The Fix Is In - Or is it?

I don't know about you, but I've had a problem with this election for some time, and it's an issue that is not so much with the apparent campaigns and the apparent candidates, but rather a growing suspicion that neither you nor I will be permitted a choice, and that "they" don't much care if we figure it out or not. I feel as if this has become political theater and the masses are requred to attend - in mute affirmation of a decision already made quite outside of any apparent party affiliation.

When it seems more likely that less obvious affiliations - like the Council on Foreign Relations or Skull and Bones - count for as much or more as overt support within a political party earned by hard work and honest passion, I start to wonder.

And I have cause to wonder about all the remaining candidates, in that regard, save Paul, who's been left in as he will provide some appearance of democratic process on the Republican side.

Of course, I've long harbored a jaded view of the actuality of democratic process within the Republican camp - it is very much a top-down group. But now it appears that even being a member of the overt hierarchy, of being in a position of apparent influence and power within a state or national party organization might just be a fond illusion.

Former NM Gov. Dave Cargo seems to be finding out that not only has the rule book been put aside, that many younger members of the NM party are unaware that there are rules, that do apply to them and that violations of these "silly rules" are actual felonies that even WHITE people could go to jail for. My God, even White Republicans!

I'll let Brad of the Brad Blog catch you up on the latest Republican scandal. Suffice it to say that there isn't even any evidence to suggest that those involved - and it involves media, a Senate candidate and high party officials - seem to have any idea that there are ethical lapses here that are serious enough that one should at LEAST be aware of in the breach. But it seems that they really do not think there is anything wrong at all with packing a convention with paid shills in order to come out with the "right" candidates - instead of the candidate that would have been seated by actual grass-roots activists.

They don't see a problem with that; the only comment has been something to the effect that "it's not illegal," although the state AG appears to have a divergent opinion in that regard.

But even if it turns out that a state party can run it's operations any way it chooses and pick candidates any way it likes... well, ethics are not an abstract, feel-good guideline to how to be a nice person. Ethics are a guide to living in a crowd of other humans without causing them to decide that your skin would be of much greater utility as a tasteful handbag.

I don't much care if various republicans and democrats have made willing bargains with The Forces of Evil, thinking they don't really need a soul all that much, and they would have gone to hell anyhow for all that masturbation. Ethics is about consequences in the real, in the here and the now. Surprisingly enough, it doesn't matter all that much whether you think that by controlling law enforcement and the courts that you are immune.

All you do is diffuse the consequences so that they splash about onto everyone around you. And sooner or later, the very people being used to shield you from the consequences of your actions become the agents of consequence. Oh, and since they have been raised up by such ruthless examples, the fall will be harder than an honest acceptance of responsibility would have been. I, Claudius is instructive in this regard.

There is another aspect of human nature that is not well appreciated - at least in this context. Anyone who's had a young child underfoot knows it immediately, though. People, at root, do not like getting away with stuff they should not be able to get away with, much less being put in a position where they have to "look the other way" or even participate in things they know to be wrong just to stay within their peer group or keep their job.

At some point, a constant presumption upon the forgiving nature of others for your efforts "on their behalf" or "for the cause" will backfire, and it's one of those things where a sudden cascade effect may be expected. There are enough whistle blowers and leakers now that they have apperently started their own professional organization!

I was almost surprised that only 7 of 9 core activists left the party. But then, I suppose I shouldn't be; I've been asking myself for years a rhetorical question regarding all the arrant bullshit from the wingnut right - "how stupid do you have to be to believe this?"

I say that as someone who is neurologically biased toward conservatism and who is passionately in favor of a nice, stable, predictable status quo ante. I'm on the Autistic Spectrum, and I hate change.

But on the other hand, that means that just about every other reflexive conservative I've ever met, I LIKE rules. I EXPECT fair play. I assume the rules are there for a good reason unless there's some reason to think they aren't. Finding that only those who write the rules profit from their application - by others - caused me to return to first principles and start evolving my own.

I take a very dim view of folks who think rules are for the other guy and snicker at all the "suckers" who believe that "fairy tale" stuff. It is not without some personal satisfaction that I see the political structure of this nation collapsing around the ears of those who thought themselves entitled to rule us by virtue of their willingness to abandon all standards of decency and all obligations to their constituencies if it led to a moment's advantage or an extra nickel in their political war chest.

It's somewhat disturbing, though, to see what happens when candidates forget themselves - like McCain has done from time to time - and act as if they were the persons of integrity they once aspired to be. It's amusing to see how suddenly and how hard their chains are jerked, how quickly and publicly they are forced to correct the impression that they might just have backbones and thoughts that diverge from the party line. One could almost feel sorry... but...

Sir; once you are a "made man," you are a made man for life.

Those who think I'm only talking about Republicans would be sadly mistaken. Of course, one could observe that the current Democratic Party is more accurately the Clinton Wing of the Republican party. It's snarky on my part to observe that Ms. Clinton is by far the best NeoLiberal in the race.

But now that Murdoch's media start shoving Clinton down my throat when I'd expect lascivious reporting on every "Swift Boat" style attack, I find myself reluctant to accept someone the establishment media wants me to support.

Aside from the politics, aside from the greed, aside from the corruption, the war-mongering, the killing and the lies, all things that I despise as a matter of principle, the thing that really works my last nerve is the sheer arrogance displayed, the amazing contempt this sort of thing shows for the average American voter, and the more they get away with and the longer they get away with it, the more obvious it gets.

