Law and Order Republicans

I wonder how Republicans feel about those mandatory sentences (see today's first post) when it comes to one of their own, namely Giuliani's SC campaign chairman for charges related to cocaine.

Groundhog Year~1984

The Army is considering whether it will have to extend the combat tours of troops in Iraq if President Bush opts to maintain the recent buildup of forces through spring 2008....Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren testified Tuesday that.... the decision to extend tours from 12 to 15 months was made to ensure soldiers were guaranteed one year at home. Previously, soldiers deployed for 12-month cycles but were unsure when they would be sent back.

Americablog: Yes, we're going to extend their tours AGAIN so that they get more time at home. Kind of like saying, I have to work late tonight so I can spend more time with the kids. Here's a thought, why not just bring them home?

Quote of the Day~"it is often best to keep the lights off"

The above quote comes from a column in today's Washington Post by Richard Cohen. In his column at Salon, Glenn Greenwald demonsrates beautifully how the position that Cohen takes in his column, and more particularly, the mentality evident in the this sentence, so spectacularly "captur[es] the essence of our Beltway media."


Cohen is essentially lamenting the fate of Scooter Libby, the guy who more or less formed the basis of the my previous post. Greenwald spells out exactly what this quote means when he states that "when it comes to the behavior of our highest and most powerful government officials, our Beltway media preaches, 'it is often best to keep the lights off."' But the real quote of the day comes from Greenwald himself. The quote is rather long, but Greenwald outdoes himself in exposing the profound sense of victimzation that the powerful feel when they are called to account for their actions:


The Libby prosecution clearly was the dirty work of the leftist anti-war movement in this country, just as Cohen describes. After all, the reason Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate this matter was because a left-wing government agency (known as the "Central Intelligence Agency") filed a criminal referral with the Justice Department, as the MoveOn-sympathizer CIA officials were apparently unhappy about the public unmasking of one of their covert agents.


In response, Bush's left-wing anti-war Attorney General, John Ashcroft, judged the matter serious enough to recuse himself, leading Bush's left-wing anti-war Deputy Attorney General, James Comey, to conclude that a Special Prosecutor was needed. In turn, Comey appointed Fitzgerald, the left-wing anti-war Republican Prosecutor and Bush appointee, who secured a conviction of Libby, in response to which left-wing anti-war Bush appointee Judge Reggie Walton imposed Libby's sentence.





http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/19/cohen/index.html

"Fist in the Air in the Land of Hypocrisy"

Sometimes I run across a story here and there, something that doesn't receive much attention because it isn't exactly groundbreaking news, but which, nevertheless, makes me stop and think a little differently about the stories that have recently been dominating the media landscape. Everyday there is a barrage of news and information that inevitably gets overlooked in the daily coverage of important events. I'm not trying to comment on the relative importance of certain stories and this is not a post about the media's obsession with the trivial and the absurd. This is more of a "that just figures" kind of rant. These snippets of recent news that I stumbled upon just seem to, coincidentally of course, put the major events of late into a crisper perspective if you will, and so I just wanted to share them.

Not too long ago "I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - once Vice President Cheney's most trusted adviser - [was] sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury. Lying. Not a white lie, mind you. A killer lie. Scooter Libby deliberately poured poison into the drinking water of democracy by lying to federal investigators, for the purpose of obstructing justice. "

Amidst the coverage in recent weeks of Libby's sentencing, the uproar among conservatives and a few pseudo-Democrats who "flooded the judge's chambers with letters of support for their comrade and took to the airwaves in a campaign to "free Scooter" and the endless calls from the same crowd for Bush to pardon him, there have been some less significant stories that have stuck out in my mind for some reason.

One such story was reported Sunday in the Boston Globe. According to the Globe, "The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals." It seems that the Supreme Court took issue with mandatory sentencing guidelines in the past, which has sparked a "debate, pitting prosecutors against jurists, [that] has been ongoing since a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that declared the government's two decades-old sentencing guidelines unconstitutional." Bush's Justice Department, currently under extensive investigation by Congress that potentially implicates important people in the White House, believes that "a growing number of lighter sentences [is possibly] proof that crime is rising because criminals are no longer cowed by strict penalties."

