is one of those scientific theories that comes right out and says a piece of the Bible is flat out wrong. Round earth, we can handle (Well, now. Back in the day, Galileo had a bit of trouble). Quantum theory? Noone understands that, so sure, whatever, wormholes. Knock yourselves out. Cracking the atom? No commandment against that, go right on. But Evolutionary theory comes right out there and says 'Yeah, Genesis? The rib thing? Six days? It's all bullshit, dude. Sorry. Hate to be the one to break it to ya. Come on, who can make a UNIVERSE in six days? That's not even enough time for Fox to cancel The War At Home. So, who wants to see a platypus?'

Just kidding. But seriously, that show sucks.

Anyway. The release of this teaching document (which you could order here if you're inclined) doesn't seem to have made much of a ripple in the British Press. I'm wondering if it will have a bigger impact on these shores, since a fundamentalist approach to Biblical interpretation is more common here - and much more vigorously defended. Since the document is coming from British Catholics and not straight from the Vatican, perhaps that will blunt the response. More likely it will go largely unnoticed, but I admit to some hope that it will arouse fierce debate among the various strands of Christianity in this country. I kind of feel safer when they're arguing among themselves for some reason.

* He hasn't said that yet, that I know of. Maybe he has. Either way, it wouldn't hurt if he said it more.

Posted by union_jack at 09:46 PM | Comments (1)

I'm Going To Disneyland! (Armed).

I knew guns would be a topic I'd return to every so often. My very first post here was on guns, as a matter of fact. In that post, I spoke about the NRA's objection to business owners prohibiting guns at the workplace. Florida is now taking up that issue. I wouldn't think this worthy of comment (The NRA pushing for easier gun access in more States? What next, Christian Conservatives being against gay marriage? Who'da thunk?), except that Florida has already gone one better with the new 'Stand Your Ground' law that came into force this past weekend.

I took the time to actually dig up the text of this new law (the internet is a handy thing). You can read it for yourself here in its entirety. When I first heard about the law - at least, the breathless summary in news articles - I wasn't sure if it was good or bad. On the bad side, it sounds like you can shoot to kill with minimum provocation. But then, on the good side, it sounds like you can shoot to kill with minimum provocation. This is one of those laws that is great when applied to -me- - because I'm not insane - but I wouldn't trust many people I meet to tie their shoelaces, much less apply deadly force judiciously.

But let's review the law on its merits. The premise of it seems to be neatly summed up almost at the outset with the preamble to the actual law text. The key phrasing is 'Whereas, no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack'. I don't really have a problem with the first part - although I don't think it ever was a law in Florida or anywhere that you were 'required' to surrender anything to a punk - it's the second half that's the good bit. The 'retreat clause' is one fairly common in most State lawbooks. In essence, it requires the person being attacked to make every possible effort to disengage from the situation, using the minimum force needed.

Clearly, this has rankled some in the Florida legislature, with suitable prodding from the NRA, of course. I think it strikes to the heart of the law. Damnit, why should I have to run like some sort of weasel Frenchie? If someone steps up to me, I'm going to step back and cock my glock! Noone pushes ME around! Very emotive, very macho, and also pretty full of bullshit. When was the last time you heard about a homeowner prosecuted for shooting a home invader? For that matter, do you really think if a woman being carjacked unloaded a clip into the prospective hijacker, the local police department would do much beyond give her a hearty handshake? The retreat clause isn't there to make you turn your back and run in the face of imminent threat to life. It's there to give you the requirement to de-escalate a situation wherever possible. I guess that's just too pussy.

Now, into the meat of the law and we get to the sections that really do concern me. I hope burglars aren't reading it, because the first clause steps right off the deep end. Essentially, it presupposes 'fear of imminent peril or death' if deadly force is used against someone entering a residence or vehicle. Emotively I agree with the sentiment. Logically though, what it's saying is if you're going after that VCR, understand that the homeowner now has carte blanche to open fire on you. You don't have to be carrying a weapon, moving toward them, or even in the same room. You just have to be one step in their property, and that constitutes 'fear of imminent peril or death'. Now, this might deter people from burglarizing houses. Or it might ensure that they go armed and ready to commit murder rather than lift a TV.

This presupposition isn't just window dressing. It's a real fundamental change in how the 'castle doctrine' is applied (the 'castle doctrine' is that whole 'A man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend himself within his home' thing). This law grants immunity from civil and criminal prosecutions in such cases, and assumes on behalf of the home defender. The burden of proof is on the (presumably dead) burglar. Good riddance, you might say, but consider this; if you're going through a breakup with your boyfriend, better not go to his apartment alone. He could gun you down, fake the forced entry, and get off scot free. How about an argument at a party? Hey, shoot the other guy dead. You had the right to be at the party, and he refused to leave. That put you in fear. No need to establish imminent threat - the fact they were physically there constitutes imminent threat. Handy!

The real irony in this entire law is it's purported to remove the requirement to 'flee in the face of danger'. Eh? Come again? People were not required to retreat if they were already in their home or car! However, they did have to be able to prove they were in fear of their lives; frankly not that hard a sell to a jury. What the law has done is give the homeowner a cast iron ability to shoot first, immune from prosecution. That's the bit that concerns me. Presupposing threat based on the physical location of individuals flies in the face of evidence gathering, investigation and the notion of a fair trial. Is it right to be able to shoot someone who has an arm full of your CDs? I guess maybe if it's a signed Led Zepplin box set, but still. Overkill, anyone?

Moving to the streets, the 'stand your ground' clause becomes even more of a no sale to me. I don't really want to see two drunk guys outside a bar arguing, drawing guns, and firing upon each other, because each believed the other was an 'imminent threat'. Sure, that may have happened already, but with all the hoopla around this law, I think it's more likely to happen and not less; people listen to the soundbites, they don't go and read the law text (unless they're a freak like me). All the average guy is going to hear is 'I don't gotta back down for noone now, haw' and you can watch the bullets fly.