And I'm afraid it's a fine bi-partisan contempt in many ways. Everyone in Washington, on either side has more interests in common with each other than they have with the people that supposedly employ them.

I'm starting to feel that it's coming up to one of those moments in history where the great majority are pretty much willing to roll the dice.

Ralph Hall, Revisited

Every once in a while I revisit older pieces to see what developments have presented themselves. I'm particularly fond of the soaring heights of rhetoric I reached in which I sarcastically implied that a vote for Ralph Hall was a vote for the return of slavery in Texas.

Well, it appears they went and re-elected the sonofabitch.

Graphictruth: Teen Sex Slave Called a Liar by Texas Congressman

So it seems quite possible that Hall is accurately and faithfully representing the people he is beholden to and it would be wrong and irresponsible of me to suggest otherwise. The Mariana affair was well publicized at the time, and he apparently was neither investigated for his role in it, nor politically embarrassed by it, so it's quite a reasonable assumption for me to make.

After all, I hold most insistently to my own principles, I’m not about to suggest that others abandon theirs in favor of mine, unless our principles come into direct and practical conflict.

Slavery has deep roots in the former Confederacy, and there have been long, scholarly and highly moral tomes written to explain it in Biblical terms. I shall not presume that such beliefs are held lightly or insincerely when I know for a fact that many believe passionately otherwise; that the darker races both need and deserve the guidance of the more highly evolved White race, as well as the elevation of their racial character via judicious injections of superior genetic materials. No, for many, these are not beliefs of mere convenience; they are deeply, primordially and utterly sincere racists. Are they not also Citizens? Do they not deserve one of their own representing them?

While I cannot state for sure that his constituents would agree with my conclusions, he is still the allegedly human creature representing Texas's Fourth District - and he's STILL the subhuman enabler of child-molestation that took 30 grand from Jack Abramoff to cover up the practice of human trafficking in the Marianas Islands.

Now, given the history and views of the reddish bits of the map regarding persons of brownish hue, I probably should not be all that surprised.

But the idea of being represented by someone so astonishingly, stupidly corrupt that they could be bought off to the extent of covering up really serious felonies for thirty grand and a lap dance should just too fucking embarrassing for words. I really thought Texans would expect more of themselves.

Everything in Texas is big. With the visible exception of the moral high ground in the Texas Tenth.

Ron Paul Rings True on the Issues

The Disciples of Ron Paul, Spreading the Word in N.H. - washingtonpost.com

Have you ever heard the expression, 'What's wrong is right and what's right is wrong?' " Aitken, the retired art teacher, asks. "We've been doing things that are so wrong for so long that the right thing for some might feel freaky. Sometimes you have to stop and think, 'Okay, this is my conviction.' " (closing paragraph)

This month, the 10-term Texas Republican stunned the GOP field by raising a little more than $5 million in the third quarter, 70 percent of it from online donations; Sen. John McCain, once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who placed a strong second in the Iowa straw poll in August, raised $6 million and $1 million, respectively. For months now, Paul has been the most popular GOP candidate on the Web, with more supporters on MySpace, Facebook and Meetup than Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, who won the Iowa straw poll and leads in the polls here.

"Everyone -- the staffers in the other campaigns, the bigwig political observers in the state -- is scratching their heads. They don't know what to make of this Ron Paul phenomenon," pollster Smith says. A University of New Hampshire poll last month showed Paul at 4 percent in the state. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News national poll, also from last month, had him at 3 percent. "The other campaigns aren't worried that he'd win the primary. They just don't know who his supporters are and whose support he's taking away," Smith adds. "His poll numbers aren't high now, but it's only October. And they could see him getting 10 percent of the vote here. If you get 10 percent of the vote in a crowded field, well, you might finish third." But the Paulites are aiming for higher than third place.

And it doesn't even occur to them to wonder if it might be that the problem is not that Ron Paul is an exceptional spokesperson for his ideals of small, limited, ethical and constitutional government, but that the other Republican are such a mixed bag of lousy, triangulating, scheming, lying, conniving pandering jokes that a man who might seem unremarkable and even a bit dotty in the company of a Roosevelt, a Kennedy or a Goldwater is seen as a literal giant towering over the mental and moral midgets sharing the stage with him.

By the modern standards of Republicanism, he's not a very good one. But then, that's the problem right there - and a hell of a lot of Republicans are wondering how the hell a Republican administration could get them into debt and into war with so little attention to the inevitable price of such folly.

Yet the current crop compete to compare themselves, not with Barry Goldwater, or even the saner and more centrist Richard Nixon - who'd be a Democrat today - but with that champion of Voodoo Economics and Feelgoodism, Ronald Regan.

Meanwhile there's a really troubling thought going around the nation, largely left unspoken but apparent in all quarters. What will Hillary do if she gets the Democratic nomination - and the Presidency?

She's thought of as being the most liberal - but she's the farthest to the Left. And those are two different concepts entirely. The way she's praised the President's war and his domestic surveillance with faint and perfectly triangulated damnations, I find it difficult to be confident that she will gladly return all the extra executive powers Bush has arrogated unto himself, nor will she see any way toward "healing the nation" other than centralized bureaucracies.