Despite the Justice Department's concern, many agree with the Supreme Court's decision and there has been "a larger debate about whether sentences for crack cocaine are unfairly harsh and racially discriminatory." According to "US District Judge Paul G. Cassell, chairman of the Criminal Law committee of the Judicial Conference, the judicial branch's policy-making body[,] 'the vast majority of the public would like the judges to make the individualized decisions needed to make these very difficult sentencing decisions."' He further argues that '"Judges are the ones who look the defendants in the eyes. They hear from the victims. They hear from the prosecutors."'

All of this started me thinking about the larger issue of justice in our society and so, when I ran across this article, "Twenty Things you Should Know About Corporate Crime" reported Saturday in Alternet, I was immediately interested. This article was full of interesting statistics that I was not aware of. For example, I had no idea that "the losses from a handful of major corporate frauds -- Tyco, Adelphia, Worldcom, Enron -- swamp the losses from all street robberies and burglaries combined." While the "FBI estimates, for example, that burglary and robbery -- street crimes -- costs the nation $3.8 billion a year" it seems that "Health care fraud alone costs Americans $100 billion to $400 billion a year."

I was beginning to get excited about those mandatory sentencing guidelines but upon further reading I found out that "corporate criminals are the only criminal class in the United States that have the power to define the laws under which they live." The article describes how corporations "have marinated Washington -- from the White House to the Congress to K Street -- with their largesse" and how "out [of] the other end come the laws they can live with."

Thinking about the seeming injustice of it all, I tried to comfort myself with the thought that corporations aren't like street thugs who go around with guns killing people. I mean, really, the loss of affordable medical coverage, a pension, investments or a livelihood is not likely to kill you and anything is better than being dead. But then I remembered that I had just previously read that "corporate crime is often violent crime" and that the "FBI estimates that, 16,000 Americans are murdered every year" as compared to "the 56,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases... and the tens of thousands of other Americans who fall victim to the silent violence of pollution, contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products, and hospital malpractice."

God, I'm Glad I Don't Live in New Jersey

According to the Bush Administration and its enablers we have to continue to fight a war in Iraq to protect ourselves from terrorism, a war that's costing, oh, somewhere around a trillion dollars with billions of that unaccountably being poured into the coffers of private contractors and war profiteering corporatons. Ok. Fine. But if protecting America from devastating terrorist attacks is importat enough that Bush the Decider decided we had to invade a country that didn't attack us, depose its dictator, and drain the treasury and the military then we must surely spare no expense at securing areas that are at high risk for a terrorist attack on American soil. In case, you know, a few terrorists somehow slip through the cracks in Iraq (or elsewhere in the world where there just might be terrorists) and actually make it, you know, "over here" to attack us. Personally, I am not so confident that all the terrorists in the world are and forever always will be in Iraq that I wouldn't take heed of the following:

less than two months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11,...publicly released government documents disclosed the existence of more than 100 factories and other facilities where a successful attack would produce toxic clouds with the potential to severely sicken or kill at least a million people.

But apparently that's just me. Personally, I thing that when it comes to things that might actually keep us safe, spending money seems like a good idea. Bush and his Administration see things differently. They want to prevent congress and state legislatures from passing and enforcing laws that "require stringent anti-terror security measures at facilities storing poisonous materials such as chlorine and methyl mercaptan." So, taxpayers can pay for waste and excess in Iraq but when it comes to anti-terror regulations for chemical plants at home Bush suddenly has a problem with "tax increases and runaway spending." I feel so safe.

Update on Secret Free Trade Deal

I first posted something on this topic back in May. I have not been posting as consistently as I would like and wanted to do a follow up on this topic sooner. However, I have several drafts on different topics that I have not gotten around to finishing either because of time constraints or because there are just some days when it is necessary for the sake of my mental health to focus on other things besides shit like this and the latest daily outrages. However, here is a post that I started on a couple of weeks ago followed by some recent news:


Basically, the latest trade deal means more of the same NAFTA-like trade policies. The corporate controlled Democratic leadership is, as usual, teaming up with Repbulicans to screw workers. However, there still seems to be some significant opposition from most rank and file Democrats in congress. As of today, here are some of the latest updates via David Sirota, posted on May 31, regarding the secret free trade deal:

• Three weeks after a group of senior Democrats announced a secret free trade deal with top Bush administration officials, Democratic K Street lobbyists are now telling reporters they are making passage of the deal their top priority. Many - if not most - of these lobbyists are former lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff using their ties to Congress to twist arms.