Naturally there's a lot of pro and anti feeling on the law already - I was amused to see one Fox News show list '98 percent of responders support the law' - but there's also some more thoughtful commentary on it. Law Professor Anthony Sebok wrote a pretty good piece on the law from a sober legal perspective and highlighted some of the problems with the law in his eyes. In my opinion, the only thing this law does is act as a nice vehicle for politicians to say they're 'tough on crime' - with the usual threat of being labelled a pro-rapist pro-murdering anti-american scumbag by the NRA for any legislator foolish enough to vote against it.

I'm not a proponent of the death penalty to begin with, so this law doesn't sit well with me. The right to defend yourself is a natural one. The permission to take a life with no repercussion is a whole new level. If you're going to Florida over the winter break, remember, kids. Keep your hands where they can see 'em, and be very very polite to the asshole who cuts you off on the Orlando turnpike.

Posted by union_jack at 10:11 PM | Comments (2)

Basra Blues

There were some pretty big protests against the Iraq war this weekend, though you'd be forgiven if you missed it. If you were like me, you were spending more time eyeing Hurricane Rita's path and hoping fervently it would show a little mercy at the last minute, than watching Cindy Sheehan get herself arrested. My own feelings on the Iraq situation are somewhat conflicted. Whether or not you agree it was a good thing to do in the first place isn't all that relevant since the question today is, well, what we do today. Being right two years ago unfortunately doesn't alter the situation our countries are currently in. Upon doing some checking into the Basra situation I mentioned in my last article, some of the complexities on the ground came to view. It's not very pretty.

Almost up until the jail standoff that led to the current tensions in Basra the British forces in the country had a reputation for getting on better with the local populace than the Americans. The implication was that the British knew much better than the American forces when it came to pacifying neighborhoods with minimum force. It so happens I actually do believe the British forces bring a wholly different attitude on the conflict and how it should be handled. US forces should be learning more from us, but the extension of the British press view of things was that one, the US forces were clueless, and two, the British forces would succeed where US brute force failed.

This was a simplistic view, and I instinctively distrust simple answers to any problem like Iraq. I was not unduly surprised to find reports about the sorts of people that were making it into the Iraqi security forces, including their Police and Army units. British Forces were instrumental in training a large amount of the new crop of Police recruits. The overwhelming drive is to fill these positions as quickly as possible. Politician protests notwithstanding, they want to get out of Iraq. One of the routes to achieving this is to get the Iraqis able to provide for their own security. Background checks are pretty hard to come by. It is impossible to say how many police recruits may be involved with militias, or former Saddam loyalists. Personally my wild-ass guess view would be in Basra, a Shia town in the South, no former Baathist would survive in the police services. The Shia had no love for Saddam and have been active in paying back old grudges. However, the Iraqi Shia population is not a unified ethnic group either. It has its own factions, all jostling for position, and one of the levers of power in the 'new Iraq' is going to be who controls the Army and who controls the Police. Ergo, the various militias are moving quickly to fill the power void by getting their own men at the helm.

Anyone remember Moqtada Sadr? Or Najaf? Around this time last year, Sadr - a young cleric with a large following among the disaffected Shia population in Baghdad and Southern Iraq - organized his followers in what was, in all definitions of the term, open rebellion against the interim Iraqi government. US Marines fought pitched battles among the cemetaries and mosques of the city of Najaf, until Sadr's forces acquiesed to a face-saving handover of territory to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He was militarily defeated, causing the deaths of hundreds of his men, but he's as strong as ever; one might say even experiencing a resurgence. The anger that fuels his movement cannot be ignored. Every time the allied forces move against him or his militia risks another spark being struck which might turn into a repeat of Najaf, which is what the commanders on the ground want least of all. With the referendum on Iraq's constitution - due next month - already in severe jeopardy, the sight of American or British troops in open war on the streets of Baghdad or Basra would inflame the situation to a point of crisis.

In Basra, the British were making some quiet moves against the Mehdi army - Sadr's militia. Some ranking members of this militia were recently arrested. There has been some speculation that this may have indirectly led to the recent confrontation over the British soldiers. One Iraqi Member of Parliament said that the militiamen wanted to hold the two British soldiers hostage to exchange them for the release of their leaders. If true, this completely justifies the command decision on the ground to rescue the troops. It also underscores just how powerful the miltias are becoming, when they can contemplate hostile actions against their purported allies and 'security guarantors'. This wouldn't have been possible without inside involvement in the Basra police; the British are now in the wake of the rescue mission contemplating completely disbanding the 25,000 strong police forces in Southern Iraq and building them back up from scratch. Pretty extreme.

It is difficult to get an accurate reading on what the average Iraqi citizen makes of all this. Hostility to the coalition forces notwithstanding, many seem to have little taste for the newly strutting militias, either, who are accused of religious intolerance, violence and murder. The ordinary citizen has little option but to keep their heads down and hope things calm down. With militias infesting the army and police, their protections seem limited at best. An American journalist, Steven Vincent, sent some detailed reports from Iraq, and Basra in particular. He was murdered this summer. His killers remain at large. They are purported to be either members of the security services, or working in collusion with them.