Now, unlike most Libertarians, I actually believe that one can have an efficient, professional and ethical civil service. I have been to Canada, and I know that in some countries, when a man from the government shows up at your door, they probably ARE there to help you.

But ... this is Ahumurika. And it would take an act of God, not merely Congress to change the culture of our civil service to the point where bigger would be anything resembling better.

Just ask anyone who has ever been in personal contact WITH our government, pretty much at any level, with any personal stake in the matter. The best you can expect is to waste an entire day waiting in an office designed with malice aforethought to crush the spirits and steal the souls of all so unfortunate or foolish as to step within them, even in search of a public restroom.

All them "Libruls" who praise, say, Medicare and Medicaid for it's remarkable efficiency and ruthless cost reductions have never been in contact WITH either program - or any competitor. Trust me when I tell you, as a Canadian-American, you do not want universal health care that is based in ANY way upon Medicare or Medicaid.

Some people refer to even those programs as "socialized medicine." I refer to them as "Stalinized Medicine." You see, socialized medicine comes with one assumption, that universal health care is of social benefit.

Medicare and Medicaid presume that all their clients are of little or no social utility, that giving them any medical attention at all (much less than the care they actually medically require) is more than they deserve, and that treating clients (and doctors) with anything other than suspicious contempt and a level of compliance enforcement and auditing that is generally reserved for things like ebola viruses and weapons grade plutonium. Their costs are low because they offload all the costs onto the few doctors that actually accept medicare and medicaid.

These are usually clinics and doctors that you would not want to go to. I mean, you would really, really prefer not to go. You might prefer consulting your local curando than trust your health to the disease incubators they laughingly refer to as "reception areas."

I actually want a universal access system that is free for those who are poor and affordable for everyone. I definitely want the government putting pressure on the costs of the system - many of which are deliberately extortionate. I want it simple and I want it to be easy, because sick people should not have to jump through hoops, nor should physicians be second guessed by bean-counters about appropriate treatments.

Plainly speaking, before we develop a new system of payment to overlay on our current healthcare industry, we should question whether it should be an industry at all. Shouldn't it be a profession, like education? Something seen as an inherent, inarguable social good that is one of a very short list of things government should do and be expected to do well?

Don't we deserve a government that sees every single citizen as being of value, deserving respect? Of course, we would have to ensure that the respect is mutual, and that government service was seen as a calling worthy of respect, not the last resort of idologues, cronies, losers and mental basket cases. CF "Education."

I believe in a small, limited, competant and efficient government, one dedicated to governing and regulating as little as possible, but doing what they actually do very, very well indeed. I want to be happy to pay my taxes because I get my money's worth.

And I don't think it's been possible to say that since... well I don't remember a time in my life where I was conscious of politics and government that I didn't consider it a gigantic waste of time, money, paper, effort and manpower to achieve results that were no better than that which a moderately retarded fifth grader with a decent education could have come up with on their own.

You see, it's not HARD to do that. We have a Constitution that's specifically designed to lead us to that very outcome, designed to strikingly limit the ability of Government to meddle with our private affairs and the public arrangements of the various States. It was intended to be a central FACILITY, not a Central Authority.

And when you start looking at it that way, you see all kinds of things it does badly, many things it should be doing, but doesn't, but above all it's impossible to ignore that it's gotten damned uppity and there are all kinds of folks in it that, while not properly qualified to give you change for a ten-spot, think they understand economic policy better than you or me.

I'm not saying that with the idea that we know better. I'm saying that in thinking they know more, they have actually achieved negative results.

People call Ron Paul dotty for calling for a return to "hard money," but when you start looking into it, you realize that all that means is that he's calling for a medium of exchange that government cannot mess with. He's calling for a return to one of the most fundamental duties of government, setting a standard of value for commercial exchanges that applies to all market activities.

When the dollar is "adjusted" against gold, it doesn't mean that the actual value of the gold has changed. It's worth what it's worth, based on a steady commodity demand. So when your dollar is mysteriously worth less gold than it was last Tuesday, that's what you call "theft."

In fact, our entire central banking system is a necessity that serves as a fig leaf for what must be the most massive fraud in existence; the Federal Reserve essentially pulls money out of the air. It's technically related, vaguely, to the return on government bonds and other indicators - though I darkly suspect that it's a designedly complex system intended to hide within it the essential core truth that a US Dollar is only worth what you believe it's worth - other than it's value as a recyclable material.

Now, nobody likes thinking about it, because we value everything in dollars - including human life and our own self-worth. So the idea that our entire economy is based upon debt and promises you would consider dubious coming from your brother-in-law is troubling, and in general, we prefer to not think about it. Really, Really Hard.

But for saying that real money based on a real commodity with a real, measurable value unaffected by and not bound to debt is a better way, Ron Paul is dismissed as a nut.

But what would you prefer to have in your hand, a silver dollar - Constitutionally set at one troy ounce of coin silver - or a promise that a coupon you hold will be honored at your local merchant according to an arbitrary value assigned to it in the money markets that day?

As it happens, nobody will ever trade you a one ounce silver coin for a one dollar US Federal Reserve note. And that indicates that ever since we went off the gold standard, our medium of exchange has lost touch with economic reality.

Of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul is the only one in close enough touch with reality to offer any sort of credible alternative. And that includes hard, cold, metallic truths such as this.

