The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy has a new book out containing an analysis of the growth and change in the status and role of the Corporation in the United States. It may be worth it to check them out at their website. Or to buy the book. I'll stick the book over in the Books of the Month Section, if I can get it through Amazon.
I wondered what was up when I started getting weird little email updates from the Republican National Committee at my Yahoo! email adress a few weeks ago. In fact, I'm tempted to send them a nasty email telling them that I'm not a Republican, don't want to be, and that I'll be filing a lawsuit if they keep foisting their crap off on my email account. I'd also like to know how I got on their little list, because I certainly didn't sign up for it, like a bunch of other poor saps.
Apparently, a lot of people who get services from Yahoo! have had similar things happend to them, and it's almost enough to get me to stop using the account, except I have almost everything going to that address. I suspect this may be the case for many others out there, and while I understand that Yahoo! needs ad revenue, and the Republicans have the right to advertise, just like everyone else, ads to get on this list have popped up in mailing lists run by individuals, including proressive and leftist mailing lists, making it look like the RNC list was being promoted by the list owners.
Whether it's legal isn't the issue, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I haven't read this book, and I likely won't. I read Coulture's articles just to see what nonsense she's spouting on any given day. Evidently, the book is just more of the same, and poorly documented to boot. I can't believe she's getting so much air time to promote this thing. Check out this article for an in-depth analysis, that even looks at her end-notes.
The USA Patriot Act continues to rear its ugly head, in these United States. The most recent assault on our rights come courtesy of the FBI, and its new-found love for libraries and bookstores. You see, the law allows the Feds to show up at a library and search patron records to see if anyone has been checking out anything questionable;ditto for bookstores.
The Feds don't have to notify anyone that they've been checked on. Librarians can't say anything about the searches. The judges and warrants for the searches are secret. So much for privacy and unreasonable searches. So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for the right to face your accuser. So much for government in the light of day.
Happily, before Sept. 11, bookstores, notably the Tattered Cover in Denver, were sucesfully able to fight searches of their records. Tattered Cover successfully fought off a Denver Police attempt to search their records for an individual who bought books about the manufacture of methamphetamine. Unfortunately, the DPD was able to get the records anyway under the USA PAtriot Act, although the store owners are taking the case to the US Supreme Court.
I say that the DPD's success at getting the records is unfortunate, not because I want people to make methampetamine, but because it sets a precedent. It's nobody's business what books I buy, even if they may seem objectionable to others. Buying a book on biological or chemical warfare doesn't make me a terroristm, it means I want more information about threats to me and society so I can make informed choices as a citizen.
Particularly with the FBI's expanded powers for monitoring any group, for any reason, at any time, it would be easy to be an activist who was reading up on the threats our government claims we face, and be labelled a terrorist because the government wants to shut them up. Think it hasn't happened? Check out MLK's experiences with the Hoover FBI. Examine the Denver Poilce Departments secret files on any known activist group in Denver, which were gathered whether the group had ever been accused of anything, or not.
The point is, it isn't anybody's business what I read, whether I purchase it or borrow I from the library. The only up note of the whole thing, is that the Federal Government won't try to ban books, if only so they can track the people who read them. I guess being secure in your "papers" doesn't mean anything anymore. See this article for more.
I've had almost 24 hours to think about it, but I still don't know how I feel about the 9th District Appeals Court desicion that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional on its own. On one hand, I agree that separation of church and state implies that the government can't promote one religion over others, or require anyone to profess a belief in any religion.. That's basic. On the other hand, I sort of think that protesting a phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is kind of nit-picky, especially considering that requiring students say the pledge was found to be unconstituional before the phrase, "Under God" was added by Congress in 1954.
I may think that the complaint over "Under God" is a small one because I was raised Catholic and that just feels natural to me, even though I'm not the most regular chruch attendee on the planet. Some days I'm not sure what I believe about the existnce of God, or what God would want if he/she/it is out therem, but that's a discussion for another time.
I was certain, until this morning that this shouldn't be a Federal issue. After all, everything I've ever read or discussed says that the point of the Constitutional separation of church and state was so that the federal government could not create a state religion for the entire country. This at least implies that state and local governments could promote religion based on the wishes of their constituents. For me this is also a sticky issue. I personally don't think any government should be legislating religion, but being a Jeffersonian Democrat at heart, I sort of figure that people should live under rules of their own choosing.