Where do we go from here? The referendum is not looking very solid at this point. Sunnis believe themselves outside the political process and plan to vote no. Competing Shia factions either support or oppose the constitution based on their power plays. Michael Portillo, a conservative British politician and intial supporter of the war, wrote an interesting piece on his own views and how they have changed as the conflict drags on. The only thing that is likely to me at this point is increasing instability, culminating in the breakup of Iraq. One need only look to the former Yugoslavia for parallels. A country of disparate ethnic and religious groups, held together by an iron central government and nominally secular leadership. When the central government fell, there was no sense of a 'greater' Yugoslavian national identity to hold the nation and it violently split. Iraq, with its Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, is a construct, lines drawn on a map after the fall of the Ottoman empire. As a nation it never reached equilibrium, and without a central force to keep the balance, it will continue to spiral further and further out of control.

Posted by union_jack at 08:38 PM | Comments (0)

Childcare and the Art of Distraction

This is just a short piece (stop cheering in the back, there). Remember I was talking about the British and how we're not all that nice? It's funny to be proven right so... quickly.

The Guardian reports of a new technique in child restraint that's been approved. Suffice to say, Bruce Lee would be proud. Timeouts? We don't need no steenkin' timeouts...

Remember kids, stay in school.

Posted by union_jack at 08:52 PM | Comments (2)

I Thought They Just Played Cricket..

I'm starting to wonder if the typical American view of the British - that of polite tea drinking cricket playing bowler hat wearing chaps with bad teeth - might be subject to revision based on events over the past year. First we had the police shooting in London in the wake of the suicide bombings – pretty extreme no matter what the circumstances. And a few days ago, British troops eschewed negotiation in favor of crashing through the walls of a jail with armored personnel carriers to rescue troops held by Iraqi authorities in a scene worthy of a movie. This has raised some eyebrows around the world. Isn't Britain a nation of unarmed 'bobbies' and genteel diplomacy?

The answer is no. On the contrary, we have always had a surprising capacity for violence beneath our stiff upper lip exterior. After all, one does not build an Empire that spanned a quarter of the globe based on hearty handshakes and crumpets. True, we had to give most of it back after the Second World War (much like a sulking child being forced to give back pilfered halloween candy) but in its heyday, the British Empire was as powerful as any to have arisen. It was built largely on insufferable self-assurance and the knowledge that the British way was the True Way Of Civilization; young men traveled the world, met interesting native peoples, and shot them, before planting a large flag. And presumably making tea.

The Empire is now gone but echoes of it remain. Britain still holds a number of overseas territories and has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council - a distinction shared by only four other nations; the United States, China, Russia and France. The English language itself was propagated around the world not just by MTV, but as an official language of former colonies like India, Pakistan or Australia (though the Australians have since mangled it into something strange and terrible involving sheilas and shrimp. Australian grammar is a contact sport). British power may have waned, but influence endures. It must be the accent.

In the years following 1945, American attitudes to Britain have vacillated. The two nations cooperate at a political level and are by any standards, unusually close. Attitudes between the respective publics is somewhat harder to define. It usually comes down to stereotypes. Personally, I blame Monty Python for a lot of it. Let me just be clear. Monty Python was funny. THIRTY YEARS AGO. You do not need to still quote it to me. Really. I've seen it. We do not all talk like that, walk like that, or have dead parrots. The Monty Python troupe were largely public school (Note : Public School in Britain is actually Private (fee based) School. Make sense? No? Good) educated, Oxford and Cambridge graduates, active in the theater and other such arty pursuits. This is not reflective of the general population. It would be as if you looked at the Harvard Theater Dance Troupe and decided 'That's what all Americans are like'. * America can't seem to get enough of that Python, though. Even Condi Rice is a fan.

In actuality, the British have a reputation in Europe for being hard drinking, violent, yobbish louts (and that's just the women, ohoho). This picture is built in part on the behavior of holidaymakers in Europe - which seems to have reached new lows (or highs, depending on what you're after) in recent years - and the thuggish football subculture. While not representative of us as a whole, the view does reflect some of the hard edges of our national character. This is not a modern phenomenon by any means. Britain has a long and bloody history and has been at war with almost everyone at one time or another.

I don’t mean to give the impression that we’re all alcoholic sex-crazed lunatics, of course (just the Members of Parliament). It is good to remember that Britain is the source of much Western law, philosophy, engineering and scientific discovery, not to mention its wondrous contributions to cuisine, like the.. um.. er.. well, there’s always the deep fried mars bar.

The British are a complex lot, all in all, when you look beneath the surface. Thankfully, apart from the orgies, drunken street fighting, coating chocolate in lard and invading almost everywhere, we’re really very nice people. For a given value of 'nice', anyway. We just don't all play cricket!

* If there is a Harvard Theater Dance Troupe, please don't sue me. I'm sure you're all fine upstanding examples of American citizenry.

Posted by union_jack at 02:18 PM | Comments (2)

Tradition, or Why We Never Learn

What causes sectarianism? What causes ethnic cleansing? How different from someone do you have to be before it starts to seem like a rational, sane way forward? Different nationalities? Different religions? Different races? Different political philosophies? These are big questions. I think in the West we like to think we're largely above such things. They could never happen here, right? We're -civilized- here.

Yeah, right.

The recent riots in Northern Ireland were barely a blip on the news radar here in America, in the grand scheme of things. I'm not surprised - with Katrina, Iraq and Courtney Love in rehab, there are pressing news stories here to cover - but back home, it's a big deal, and rightly so. It is somewhat a personal interest of mine because I have family ties to both 'sides' of the conflict, to simplify it into pro-Irish Catholics versus pro-British Protestantism (though to try and simplify four hundred some-odd years into just two viewpoints is almost an exercise in futility, when I think about it).

You might be surprised, but Bill Clinton seems to have a more positive legacy in Europe than he does in this country. He was instrumental in the US intervention that attempted to end the vicious wars in the former Yugoslavia. In addition to that he was also a noted figure pushing hard for the Northern Ireland peace process back in the late 1990s. I believe it was a measure of who he was as a President; there was little domestic benefit to either action and he did it anyway (One way to gauge a politician's intent is whether or not it boosts poll numbers. If it doesn't, you can probably guess that there's actual principle involved. The reason I felt obliged to point this out was to advance the notion that men are not just seekers of blowjobs.*).

Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1997, it was hoped by everyone that the peace process would move forward. Fast forward a few years and we arrive at the riots that broke out this month. Mostly confined to Protestant areas, they were at once shocking in their intensity and eerie in their echoes of the past. Few people I speak to in these parts understand the depths of the Troubles, as they're known, even though America was a source of funds for the Republican cause for a number of years - at least until the Robert McCartney murder which somehow awoke certain politicians to the notion that the Irish Republican Army were, in fact, terrorists. Go figure. I guess bombing hotels and launching mortars at Number 10 Downing Street were just hijinks (a historical nugget that few people seem to even remember even though it happened relatively recently; it's as if someone launched an RPG at the White House).

The most recent phase of the Troubles, which started in the late 1960s, was brought about in part by civil rights protests among its Catholic population against deep seated discrimination from the Protestant majority in the six provinces. The ensuing crackdown from the almost entirely Protestant police force caused widespread riots. This then led to the deployment of the Army, which continues today. Back then scenes of Catholics being burned out of their homes was not uncommon, and the discrimination was indeed blatant. Back then, the Protestant majority was nominally on the side of the security forces while it was the Catholic minority and IRA that was opposed. That's what makes the rioting so jolting from a historical perspective. It is a measure of how twisted the situation has become, when the 'pro-British' militants are attacking the British Army.

The spark that set off the riots was the prohibition of an Orange Order march. The Marching Season is a long 'tradition' in Northern Ireland. To the Protestants, it is cultural; to the Catholics, triumphalism. It is somewhat difficult to explain the levels of passion it arouses on both sides of the divide, but I shall attempt to do so by means of friendly parade-float imagery in the following analogy.

Imagine a carnival float. On it is President Abraham Lincoln. He's waving and smiling. Good so far? Now imagine Robert E. Lee bent over, in front of Abe, pants around his ankles, as Abe vigorously makes him his bitch (while waving with his free hand). Got that? Now include a brass band playing 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' while carrying banners reading 'Union Army Kicked Your Asses' following this float. Okay? Offended yet? Now drive this float down Main Street in the Southern town of your choice. Imagine the reaction. The Protestant Orange marches are viewed about that way by the Catholic population. It's a measure of just how long a grudge can be held when one march commemorates the Battle of the Boyne - which took place in 1690. Somehow there is still a need to parade this battle on a yearly basis all in the name of tradition (can you tell I'm not impressed?).

The police blockade of a single march wasn't the real reason for the bullets and firebombs. Growing anger among the Protestant community led to the violence. Protestant community leaders complained about perceived concessions to Republicans. Most of the reasoning is bunk, but logic plays little part. In the bitter history of Northern Ireland, logic is a distant second to sectarianism. The riots hint at the possible slide back into violence. Almost a decade of reduced hostilities and inward investment was not enough to blunt the old hatreds, despite polls showing the majority of people in both sides wanted peace. Unfortunately, peace has a price.

The Northern Ireland peace process certainly is not dead yet. Unfortunately the riots show how far it still has to go. Whether or not the process ultimately succeeds matters to more than just the people in those communities. It is in some ways a test case on our ability to find ways to defuse similar conflicts in other parts of the world. Effort spent building peace builds national security - to say nothing of the moral dimension. Clinton realized this much, at least. Pity about the cigars.

* Just mostly seekers of blowjobs.

Posted by union_jack at 10:59 PM | Comments (2)

Who's On First?

There are moments in the aftermath of Katrina that I wonder about the long-term effects on the current Administration. They are renowned for their ability to stay on-message, manage the press and drive an agenda. Lately though it seems as if all of that is going by the wayside.

I was reading through the reporting of the President's speeches on the vision for reconstruction (oddly enough, he has not mentioned Trent Lott's porch lately, which makes me sad) and tucked away in an article in the New York Times was the identity of the White House staffer put in charge of the Reconstruction effort. The funniest part about this whole thing was I related this information to several people I know whose views ran from leftish to rightish and, in every case, the response was the same.

"You got to be fuckin' kiddin' me."

So I ask you, gentle reader, who would be the -worst- person in the White House to appoint to a reconstruction effort that is deemed to be nonpartisan, working purely for the people in the Gulf states, putting all politics and blame game shenanigans aside? Who is the person who, when you hear their name, you think 'Yup, that's a non-partisan official, they're known for problem solving and not getting caught up in the spin game' ? Can you take a guess? Hint : It's not Colin Powell. He quit, remember?

If you said 'Karl Rove' you would be correct! ( I'll let you blink in disbelief for a few moments).

Yes, Karl 'I didn't leak any CIA agent names' Rove has been put in charge of the non-partisan people-before-politics efforts of directing the reconstruction. This is somewhat akin to Hannibal Lecter being put in charge of the menu at the local vegetarian health food store's annual picnic, when you think about it.

Still, I'm looking forward to hearing the reports from this exercise that calmly, rationally and reasonably show that the Democratic Party caused Hurricane Katrina to form as a result of their weak national security credentials.

Next up : Vice President Dick Cheney chosen to lead task force on strengthening environmental protection legislation. *

* Just kidding.

Posted by union_jack at 05:16 PM | Comments (0)

The Supreme Court of the Rings

The confirmation hearings for John Roberts are proceeding apace. I'm not paying as much attention to this as I normally would. It seems to be a done deal; the Republican side evidently like his Catholic roots, his clerking under the late Judge Rehnquist, and, of course, his strong Conservative credentials. The man has upheld Guantanamo actions and advocated against civil rights law, after all. Spin aside, the Democrats seem to be resigned and in 'it could be worse' mode. He's not Robert Bork, seems to be the thought in many of the questioner's heads.