Money that does not have a real world value allows all kinds of economic shenanigans dear to the hearts of bankers and politicians - and that is precisely why we need to have a medium of exchange that can be independently verified as worth what it is worth.

Ron Paul - like hard money - rings true. That often means he says things you won't like hearing. But that's the test of truth, and we have collectively enjoyed the opposite since 1981.

Put on your clenched acceptance face, we're going to Sorrytown!"

Ah, John Stewart, the master of the throwaway one-liner:

"I'm not a fan of personal vendetta gotcha-style politics," said Jon Stewart on Tuesday's Daily Show. "But there can be exceptions. Take Louisiana Senator David Vitter ... who came to prominence in the 90's demanding President Clinton's impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Well, it seems the condom is on the other foot."

"Last week, Vitter became the highest profile john implicated in the DC Madam scandal-gate," Stewart explained. "Kind of reminds you of the old saying, 'The only thing I trust less than a Louisiana senator sleeping with a hooker is one that isn't.'"

The video can also be found here.

Now, I of course would never stoop to mere "gotcha" blog entries either. (What, Never? Well, Hardly Ever..).

In this particular case, I think this is a remarkably apt insight into what Republican values actually are. That is to say, you can pretty much assume that whatever public stance they take will be taken purely for personal political advantage and will have little or nothing to do with personal values or conviction. It's kinda like the Catholic Church in that way. How many folks out there still think it's a good idea to leave their child alone with the parish Priest?

Well, folks, that goes for anyone who seeks a position of unquestionable moral authority and access to either your children, your vote or your wallet.

While that observation may well be true of political figures in general, Republicans in particular have been particularly active in trying to demonize, regulate and restrict YOUR libido, YOUR sexual practices, Your definition of family, and indeed, your reproductive choices, while undermining your right to privacy and your right to access information without trace or record. I don't see very many examples of Republicans living by the values they espouse - so to speak. On the contrary.

So perhaps all these protestation of high moral standing are mere pretexts and postures, not just in exceptional cases, but in general.

Any large group of people will have a few bad apples, a few "isolated incidents." But these are NOT "just a few" and they all share something similar; the overwhelming majority of these sexual crimes involve practicing the opposite of what they preached. That is to say, they violated the law purposefully and deliberately, and in the way that was most vile on the basis of their own public standards to demonstrate to themselves and to one another that they were above that law and could get away with violating it. Indeed, there seems to be the perverse drive to enact laws for the purpose of violating them!

Another disturbing theme of near equal weight is a consistent pattern of abuse - sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and the abuse of power in general - toward those who cannot fight back.

Here's a particularly odious example of such an authoritarian circle-jerk.

Don Haidl, Assistant Sheriff of Orange Country, in violation of California's rape shield law, led a smear campaign against the child his son poisoned and then violently gang-raped on videotape, adding up to 24 felony counts. He said that his son "acted accordingly" because the child was a "slut". The full gruesome story, with many newspaper articles.

And here's one that just reeks of depraved irony:

Earl Kimmerling, from Indiana, sentenced to 40 years in prison after he confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Anderson, IN, Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican State Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson, IN, and Woody Burton of Greenwood, IN, supported him. Source

Then there's the largest and highest reaching sex abuse scandal ever, probably in any nation, since roman times - and you have probably never heard of it. Read it and be amazed by The Franklin Credit Union Child-Sex Ring Scandal.

This sort of thing isn't anything new, in other words; it's actually part of long established Republican political culture. The blackmail operations detailed in the link above may well partially explain the spineless behavior of our current Congress's Democratic majority, and I'm SURE it explains the "dead-ender" behavior of a great many Republicans who can't be so politically tone-deaf as to think the President's lame-duck agendas in any way serve the cause of their own re-election to orifice office. Blackmail is about the only thing that could explain such a sudden and inexplicable altruism on the part of those who's focus has been squarely upon th main chance up to now.

What we need to do is to purge all levels of government of corruption, and we also need to send - as a nation of outraged and unforgiving Citizen-activists - a resounding message. Remember that the Republican majority came out of the so called "Republican Revolution" pledged to END corruption and cronyism - and has turned out to be more than willing to wallow in a system as corrupt and lawless as any Byzantine court and indulging in graft on a level that would embarrass Tammany Hall.

So, if you are a Republican - repent! Register as an Independent, or a Constitution party member. Get your name off their sucker list. This is especially true if you have ever been a "values voter." These are the values your votes supported. So either repudiate the party for it's lack of interest in values when it might affect a Republican in power, or consider yourself complicit in all the crimes that have been committed in the name of pure, unchecked and unaccountable power. Because that's the way ethics works - you are accountable for the choices you make and the messes you contribute to.

As for myself, I'm a registered Libertarian. I have no illusions that it's a party composed of inherently better people - but it is a party of strong essential principles that may work against the accumulation of personal power for a time. It's not a party that attracts as many authoritarians and opportunists, and it will take those folks some time to figure out how to subvert it to their own ends.

Likewise, I'm going to make a choice about where my money goes. My money is going, in terms of consumer goods, toward companies that do not support the Republican cause. Likewise, I will not enter any place of business that has a fish by the door - a device almost exclusively used by Religious Conservatives, unless I see something in the window that indicates they are opposed to the moral choices this government and this party have made.

What can you do?