And then I started reading some commentaryn this morning. It seems that the US Congress added "Under God" to the Pledge in 1954 to separate us from the "godless" Soviets. Well, I guess because Congress stuck it in there, that makes a federal issue, and even under a pretty liberal (with a small "L") interpretation, that means Congress is holding up one religious belief above others. Bummer.
I have no problem with simply pulling the controversial phrase out of the Pledge, just like I had no problems making the Pledge when I was in school, but I also see quite a few problems that could result from this case. Like it, or not, the concept of God, in the Judeo-Christian sense, appears in a lot of places of our government. "In God We Trust" is on all of our money, the Supreme Court opens sessions with "God save the United States and this honorable court", we have a national Christmas tree at the White House.The Declaration of Independence, while not an offical part of our government is chock full of references to God, the Creator, and Divine Providence.
The whole thing is a slippery slope. And I have no idea what the right answer is. Having "Under God" in the Pledge is likely to be insulting to Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Shintos, Native Americans, agnostics, aetheists, pagans, Wiccans, Zoroatrians, and others, and should probably be removed. But once we start removing references to God, where do we stop? Do we go whole hog, and slash and burn all references to a Supreme Being, or just stop at the Pledge, an say, "This is where we come from. The US Government doesn't espouse any religion, but this is our heritage."
Maybe wiser people than I will come up with a solution.
California Congressman Howard Berman (D-North Hollywood) is busy showing that it isn't just Republicans who can be bought by big business. Berman previewed a bill tha, if enacted into law, would allow copyright holders to use a variety of electronic jamming methods to disrupt file-sharing services on the Internet. Not only is this the first step toward the dreaded "Black ICE" of cyberpunk literature, but it gives business a right that the government doesn't have: to disrupt the use of computers without having actual evidence or court orders. This is a big step toward business further cracking down on what you can or can't see on your computer, or other media.
If this bill becomes law, what's to stop Big Business from going one step further to disrupt websites, mailing lists, or even private emails of indivduals or groups critical of them. This is definitely a slippery slope issue, especially considering that there are plenty of legal options for copyright holders to pursue against violaters.
The whole business reminds me of a Benito Mussolini quote that went something along the lines of, "Fascism is the marriage of government and business". I'm paraphrasing, of course, but the concept is obvious. When the main client of government becomes business, the people suffer.
The big news of the day is the Worldcom accounting scandal. It seems they reported all of their daily business expenses as capital expenses, meaning that those costs don't show up on their current balances sheets, creating a $3 billion accounting error. Coincidentally, Arthur Andersen was their corporate auditor. It's begining to look like everything Andersen did was corrupt or illegal.
Worldcom is claiming that they were duped by their CFO and Andersen, but I'm thinking they just didn't want to see what was going on. At best. This is the same company who's founder and chairman wrote himself a $366 million loan out of the corporate account to cover trading losses. Wolrdcom was founded by Bernie Ebbers, who claims to de a devout, conservative Christian, whic makes me wonder if his Christianity is different from what I was taught about growing up. Granted, I'm Catholic, but the idea is basically the same. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Ebbers would be quite upset if he owned stock in a company that lied about expenses and earnings, but he seems to have missed the part of Christianity that says to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. I guess he likes being lied to and deceived. Just a thought.
A big part of this scandal is that Worldcom has big ties to the Bush Administration and the Republican party, with something on the order of $1 million in campaign contributions. It makes you wonder what kind of concessions they bought. Do thy include getting a pass on securities fraud, and maybe bankruptcy protection? If you think caps on campaign contributions are out of line, follow this story, and the Enron case. The fact that the reform bill that came out the Enron scandal is dead in Congress should alert people to the peril of unfettered corporate access to our nations legislators. Remember: Businesses are not people. They shouldn't have the same rights as people. We're paying the consequences of that right now.