Barring a memo revealing Roberts has a side job at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch under the stage name of 'Candi', he seems a shoo-in for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What this made me think about though, was my own Supreme Court - that is to say, the final court of appeal of the United Kingdom (or at least, England, Northern Ireland and Wales - Scotland has its own legal system*).

It was surprising for me to realise that I know more about the US Supreme Court than I do about the courts in my own country. Off the top of my head, as an experiment, I attempted to name the Supreme Court justices. I got five of them. Not great, but not too bad. The U.K. high court on the other hand, I could barely define, much less know who serves on it. It is consoling to think that outside the legal and judiciary circles, I doubt anyone else in the country could, either. So, I set off to do a little reading. What I found surprised me, and maybe you'll find it interesting (if an article on law bores you, I recommend this music video instead).

If anyone's still reading...

In the UK, the final court of appeal resides within the House of Lords. I say 'final' but the UK Court system is a thing of surprising complexity. A kind soul tried to diagram it here. As you can see, there is the High Court and the Court of Appeals, but all roads lead to the House of Lords eventually.

The Court is made up of twelve Lords, known as the Law Lords. I'm not a fan of class systems or of Noble title, just on principle, but even I can admit that 'Law Lord' sounds a lot cooler than 'Judge'. Or even 'Chief Justice'. Law Lord sounds more like a superhero title. It brings to mind dynamic figures in black capes and wigs, with sidekicks like Subpoena Lad and Gavel Girl. Law Lord sounds like they could kick your ass.

Sadly, the truth is somewhat less dynamic. The Law Lords are chosen by the Lord Chancellor from among the Judiciary within the Court System. What actually goes into how a Law Lord is appointed seems quite vague; in very traditional British way it amounts to 'do they have the right stuff'. What the right stuff is is never really articulated, but it is assumed one will know it when one sees it (for the longest time, being a well connected white guy was most of what having the right stuff was all about. This is still the case to a large extent). All fairly predictable (and yes, dull).

Where it gets good though, is the revelation that not only is the Lord Chancellor the one making the appointments, they're a Cabinet minister! Plus the head of the Judiciary! So that's a post that spans Executive, Legislative and Judicial all in one. It's like the swiss army knife of political posts! Imagine Antonin Scalia being able to not only rule on the Constitution, but vote in the Senate and create new Amendments, all without being actually -elected- and you'll get an idea of why they're looking into reforming this whole show.

The U.K. Constitution is defined in various ways. One way to put it is 'Everything done legally since around 1215 or so squished up into a big sack and jumped up and down on'** (that's 1215 as in, the date, rather than the time of day). We don't have a formal document to point to or Amendments to argue over. Naturally, this leaves enough wiggle room in some cases to ride a small pony through, though why this may be needed is another question. When you insist on your lawyers wearing wigs that look like carefully bleached pubic hair in the name of tradition, I guess anything is possible. I might check into our lack of a 'real' Constitution in a future post.

I digress. The point is the Law Lords in the UK are chosen largely out of notice of the general public, and there has been little fuss made over the years. Much of this may be due to the fact that even the Law Lords cannot overturn law, as the Supreme Court here is empowered to do. They can reverse judgements and in doing so, declare a law unsound. The challenged law remains in force until Parliament amends it. Not so here in the U.S. where the Supreme Court can and do overturn laws if they are deemed unconstitutional (or if they're filthy communist activist judges, depending on who you listen to). This makes the public grilling and interest in Supreme Court appointees vital and healthy. In addition, the Law Lords tend to rule on boring matters of tax law. It is only rare that legislation that catches the public's eye came before them, like the recent antiterror laws that were struck down.

How has this system continued to work for so long without massive insurrection and protest over unelected activist judges appointed by a single party political person? Well, it's hard to say. Maybe, as a friend remarked to me, it's because we're all just so polite that we let it work. Or perhaps it's the kind of Judges we have. I leave you with this interview with Tom Bingham, the current Chief Law Lord. Anyone described as the 'Gandalf candidate' must be worth listening to in a courtroom, even without a hobbit.

Which character would John Roberts be, in Tolkien's fable? Hint: big blue eyes, charming smile, and Dudley Do-Right aura that might, just might, contain the seeds of pure evil? He's Frodo (only without the freakishly large neck of Elijah Wood)!

When Roberts does takes up his gavel, let's hope he stays away from the One Ring.

* It's the only way haggis could be legal to eat, as opposed to used on the battlefield to terrify the enemy.
** That's my definition, and I'm happy with it.

Posted by union_jack at 09:39 PM | Comments (0)

A New Contender

Michael Brown has taken the long walk off the short plank. While this is good to see, I do not think the public at large will be happy with one resignation limited to one agency. On the bright side, businesses are starting to return to New Orleans. If Brownie needs a job while he's waiting for the next lobbyist gig to open up, may I suggest Big Daddy's? I'm sure as a novelty act it would draw a crowd and provide some much needed art and entertainment to the beleaguered crews working in the city. And who says white guys can't dance? We've seen a lot of good tapdancing this week in Government circles. Give him some tassels and he's set.

In the spirit of bringing the country together in Katrina's wake, I think we can learn some lessons from Europe. For example, in the former Yugoslavia, amid uncomfortable ethnic tensions between Croats, Serbs and Muslims, the town of Mostar has decided to erect a statue to noted human rights campaigner and election reformer Bruce Lee. Yes, -that- Bruce Lee. The statue is to be paid for with a 5,000 Euro grant from a German organization. I admit to bemusement at this. I hope it works, though. And at the very least, one corner of Europe will be forever devoted to kung fu justice.