You can spread this around. You can digg it up, stumble it, email it to your fundy family members. You can blog about it, create fliers to stick in your church's brochure box, you can wear a t-shirt or put a poster in your store window. You can talk to strangers at bus-stops. You can call in to talk radio. Hell, you can slip Air America a few bucks. Grab your video camera and vlog it onto YouTube and Google Video.

I'll tart this post up later with links to the most vicious and apt t-shirts, bumper stickers and any particularly useful and usable photos and graphics I can find.

Together, we can change the world. As long as enough good people refuse to stand by as evil is done, we cannot help but do so.

Where I stand

I've said that Ron Paul is my favored candidate right now, but in the areas we disagree, we disagree passionately.

In the areas where we disagree, each of us departs from stock libertarianism in one case - and not in the other. I think it's worth looking at where each of us emphasise principle over practicality - and vice versa.

Read on..

I'm an exception to all other Libs I know of in that I advocate a strong and secure social safety net. I don't refer to it as "socialism" or "welfare stateism" in that I am not talking about those approaches to this particular problem. However the lack of success in a particular approach toward solving a problem does not make the problem go away. Generally it makes it worse. In the case of both socalism and welfare state policies, centralized planning and paternalism make the problems addressed so very much worse that it's easy to believe that merely getting rid of the solution would solve the problem.

Oh, if only it were that easy. But in fact, it's not, and a comparison of the livability and costs to citizens in the "socialized" nations of europe shows that recognizing and dealing with poverty least intrusively dealt with by a very simple process: Give the poor enough money to not be poor AND desperate.

Poverty is relative - desparately poor is to put people under basic survival pressure. When enough people in your society ARE under survival pressure, Very Bad Things Happen that in our nation, You See On Fox Every Day.

I differ from Ron in having had the opportunity of being poor in Canada - and now seeing what being Poor in America is like. Hell, in many ways it's better to be poor in Canada than Lower Middle Class in America. At least you have health insurance!

So we differ there, in that I feel that it's a government's duty to address matters of common concern to all citizens; healthcare, poverty and crime are all issues that are common concerns and which tend to be causes and effects of each other.

On the other hand, we disagree passionately on the issue of open vs closed borders. As a Libertarian, I believe in the free movement of peaceful people. Furthermore, I feel that this whole matter falls under the Bobatearian principle of "no Stupid Laws," that is to say, laws that are intrusive by definition and which will obviously increase both hassle and provide endless opportunities for the corruption of government officials.

I like what another Libertarian running for President has to say on this topic.

Beyond the economic and cultural positives of open immigration, we must consider the national defense problems posed by "closed" immigration.

Capital -- including human capital -- moves to where it can be most profitably invested for all concerned, and it rolls right over government barriers to do so. In practice, this means that millions of immigrants arrive, and will continue to arrive, in the United States each year regardless of what our government does to stop them.

Right now, nonsensical US immigration policy forces many of those immigrants to sneak in rather than walk in "through the front door." Reasonable estimates put the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico alone in excess of one million annually. An entire industry of cross-border guides, called "coyotes," is built around getting those immigrants into the US to live and work. These "coyotes" don't care one way or another whether the person they're smuggling into the US is a janitor from Guadalajara or an al Qaeda fighter carrying the material to make a "dirty bomb" in Dallas. And our immigration policy gives the latter type of "immigrant" a huge crowd to hide himself in.

The first step in providing for our national defense at the border is to let those who bear us no ill will to come in "through the front door" -- to walk across the border publicly and conveniently instead of sneaking over it in the middle of the night and in the middle of the desert. Believe me, they'd rather be welcomed than hunted ... and welcoming them rather than hunting them will reduce the cover they provide for our enemies.

The second step in providing for our national defense at the border is to re-focus the government services which address that border away from hassling peaceful immigrants and toward detecting and eliminating real threats to the United States.

I attribute most anti-immigrant sentiment to race panic, where people see the culture changing in response to new waves of immigrants and proceed to freak out in all directions. As the decendent of economic migrants myself, like most people who are not actually Native Americans, I find arguing against open borders both unprincipled as a libertarian and distasteful as a civilized human being. But perhaps Ron cannot risk alienating the racist right together with the racist left and racist center. Very well.

But I have no such excuse and I won't provide him cover on this issue.

There's a far simpler way of dealing with the poverty that drives people to climb the border fences and risk death in the desert, and that is to adjust our foreign and economic policies that are, frankly, aimed at keeping our southern neighbors broke, for the sake of cheap bananas and minerals. Free and fair trade will do more to stem the flood than any tonnage of barbed wire and guard dogs.

Oh, and a fence that keeps other people out is pretty damn good at keeping you IN, come the day Bush decides to round up the Usual Suspects.

Susie Bright scoops the MSM

Susie Bright's site is definitely NSFW - but she's an hellaciously good writer, and oy, her sources! She's secured an interview with a USAID insider she refers to as "Sore Throat," to help answer some of the questions the Randall Tobias scandal (Crooks and Liars) raised for her; such as:

Sure, I have my own little curiosities about this mess. For one, I thought Madam's prices were awfully low. $275 for ninety minutes? That's an afternoon bar tab for these guys. Plus, if you were able to get a guy off in ten minutes, did you really have to sit there and play Canasta for another seventy?

Finally, what kind of client was Randall Tobias, anyway? —Were his peers surprised?