Actually they're already inside the gates, and they're selling them off to the highest bidder, while claiming they took a loss on the deal so they can avoid their taxes. Such is the state of American business. From recent news, it is obvious that the corps want all of the benefits of living in and selling to, the United States, but they don't want any of the responsibilities that go along with it -- like paying taxes. I can understand the desire to limit tax liability. I pay a fair amount in taxes myself, and I know how much use I cn put that money to, but I also like good roads, schools, and clean water. There's obviously a balance somwhere. Big Busines no longer seems to see it that way.
I've been saving articles and anecdotes about recent corporate scandals for an omnibus Corporate scandal issue of The Daily Rant, but I just can't take it anymore, so I decides to expound on a few choice issues, and wrap things up with a Big Business/Walmart Rant sometime in the next couple of weeks. I could probbaly rant about Walmart enough to fill a month's worth of pages, but that would get old pretty soon.
I came across an new version of a Democratic Underground article today that had updated Pastor Martin Niemoller's 1945 poem, and it got me to thinking. Could we see the same problem here? For those of you who can't remember the poem, here it is:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Could this happen in the US? It came pretty close in the 1950's with Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare, which didn't stop until he and his cronies started to go after US Army officers. I'm pretty sure that it could happen today, and no one would notice (or care), until it was much too late.
How could I think such a dastardly thing? Try this out. Over 800 people were scopped up by the federal government in the days after Sept. 11, and held with no charges, no access to their families, and no access to legal counsel. Currently a hispanic US Citizen named Padilla is being held without charges, and the government admits it has no plans to charge him with anything. He has not been allowed legal representation. The only reason we know he exists is because the Bush Administration decided that it would be politically useful to scare the country with warnings about an almost non-existent "dirty bomb" plot. Oh, and he's been held incommunicado for over a month.
Not that the concept of a "dirty bomb" is laughable. This time the "plot" consisted of a convert to Islam, who might have had links to al Qaeda, looking up information about dirty bombs on the Internet. Get real. The point is that Padilla is a US citizen, who hasn't broken any laws. Who is speaking up for him? Only a few civil liberties groups. Mostly he is out of sight and out of mind.
Bernard Weiner of Democratic Underground has updated Martin Niemoller's poem to reflect the times:
First, they came for the terrorists,
And I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the foreigners,
And I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a foreigner.
Then they came for the Arab-Americans,
And I didn't speak up, because I wasn't Arab-American.
Then they came for the radical dissenters,
And I didn't speak up, because I was just an ordinary troubled citizen.
Then they came for me,
And by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
Let's hope it doesn't get to that.
This Friday my wife and I will be walking to raise money for the American Cancer Society. Heather will be walking in memory of Nolan Unger, the infant son of our friends Evan and Anne, while I will be walking in memory of my Great Aunt Helen. Our team was organized by a friend whos father was diegnosed with cancer earlier this year. Of course, any donations will be gratefully accepted. If you decide to support us, please send an email using the link at the upper-left hand part of the page.
Although it's been awhile since my last update, I haven't abandoned the site. I've just been watching World Cup, which due to its hours here in Colorado has left me too drained to feel like doing much besides stumbling to work and then propping my eyelids open to watch the 12:30 am and 5:30 am games. The 2:30 and 3:30 games just interfere with life too much. Of course, if I was still a full-time student, I would've stayed and watched those games as well. Having two matches I care about on different channels really makes me wish for Picture-in-Picture on the TV.
I haven't been taping the games because it just isn't the same after you've already heard the results for the day. Oh, well, it's almost over. Or it will be on Sunday. Don't forget to tune in. Sunday's match will probably be Brazil v. Germany, but I'm hoping for South Korea v. Turkey. I just want someone different to win. I was ecstatic that favorites France, Argentina, Portugal, and Italy were knocked early on.
The US performed beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and why not? FIFA had them ranked as the 13th best team in the world. Surely that would imply that they can come and play against the other 31 best teams in the world. Sadly, the rest of the soccer world still doesn't give us much respect. I guess they remember all the games where we showed up at World Cup just hoping not to be embarassed, instead of playing to win. Now the team plays an attractive attacking style that's a lot of fun to watch. And we got to beat Mexico again. You'd think that at least in our own region we wouldn't be the underdogs anymore.
I can't wait for 2006. The young MLS based players will have that much more experience, and Tony Sanneh may turn out to be our replacement for Tom Dooley.