Here in the United States similar symbols are required. In discussions at the weekend with some friends of mixed political views, we could all agree that Christopher Walken needs to be the next President, running on the more cowbell platform. He would be a uniter, not a divider. And he could stare at foreign dictators until they became very uncomfortable and agreed to WMD inspections. In addition, let's not forget that he can also dance. As I've noted, dancing is an important skill in politics...

Posted by union_jack at 09:37 PM | Comments (0)

You Spin Me Right Round Baby...

It's time to play... BLAME GAME! (Cue the calliope music, audience applaud!). Let's spin the Wheel O'Fault and see where it lies! Round and around it goes (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... FEMA Director Michael Brown? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... President George W. Bush? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... The House and Senate? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... The American Electorate? (clackaclackaclacka...)

The wheel is stopping.. (clackaclackaclacka...) it's slowing.. (clackaclackaclacka...) it's stopped! On.. 'All of the above!'

Well, this is awkward. Can't we blame this on a terrorist? How about an Axis of Evil? No? What about the French? New Orleans has a French Quarter! They must have undermined the city with their Camel cigarettes and armpit hair and their filthy French secular agenda! No?

Oh, shit. Now what do we do?

(Okay, time to be serious again).

After 9/11, this country was united in the spirit of finding the perpetrators and bringing justice to them. While Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, they are holding elections in Afghanistan, and the Taliban regime who sheltered Al Quaeda is shattered and fragmented. Progress has been made there and I hope to see progress continue.

Clearly the same spirit of unity is decidedly absent from the fallout from Hurricane Katrina. While there are many reasons for this, I think one of the fundamental reasons is that there is no external fault; no fingers to be pointed overseas. Thus the clamor turns inwards.

When I read polls that are starting to assign blame along party lines I get worried. A recent ABC News poll quoted 71 percent of Democrats disapproving of Bush's handling of the event; while 74 percent of Republicans APPROVED of his handling of the event, with the same facts at their disposal. It's all in perception.

Sorry, but this strikes to the core of what's been going wrong in this country over the past four years: rabid partisanship. It's never your guy's fault. It's always the other guy. Rationalization is a powerful thing after all. When Clinton was being impeached, it was either due process or a witch hunt. When Tom Delay is being called into question, it's partisan fingerpointing or due diligence. When levees break, it's that Republicans cut the funding, or that Democrats didn't have an effective local disaster plan.

If we had been facing this with President John Kerry, don't for a split second tell me that he wouldn't be being torn apart by the Right wing over the situation. To be honest, I've always grudgingly admired their spin machine. It's very good at what it does, and what it does is destroy. The Democrats by contrast are like blinking quadraplegic donkeys in headlights, facing down an onrushing red, white and blue humvee with a 'Support the troops' ribbon above one taillight and a 'God Hates Fags' bumpersticker above the other*. I can only imagine what would be being said on Fox News and the Talk Radio circuit, were there a Democrat in the White House. They'd already be placing an order for a rail, three barrels of tar, and a metric ton of feathers to be delivered COD. Or perhaps they'd just be placing a call to Pat Robertson to call in some divine favor.

This view - that the finger pointing would be going on regardless of who was in the White House - is shared by a few people I've spoken to and it speaks to a greater cynicism out there. Many people I chat to about politics are deeply suspicious or weary of the entire subject (possibly because I talk their ears off and sound like a slightly deranged missionary attempting to convert them, but that's neither here nor there). There's a growing mistrust that government can be relied on or trusted to carry out its duties. 'Things will never change'. 'They're all the same'. 'You can't trust the government'.

Perhaps because views are already so entrenched one way or another, after steadily worsening demagoguery over the past four years, there is little new ground to tread. People hear the blame machine spinning up and mentally tune it out. It's very understandable, this feeling of weariness and contempt. Understandable, but dangerous.

The long term damage of Katrina is difficult to quantify in terms of life, property and economy. To that I think we're going to have to add the damage to the public's faith in government in this country. This could go one of two ways; It could spur people to greater involvement and activism in the political process. Or, it could turn them further away in disgust.

Time will tell.

*The gunrack goes without saying.

Posted by union_jack at 11:48 AM | Comments (4)

Fault Lines

The news from Hurricane Katrina continues to flow in, much like the pollution-soaked waters of lake Pontchartrain. And, as the stories gather substance, and the scale of the disaster is unveiled, so to does the need in Washington to distance oneself, and make sure that whatever blame comes, it does not come to you.

The position of the Administration is now being defined. This is not the time to point fingers! This is the time to work together to fix what needs to be fixed, with the details to be sorted out later. On the surface, this seems quite reasonable and appropriate. If your house is burning down, you don't look for the arsonist, you evacuate your family (or in my case, my laptop and my extensive collection of beer mats).

Unfortunately, beneath this surface is something more sinister - and yet, sophsticated and artful. I smell Karl Rove. Distraction and misdirection have served this President very well in the trials he's faced. From shifting goals in Iraq to misinformation on tax policies, the current Administration is very adept at pressing the emotive buttons, while avoiding the substantive.

While they are very keen to avoid the 'blame game' this clearly only applies to criticism of the Federal goverment, while being quite happy to assign blame to City and State level officials. Michael Chertoff, director of Homeland Security, asserted that it was the responsibility of State and Local Government to evacuate residents, with the Federal Government in support. Essentially, attempting to suggest that had New Orleans officials 'done their job properly' noone would be in this situation. Very subtle. Tom Delay, everyone's favorite Ethically-challenged Representative, has weighed in, noting that Missisippi and Alabama seemed to have far less problems than Louisiana, for some reason. Perhaps that's because they had efficient, small-government Republican Governors. Or maybe because they didn't have a city of a half a million people be inundated. Just a thought.