To which "Sore Throat" Responds:

Some of us have been trying to understand what was going on with those escorts. One thought was that he may have been telling the truth about the "no sex" part.

He was a tyrant in his business life, so we speculated that he needed some young smart ladies to put him in his place in his personal life. We could easily imagine that he was into spanking, being forced into submissive stuff. (Most Prodommes are explicit about their services being "non-sexual," meaning that no penetration of any kind will occur. - GT)
That would be embarrassing enough that he'd rather resign than have the story come out— but he could honestly say he didn't have "sex." Well, it's just our best guess, knowing him from personal contact and observing him as a leader accused by Congress of 'tycoon-itis' just last month.

"Sore Throat" goes on at length to praise two other Bush appointees who are widely respected within USAID, despite being the sort of people, ideologically speaking, that Bush would appoint. In other words, this wasn't about the right-wing agenda so much as about Tobias, an hypocritical asshole, who happened to profit by being a right-wing moralist in public.

A significant part of my checkered past was a long and platonic* friendship with a stripper, occasional working gal and professional Domme by the various names of Mistress Elle and Bubbles. I learned a great deal about "the business" living downstairs from her, and afterwards, in the post-session, beer and pizza phase. Many, if no most of her clients were high-powered businessmen who, well, needed to try and work off some bad karma.

One thing I learned is that in many cases, whatever is offered above and beyond the "booking fee" ain't enough - and this may well be especially true of the absolutely "nonsexual encounters" Mistress Elle booked, ones that were not about sex even in the mind of the client. She was a mercenary lass and on occasion, let greed overcome common sense. On those occasions I would have to talk her down off the ceiling, after a client needed more punishment than she was comfortable giving.

The other thing was a deep appreciation for the rigid code of ethics that govern the professions of call-girls and Pro-Dommes. You never, EVER "burn the client." Well, at least, not until the client's employer tries to burn you and your girls. (C&L, quoting a CNN transcript of "Reliable Sources")

KURTZ: Jeane Palfrey originally talked about selling her list of clients to a tabloid outfit and then obviously, ABC News does not pay for information. Why did she decide to cooperate with you?

ROSS: We told her that we would take it seriously, that it was a potentially important story. Her point is that she runs an operation that she claims offered no sex. And that she sees it as hypocritical that the government is going after her and the women who worked for her and not the men. The phone lists were in her home when the Federal agents raided it. But they were not interested in apparently the names of the men, only the women who worked for her. So she thinks that it is hypocritical. Secondly, she wants to call some of these men to testify on her behalf. She's turned down a deal, a plea bargain deal from the government and wants to go to trial.

KURTZ: I should have mentioned at the top she's under indictment and as you say, she apparently plans to go to trial. If a government official pays for this kind of service personally and has nothing to do with his job, is there at least an argument that it's not news worthy and shouldn't be reported?

ROSS: Well, I think there — I think it is news worthy that there is this indictment. It's part of a Bush administration effort under the Department of Justice to crack down on prostitution and this is part of it. Tobias in particular, given his role as spearheading the Bush administration effort overseas to crack down on prostitution, seemed to us to be news worthy. [Emphasis Mine]

You know, this is the second significant figure involved in the whole "right wing moral agenda," their so-called "Cultural Warriors" who have been busted with their pants around their ankles - by sex-workers who's own moral sensibilities were outraged. Ted Haggard, as you may remember, was busted by his gay boy-toy and meth dealer after said toy saw Haggard on TV being all anti-gay and holier-than thou.

But in the matter of the Ambassador, the consensus is that Tobias may not be actually, technically lying when he says he wasn't seeking sexual services. Susie observes:

If Tobias wanted domination, if he had a fetish, if he wanted to beat off while he got a show; he'd be inside the law. No wait!— Maybe he wanted a woman to dress up like Condi in spike heels and spank him while jeering at his manhood.

So he may well be in closet subbie hell/heaven right now - inasmuch as now even the MSM is jeering his manhood.

I think it's time for America to realize that these are probably not "isolated incidents," but rather the tip of a very impure iceberg. Those who are addicted to power - and particularly those who are addicted to the abuse of power - are particularly fond of the whole "Do as I say, not as I do," paradigm, as getting away with things others cannot get away with is the proof they are powerful. Incidentally, with such folks, the idea of the responsible use of power is pretty damn alien to them; they see power as an end in itself, not as a means toward anything, so there will always be a disconnect between words and actions.

You may presume that the loudest defenders of the Bush Administration understand this dynamic perfectly and are willing participants on some level.

tag: Susie Bright, Sore Throat, USAID, Randall Tobias, Unintended Consequences, Clash of Cultures, morality, ethics, Bush Cronies, Scandal, Accountability, moralism

* She bites. HARD.

"The Usual Hiring Practices"

Another phony crony is revealed;

The former head of the federal agency overseeing family planning programs misled the public about his qualifications and background, a RAW STORY investigation has found.

Appointed by President George W. Bush in late 2006 as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Eric J. Keroack resigned unexpectedly in March of this year after Massachusetts officials launched a formal investigation into allegations of Medicaid fraud during his tenure in private practice.

The Raw Story | Heckuva job? Bush Administration vaunted bogus credentials for birth control czar, records show

Another HHS spokesperson, Rebecca Ayer, said that HHS had never had an official biography for Dr. Keroack, but provided assurances that he had gone through the “standard hiring process.”