It would appear that the President is unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the 1972 ABM treaty without consulting Congress. Leaving aside the issues surrounding the pros and cons of the treaty itself, who is the President to say when we are going to withdraw from, or break a treaty? Another website brought this up, and the question has bothered me ever since.
The ABM Treaty does contain a clause that allows either of the signatories to withdraw after either 3 or 6 months notice, which is fine. It provides a way out. But who in our government gets to decide this? The Constitution says that while the President has the power to negotiate treaties, they must be approved by the Senate. Wouldn't this also imply that the Senate must also approve either breaking or ending a treaty arrangment? The Constitution doesn't say. I checked.
It appears to me that this is another instance of the President over-stepping his Constitutional authority (again), but I'm not an expert.
The EPA has effectively repealed the Clean Air Act as it applies to power generation utilities, by introducing new rules that allow existing plants to continue operation, or even expand operations, without adding equipment to control emissions. The new rules also prevent the government from interfering with all but the most egregious polluters, and attempt to block future Clean Air Act based citizen lawsuits.
It is, of course, no coincidence, that these issue were addressed by VP Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force, which seems to have been an industry-lead interest group that presented the Bush Administration with a wish list of items it wished the federal government to change. All without Congressional oversight, or the knowledge of the American people.
The main benificiaries of the new rules would have to be the enrgy industry, closely follwed by their shareholders. There will likely be no appreciable benefit to consumers. Indeed, the money that would have been used to clean up the emissions from these plants, will likely disappear into the pockets of those who run the utilities, while citizens get stuck with poorer air quality, more acid rain, and more respiratory ailments. So much for promoting the common welfare...
I can only hope that this will be a campaign issue in the fall elections. This is another issue where the Bush Administration does nothing more than look out for its cronies, with no regard to the interests of the common people. This is not an issue of excessive governmental regulation, this is a health issue.
If the most recent EPA report on global warming is accurate, it is also an econmic issue. Does anyone really think it will cost less to deal with severe climate change, including flooding of coastal cities, droughts, and deforestation will cost less than reasonable environmental regulations?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45379-2002Jun13.html?referer=email
Abdullah Al Muhajir, formerly known as Jose Padilla, stands accused of plotting to create and denote a radioacive "dirty bomb" somewhere in the United States. He was arrested by the FBI a month ago. In a callous attempt to play on the fears of Americans, the Attorney General used a special news conference in Moscow to announce this to the world. Before dealing with anythig else, this should be addressed.
If Al Muhajir is in custody, and has been for a month, why is it necessary for this special news conference from a foreign land? Why not wait until Ashcroft returns to the United States? Why not have it treated as a normal daily press conference? Why wait a month before making the announcement? It certainly appears to be a "Wag the Dog" tactic to me, but maybe I'm just getting cynical and suspicious.
A bigger issue may be that Al Muhajir has been in federal custody for a month without being charged with a crime, and without access to a lawyer. This is due, according to the President and Attorney Gerneral, to the fact that he is an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant" who can be held indefintely without charges.
I could've sworn that both of those designations could only apply to non-citizens, and that even then those determinations were supposed to be made by a military tribunal. I've not heard that there's been a tribunal, but from the Administration's statements, it wuold appear that there has not been, and wil not be one. Why? Because Al Muhajir is an American citizen.
I could've sworn there was this cool thing called habeus corpus that applied to citizens accused of crimes. Ashcroft claims that habeus corpus doesn't apply because Al Muhajir is a "soldier" in the terror war against the United States. Perhaps he can explain how you can be a US Citizen, and still be a "soldier" for any organization but the US Army? I can't think of any.
The word "soldier", of course, denotes someone in the armed forces of a nation. Not a terrorist, who is nothing more than a politically motivated criminal. The days, the word terrorist has been expanded to include civil rights protesters, dissenters, hackers, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with th President, but the idea is the same. A terrorist, is not, and can not be, a soldier.
All of this means one thing. Al Muhajir is being held in a US Navy brig illegally. He is a US civilian. An American citizen, and regardless of the crime he is accused with, deserves the full protection of the law. That means access to a lawyer. It means he must be either charged with a crime, or released. It's that simple. The government can charge him with many things but conspiracy and terrorism seem to top the list.