Chris Wallace and Bill O'Reilly over on Fox have picked up this refrain, and it is gathering steam among the right-wing blog circuit. I think over the next few weeks you'll start to see an array of attacks against the New Orleans Mayor and the Louisiana Senators and Representatives, while presenting the Federal Goverment as the much-maligned scapegoat, misunderstood and underappreciated. After all, to assign blame to the Federal goverment is to be one of those 'Blame America firsters' and is just unpatriotic and wrong, as we all know. But when Fox News reporters are expressing anger and frustration at the handling of this tragedy on Hannity and Colmes and right wing pundits such as Michelle Malkin are calling for FEMA Director Michael Brown's head, it doesn't take a political genius to know that someone somewhere is already digging the shallow grave in the political desert. I've a lot to say on FEMA, but that deserves its own article. Still, if the President's past performance is any indication, Chertoff and Brown can look forward to the Presidential Medal of Freedom in due course.

Here's my major worry about this entire mess. It's been almost four years to the day since the September 11th attacks. What came out of those was a realization that government and the emergency services were hamstrung at a local level. Agencies were not coordinated. The one thing everyone needed, it was agreed at the time, was better control, better management and better cooperation.

It's been four years, and the Homeland Security Agency, devoted to protecting this country from attack and disaster, assimilated FEMA and dozens of other agencies, great and small. All in the name of streamlining management, improving efficiency, and avoiding a repeat of the mistakes of that dark day.

They failed, oh how they failed, on a disaster that was predictable and expected. And all the spin in the world can't hide it. Had this been a terrorist attack, there may not have even been an evacuation order. Would they still be asserting it was the Mayor's fault then? I agree that at the State level, plans were lacking. There is, unfortunately, no getting around that. The people of Louisiana and New Orleans will be the judge of it, though. For the greater country, the concern is that when a major city was literally overwhelmed and lost control, the Federal government stepped in far too late, and its key emergency management officials seemed blind to what was happening on the ground.

This does not fill me with confidence in their abilities, should an actual terror attack strike occur.

A friend of mine asked me, "So what needs to happen, so this never happens again?"

A huge question, and my answer blurted out of me without even thinking about it. "First, people need to pay attention to politics."

"Yeah, good luck with that," she laughed.

Good luck indeed. But I think about it, and I have no better answer. The writing was on the wall for New Orleans for decades; slashed funding for flood control. A widening gap between rich and poor that left the impoverished with no easy means to escape. A National Guard called overseas. And an Administration that pays attention only when the cameras are rolling.

A lot of this can be resolved with good government at all levels. Good government though, starts with a good electorate. If you don't pay attention, don't question, and don't vote... don't be surprised when the next pork-laden bill skimps on disaster prevention in your State. There's so much blame to go around, and not all of it is to be laid at the feet of the elected officials. Someone has to elect the muppets in the first place.

I hope the American people read and re-read the stories out of Louisiana and Mississipi. I hope you get angry, when you do. I hope you have questions for which you will demand answers. And I hope you keep that anger with you when election time rolls around. I'm able to forgive people who make mistakes. While still making sure their asses are fired.

Posted by union_jack at 07:01 PM | Comments (1)

Dig deep, folks...

It's not good to bite the hand that feeds you, and the people affected by the Hurricane need all the help they can get.

Deion Sanders is taking up a collection among the NFL players, asking each one to contribute $1,000.

I know he means well, and I applaud it, but I wonder if I'm the only one wondering just how much $1,000 (Tax deductable) is to a professional athlete. According to USA Today, for example, Deion himself is doing well on a $1.5 million paycheck.

As for baseball, well, the New York Yankees payroll chimes in at a healthy $208,306,817.

A thousand bucks?

Check your other pants, guys. I'm sure you can find a little more if you REALLY try.

Posted by union_jack at 07:54 PM | Comments (1)

Take him out! ... to the ballgame?

American Televangelism is viewed with misgiving in Britain in many circles. While religious mores are a factor in many Briton’s lives, it is certainly not to the extent we see it here in America. There are no British Televangelists; or at least, none I can think of, and I can rattle off Robertson, Falwell, and company quite easily, despite rarely seeing their programming. It would be strange to think of a British Televangelist, exhorting the faithful in a broad Cockney accent (‘ee said, luv thy naybah as ya do yaself, right? Gor, blimey. Jesus wos a propa toff, an’ no mistake!’). A smooth Southern lilt seems almost a prerequisite for such a task.

All this came to mind as I was reading the latest comments by the redoubtable Pat Robertson. I got to thinking about it because the general reaction to Pat’s advice on dealing with President Hugo Chavez (namely, ‘take him out’) was varied across the spectrum. Predictably, on the left came calls for censure, and in some cases, criminal charges. On the right, however, there was surprisingly little official commentary; and by that, I mean from the level of the White House. Various Senators and Religious figures from the left and the right of course condemned the remarks, but in some cases, in curiously soft language. For example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said “He’s a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time.”

This is, of course true, and if you go to any bar (or blog), you’ll be subject to people ranting off on various topics. Freedom of speech is vitally important, now more than ever. The one small problem, though, is that the right to freedom of speech usually abrubtly terminates (no pun intended) at the point the person giving the speech starts calling for bodily harm against a person or persons. Sometimes one can get away with this - I doubt anyone would be castigated for saying on live television that Osama Bin Laden should be killed rather than captured - but in the case where one threatens the head of State of a nominally friendly country, well, things tend to get a little more interesting.