Saying she could not comment further on personnel issues due to the Privacy Act, Ayer suggested this reporter file a Freedom of Information Request.

...

Though he has no formal research credentials, Dr. Keroack has lectured widely from a PowerPoint presentation that uses Loony Tunes characters to illustrate his theory that premarital sex damages the female brain, making non-abstinent women incapable of forming emotional bonds. [emphasis mine]

Keroack’s highly unorthodox medical views had originally cast doubt on his qualifications to serve as the nation’s birth control czar. His appointment did not require confirmation from Congress

So this is what the "usual hiring practice" results in - someone who LOOKS competent on paper (if you squint, and nobody investigate) AND who nonetheless holds views the Bush Administration likes. They probably had difficulty getting even palioconservative OBGYN's to sign off on some of the bizarre ideas they have. This is what happens when politicized Evangelical Christians try to govern in the face of reality.

tag: Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Eric J. Keroack, Dominionism, ethics, reality,

Vote-Fraud in Nevada meant Voting other than Republican

Or so it seems, as the AG scandal unravels. But this isn't about the widespread corruption of the vote, as many might think, including the extremely dubious 2004 election results, results that seem to have been left to independent investigators to question when even quite blatant patterns of fraud benefited Republicans.

So we have a new and specifically Republican definition of "fraudulent votes." Those are votes that are not for Republican candidates. Failure to accept this newspeak redefinition of reality is grounds for dismissal.

Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals - washingtonpost.com:

Last October, just weeks before the midterm elections, Rove's office sent a 26-page packet to Gonzales's office containing precinct-level voting data about Milwaukee. A Justice aide told congressional investigators that he quickly put the package aside, concerned that taking action would violate strict rules against investigations shortly before elections, according to statements disclosed this week.

That aide, senior counselor Matthew Friedrich, turned over notes to Congress that detailed a telephone conversation about voter fraud with another Justice official, Benton Campbell, chief of staff for the Criminal Division. Friedrich had asked Campbell for his assessment of Rove's complaints about problems in New Mexico, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, according to a congressional aide familiar with Friedrich's remarks.

The notes show that Campbell also identified Nevada as a problem district. Daniel G. Bogden of Las Vegas was among the nine U.S. attorneys known to have been removed from their jobs last year.

Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School who runs an election law blog, said that 'there's no question that Karl Rove and other political operatives' urged Justice officials to apply pressure on U.S. attorneys to pursue voter-fraud allegations in parts of the country that were critical to the GOP.

Obviously - to ordinary ethical beings of all political views - fraud is fraud is fraud, and should be prioritized according to the seriousness of the crime - and not according to who the fraud may benefit.

But in the Republican universe, clearly fraudulent actors - Katherine Harris leaps to mind - are rewarded instead of prosecuted.

The article continues, making the reason for the odd differentials clearer:

Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School who runs an election law blog, said that "there's no question that Karl Rove and other political operatives" urged Justice officials to apply pressure on U.S. attorneys to pursue voter-fraud allegations in parts of the country that were critical to the GOP.

So we now see the term "prosecutorial discretion" is seen to have an explicitly political dimension. For instance, I've found no evidence that the Sproul & Associates have been seriously investigated or prosecuted despite blatant registration frauds, including Nevada. Oddly, one of the fired prosecutors was from the las Vegas office.

Meanwhile, a Deputy AG has jumped ship, according to Wonkette:
Paul McNulty, who we think was also Philip Marlowe’s incompetent cop friend, is quitting the Justice Department to… wait, we don’t really understand his reason at all.

McNulty announced his plans to leave in a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, citing the financial pressures of having children entering their college years, one official said.

Allow me to explain. As it would compromise future employment to be too direct about his reasons and he did not wish to cite "personal reasons," which is code for "I'm having to enter rehab" these days, he cites a socially inarguable reason that is going to cause twitters of disbelief.

He’s not making enough as a deputy attorney general? How many goddamn kids does he have? Is he married to Michele Bachmann?

Well, rich people might actually consider it plausible. And certainly if he wishes to send his kids to the Sorbonne to study Art History, he might just need the sort of job a man with his connections could get by picking up the phone and opening the bidding wars. However, it does put a crimp in his political - I mean, "public service" - career, and therefore, many will speculate as to the real reason.

And I presume that's his intent - to distance himself from this administration before it sends both private and public careers circling the john, sparing him the awkwardness of apologies, explainations and quite possibly supoenas down the line.

Know Something About Kieth Olbermann?

This Right-Wing tabloid site wants to know.

And, well, obviously they are having a lot - repeat, A LOT of trouble finding any real ammo to use against Olbermann, since the worst thing they can say about him is that his ratings are low (on MSNBC? Imagine that!) and this:

Keith Olbermann's career schizophrenia continues. He's a Sports Guy. He's a News Guy. He's a Sports Guy (again). Oops, back to News. And guess what? Now he's back to Sports, according to Keith's personal PR flack aka TVNewser:

More! "Olbermann Schizophrenia: Is he a Sports Guy or a "News" Anchor?"

Yep, being able to do more than one thing well is a clear sign of inherent, invidious, elitist Liberalism. Judging by the journalistic standards of this blog, so is walking and chewing gum at the same time.