The fact is, if the government is treating Al Muhajir, an American citizen, this way, they can do it to anyone. This is your only warning.
Colorado is on fire. That's what Governor Owens says. I'm starting to believe him. Southwest of Denver 40,000 people are going to be evacuated from their homes. Why? Because a 65,000 acre forest fire is threatening the Denver Metro area. The fire is being whipped by the wind, and is racing across the foothills, consuming between 600 and 1,000 acres per hour. The smoke plumes can be seen from orbit. Smoke and ash are blanketing the area. We even have them in Longmont, a good 50 miles or more north of the blaze. Luckily the wind has started pushing the fire back on itself.
This is crucial because the fire is too unpredictable for firefighters to do more than nip at the edges with firebreaks and trenches. The air tankers can't fly due to the smoke and the winds. Basically anything in the path of the fire is toast. And the Hayman fire isn;t the only conflagration in the state. An old coal fire speard to the forest near Glenwood Springs, some lighting started another fire. Right now there are five such fires in Colorado, but the Hayman fire is definitely the largest.
Of course, it could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. You see, it was started by an illegal campfire. That's right illegal. Against the law. Shouldn't have been there. Even lighting a campfire could land you in jail. Smoking outside an enclosed area can get you fined.
Colorado is in the worst drought in recorded history. Fire restrictions, basically everything but propane grills, have been well publicized. This should be basic stuff. But it isn't for some people. They just don't get it. I blame Governor Owens, at least in part. More on that later.
The last big fire was caused by a carelessly used charcoal grill. A carelessly used, illegally operated, charcoal grill. The Hayman fire was started by some campers who thought that having a campfire was more important that obeying the law, or the possibility of starting a forest fire. I guess the homes and businesses of 40,000 people were worth a few hours a firelight instead of a cold camp.
Strangely, both the backyard chef, and the campers feel persecuted because the media is making them look like idiots. Maybe that's because they are. Criminals, too. They just don't think they've done anything wrong. They just drove thousands from their homes, destroyed property, wasted tax-payer money, and broke the law. No harm, no foul, right?
I suppose that people from out of state may not be able to understand the conditions here right now. Maybe drought just doesn't conjure the proper image. Just for kicks, here's some other descriptions of conditions here: dry, dusty, hot, tinder-box, dust bowl. All of these descriptions have been in the media here.
Appearances may be a bit deceiving. We have thunderstorms where the rain evaporate a few hundred feet above the ground. There are areas that appear lush and green from a distance. Of course, most of the creeks and streams are almost dry. The rivers are low. Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds are drying out.
I went camping myself last weekend with a large group. We were less than twenty miles south of where the Hayman fire is now. The pine needles on the ground were so dry that they crumbled when touched. The dust came up in plumes when you walked. We had no fires, no kerosene lanterns, propane only for cooking. Some Forest Service Rangers came by and asked the smokers to smoke only in the dust circle around the main firepit. Fire danger was obvious.
And yet, someone in the group still used charcoal. We found the live coals in the fire pit as we were getting ready to leave. We noticed that the fire pit radiated a lot of heat, and wondered why. It ended up taking 10-15 gallons of water to put the coals, which had been going all day, out.
Idiots. Imbeciles. Self-absorbed cretins.
Of course, the Governor hasn't helped much. In many areas of Colorado lawn watering and car washing are almost non-existant, and yet, he wanted to leave the question of fireworks under local control. That's right. You can't smoke a cigarette outside your car, but he wanted to let every town, village, and county to decide on their own whether people should be allowed to use fireworks. My guess is that he didn't want to take the heat for making a decision.
Today, he saw the light and banned personal fireworks for the summer. I'm thinking he should ban the professional displays, too.
Of course, his delay on this allowed those who wanted to believe that things weren't so bad, to delude themselves into starting a campfire that the entire state gets to enjoy now. All because his conservative Republican ideology told him that centralized government shouldn't interfere. My thought is this: if he really believes that, why did he request federal drought assistance? Why are we having state and federal firerighters fight the fires? Should the local communities be allowed to formulate their own firefighting plans?
Of course not. Just like he should have had the cajones to ban fireworks a month ago.