John Dean, former counsel to the President, wrote a very interesting article on the whole affair that brought up the not-insignificant point that there are explicit laws on the books prohibiting casual death threats against foreign officials. Mind you, if it was seriously enforced, I think a lot of lawmakers would have been charged over the years. Nobody really expects Pat to get charged with anything - it’s only crazy Pat, after all - but I do find myself wondering how great the outcry would have been if the commentary had come from the left and not the right. It also worries me that there was no condemnation from higher in the ranks; no matter what your political stripes, calling for violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders is not something that is supposed to be accepted in this day and age (to say nothing of the morality of the thing).

That’s the rub, you see; Chavez did not come to power in a coup, unlike many in Latin America (for example, Manuel Noriega, erstwhile CIA employee and U.S. ally until he got too big for his boots). This was not for lack of trying, however. Chavez was involved in not one, but two coup attempts himself in the early 1990s. Having foresworn such tactics in favor of the ballot box, he came to power in 1998 with a strong socialist agenda - naturally arousing deep suspicion in the United States. Up until then, Venezuela had been largely the province of two political parties. Chavez won this election with the largest percentage of the vote (over 55 percent) in forty years of elections in that country. He fought off a coup attempt himself in 2002, in which the U.S. was implicated; the level of involvement, if any, has yet to be proven, though the Guardian newspaper reported some interesting allegations at the time. The US Government seemed to welcome the coup – which would have been the first successful coup in Venezuela overthrowing a democratically elected leader. In addition, the US press made some interesting noises for and against the coup as it unfolded.

All this notwithstanding, Chavez is by no means perfect. He’s a strong supporter of Fidel Castro, hardly a beacon of democratic rule, and has made a point of visiting or being visited by other States generally held hostile to U.S. interests. At the last count, though, he enjoys poll numbers in the 70% - would that George had those numbers! - and seems to have effectively tapped into a groundswell opinion against perceived U.S. meddling in Latin American affairs. Unfortunately for those who dislike him, he seems to be in a stronger position than ever leading into his next election, and with the energy situation being what it is, the U.S. can ill-afford supply disruptions that may accompany any upheaval in the domestic Venezuela political situation. Fortunately for that, Chavez is unlikely to shut off the pumps - not with oil about to top $70 a barrel as a result of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of the Gulf Coast.

Into this delicate picture comes Pat, talking conspiracy and urging assassination. If ever there was a bull in the china shop, he seems to fit the bill. While calling for the imminent sickness of Supreme Court Judges or warning Florida against gay pride rallies in case they get hurricanes is one thing, battering at an already fragile diplomatic relationship with a vital partner in the region (whether or not the Administration -likes- him) can’t lead to a good outcome. You’re not ‘just a private citizen’ if you have your own television show with a million viewers.

Still, at least it makes for good theater. I’m waiting with interest to find out why Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans; I presume Pat will reveal that God did not approve of young women lifting their shirts for beads.

Posted by union_jack at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)

We have the right to arm bears!

Guns! Guns, guns, guns. America has an ongoing love affair with guns. I have an insidious fascination with them, myself. Sure, they're lethal. But so is a tire iron, when used correctly. And there's just something about a gun! I can identify quite a few by look alone, thanks to my extensive martial prowess in videogames. I'm a crack shot with a plasma cannon, let me tell you. As soon as Smith and Wesson come out with a gun that can be controlled with a computer mouse and keyboard, I'm so there. Woe betide the burglar who comes calling. As long as they give me time to boot up my gun first.

In Britain, guns are fairly hard to get a hold of. For a while, they were the province of the sporting and target shooting set, but then there was the massacre at Dunblane Primary School in 1996. Thomas Hamilton killed a teacher and fifteen children with a 9mm pistol in the space of about five minutes.

It was largely this event that lead to, for all intents and purposes, banning of handguns and shotguns in Britain. Farmers and other landworkers are permitted shotguns (not pump action) for pest control, and as a member of an approved Gun Club, you can own a .22 target pistol or rifle - which must be kept on the premises of the Gun club at all times. Home storage of weapons is forbidden. Dunblane was a watershed moment for gun ownership (limited as it was) in the UK.

Where am I going with this? Well, it's just a bit of perspective on how things are done where I comes from, bringing me onto the news that the National Rifle Association is organizing a boycott against Conoco for banning employees from carrying weapons onto Company property - more specifically, storing firearms in a vehicle which is parked in the company parking lot. The NRA feels that this is a naked assault on the Second Amendment, of course. Anyhoo, it's headed to court, with Conoco filing a Federal Lawsuit to block an Oklahoma State law that permits citizens to store firearms in their private vehicle while on company property.

Me, I'm awaiting the court case with gleeful interest. See, on the one hand, you have the Gun Lobby. They're Republican favorites, of course, and view any attempt to regulate, say, .50 caliber sniper rifles that can take out a police helicopter, as just plain un-American and the slippery slide on the road to Commies on the White House lawn. (I'm waiting to hear Wayne LaPierre stand up and explain to the American public why NRA members REALLY NEED crew served 105 mm artillery weapons to hunt deer).

On the other side, you have Conoco! An Oil Company! And unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know of the close ties of the current Administration to big oil. They love their oil companies, yesirree. And the Administration are firm believers in 'small government' - that is to say, less regulation, let businesses get on with building America, and all that noble stuff.

But now, one side will have to give. Will it be the NRA? Will the Court be persuaded that the dangers of workplace violence and disgruntled employees outweighs the individual liberty of a gun owner to carry a weapon on private land?

Or will it be the corporation? Will they be regulated by a cruel, unthinking Administration that not only forces them to accept lethal weapons on their property - but lets them be criminally liable if a worker did in fact unload their M-4 into a boardroom?

I bet the lawyers are drooling. This one has appeal and counter appeal written all over it. Get those billable hours crankin'.

Posted by union_jack at 09:20 AM | Comments (2)