This link was advertised to me via google promising to "Expose Olbermann's lies." As I expected, this was a usage of the term, "lie," that I was previously unfamiliar with. A "lie" in this usage seems to be a truth that makes you want to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "la la la la I can't HEAR you!"

I see this as symptomatic of the sad, impotent and pathetic devolution of the right-wing blogosphere, that this blog gets enough eyeballs to justify a google Adwords account. They don't take just ANYONE, you know.

So, the dead-enders are still out there - but clearly, they are being driven to a subsistence diet of undiluted stupidity as the former stars of the Right are, one by one, falling away toward the center, leaving the core ideologues exposed in their dogged determination to win their Culture War against everyone and every institution that is smart enough to know better.

Hell, if you are smart enough to put three thoughts in a row, you are savvy enough to realize that the Administration can't. And a lot of former Republicans have come to the conclusion that what they stood for, indeed, what they still stand for, was seen as simply a set of talking points by the Administration; a means to get to an end that was nothing good, Republican, conservative or apparently achievable.

There is only so far wanting to believe can take you in the face of an overwhelming flood of fact. Bloggers, to be relevant at all, have to swim in facts and even (gasp) differing perspectives on them. After a while, it's hard to ignore that of the facts that are in, the facts speak against the President, that:

• He has indeed lied in order to wage war against Iraq.
• entered office with the intention of waging war against Iraq.
• used (or even contrived) 9/11 as a pretext for that war (and in that, did nothing to actually find, prosecute and execute those who were actually responsible).
• Illegally wiretapped citizens.
• Suspended Habius Corpus.
• Kidnapped and tortured people without even the pretense of due process.
• Tried to establish a legal basis for torture - despite it being explicitly illegal and ineffective.
  
• Is in Contempt of Congress on multiple counts (signing statements)

And yet, given nearly totalitarian powers even FDR did not wish to have, has managed to completely fail to win a war our armed forces were equipped and trained to win - a war of maneuver in the deserts of the middle east - by putting them into urban combat zones, the sort of warfare that eats armies for lunch.

Understand this very clearly; there was absolutely no reason for anyone to expect that our military forces would be unsuccessful in securing Iraq with good intelligence, solid planning, competent leadership and enough boots on the ground. Even those of us who doubted that it would be as easy as described would not have gone so far as to use the word "difficult."

We asked "why Iraq, and why now." I cannot recall many asking "what if we can't win?"

So, not only did he lie us into war, he fucked up that war. Why? Well, never presume malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation. But if George Bush's intent were to destroy this nation, cripple our vital alliances, isolate us in terms of world opinion and still lead us open to a far more probable threat of terrorism, in that light, he's been consistently correct in his choices of policy and personnel.

What we are seeing here is the result of a total failure of leadership, even by the standards of a corrupt, corporatist, kleptocratic, nepotist and increasingly fascist-lite ruling elite.

It would be wise to recall that, first, the French Revolution occurred because of and in response to leadership of such quality. And second - the outcome, driven as it was by a situation driven beyond extremes, resulted in some extremely Bad Things.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think that the existence of social stresses that could lead to civil war to be a very significant National Security Issue. So, I think it's time we all took a deep breath, got over ourselves, and made a choice to stop making war on other people. Especially when those people are fellow Americans.

Update: this post was linked on Olbermann Watch and this was the only comment there:

You know what I see as symptomatic of the sad, impotent, and pathetic devolution of the LEFT-wing blogosphere? They can't even spell Olbermann's first name correctly while trying to defend him. Kieth? How hard is it to spell K-E-I-T-H?

If that's the only criticism, I believe we can take every actual point as being unaddressable by those who I am addressing.

Sad, ain't it? That, and the fact that once again I'm accused of being "a liberal."

tag: Miserable failure, Impeach, George W. Bush, 2008, Civil War, Revolution, Global Terrorism, Kieth Olbermann, Keith Olbermann, Spelling Flames

Re: Jim Gibbons REF: We Told You So

TPMmuckraker March 30, 2007 09:51 AM

More Trouble for Gibbons
By Paul Kiel - March 30, 2007, 9:51 AM

The Wall Street Journal continues (sub. req.) to make life miserable for Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons. The paper first reported a month ago that Gibbons was under federal investigation for improper gifts (possible bribes) from a defense contractor.

Now the paper reports that Gibbons' business as a legislator was intertwined with a second defense contractor:

The wife of Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons was hired as a consultant to a defense contractor at the same time that her husband, who was then a member of Congress, helped the company get funding for a no-bid federal contract.

Dawn Gibbons got about $35,000 in consulting fees in 2004 from Sierra Nevada Corp., of Sparks, Nev., the company said. Mr. Gibbons, a five-term Republican who served on the armed services and intelligence committees, sought funding that year for Sierra Nevada for a $4 million contract to develop a helicopter radar-landing system.

I'm not sure which is worse - that Jim Gibbons can be had, or that he can be had so cheaply! Either way, it's embarrassing to be a Nevadan.

Update: The Las Vegas Sun has an article listing several donors to Jim Gibbon's Legal Defense fund. Interesting to see who they are and speculate why they would want to see Jim stay in office - and out of Club Fed.

tag: Gov. Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Corruption, Bribary, Scandal, Abramoff, Dawn Gibbons, Sierra Nevada Corp., improper gifts, Corrupt Bastards Club