• Nonetheless, despite the K Street campaign, business interests say they are increasingly worried that they will not have the votes in Congress to pass the secret deal, whose legislative text remains secret.


• According to the National Jounral, Democratic corprate lobbyist Scott Parven stated, “We need to provide a substantive counterpoint to activists on the left who are banging members over the head saying this is a terrible deal.” Another Democratic business lobbyist added, “The reality is that Democrats are going to be split on trade issues, so the business community’s main agenda is going to be to shore up virtually unanimous support among Republicans in the House and work with Rangel and Levin and the leadership to get 70 to 100 Democrats.”


• Rank and file Democrats, led by Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), are planning to push a Democratic caucus resolution barring the Speaker of the House from bringing the Bush administration’s request for reauthorization of fast track to the House floor for a vote unless a majority of Democrats approve. When asked about this resolution this week, Inside U.S. Trade reports that Pelosi balked, indicating she will ignore the resolution.


• Inside U.S. Trade reports that House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel expects he will require votes from the vast majority of Republicans in order to pass the secret deal - over the objections of most Democrats. Rangel is still declining to give an estimate of how many Democrats would support the secret deal “except to signal he did not expect a majority of the [Democratic] caucus.” Observers “say the most Democratic votes Peru and Panama will attract is roughly 70″ - or less than a third of all Democrats in Congress.

Also from Sirota here is the latest on the free trade deal as of last Friday, June 8th:

Can the Clinton machine deliver another NAFTA? That is the question in Washington on trade these days, as dynamics similar to the NAFTA debate begins to take shape. The Colombian government, which has been tied to paramilitary gangs that execute union organizers, is spending lavishly to enlist top Clinton administration officials - including Hillary Clinton’s top campaign strategist and President Clinton himself - to pressure Democrats on Capitol Hill to pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement - an agreement that is part of the bigger secret deal. This campaign is being backed up by a wide array of businesses such as Wal-Mart and Citigroup. To date, the legislative language of the secret trade deal has still not been released - but that hasn’t stopped the furious efforts to build a coalition of Clinton administration officials-turned-lobbyists, a handful of top Democrats in Congress and corporate interests to ram the secret deal through Congress. Here is today’s report.

K STREET TARGETS SPECIFIC DEM GROUPS IN PUSH FOR SECRET DEAL: The Hill Newspaper reports that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who is under a cloud of scandal in connection to right-wing paramilitary gangs and ant-union violence, “will lobby members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition.” He will also meet with Rangel, Ways and Means trade subcommittee Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and GOP Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.). His lobbying efforts are being backed up by, among others, Caterpillar, Citigroup and Wal-Mart. “The three companies chair the Latin American Trade Coalition, which will brief House staff Thursday on all three Latin American trade deals,” the Hill reports. “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also preparing a campaign to push all three deals forward.”

CHI TRIB - FRESHMEN DEMS “TEAR AT PARTY UNITY ON TRADE”: The Chicago Tribune reports that “first-term Democrats are leading a vocal charge against their own leadership over several proposed international trade deals.” Most Democrats “remain largely skeptical” of the proposed South Korea and Colombia trade pacts, which were part of the secret deal. But “party leaders — including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the caucus chairman, who helped shepherd NAFTA to approval when he worked for Clinton — announced last month they would move ahead.” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said of the secret deal: “It’s not a good step forward, it’s good lip service.”

There is more if you click on the link. Unfortunately, still no indications from Pelosi that she or other Dem leaders are willing to work with the Democratic opposition to the deal.

Quote of the Day~The Real World is Like Your Worst Junior High Memory

"You’ve been told during your high school years and your college years that you are now about to enter the real world, and you’ve been wondering what it’s like. Let me tell you that the real world is not college. The real world is not high school. The real world, it turns out, is much more like junior high. You are going to encounter, for the rest of your life, the same petty jealousies, the same irrational juvenile behavior, the same uncertainty that you encountered during your adolescent years. That is your burden. We all share it with you. We wish you well."
---Tom Brokaw at Skidmore College

He must be speaking from experience; the mainstream media is the perfect example of this. Even more perfect than the Bush Administration and the Republican Party because they have left Junior High for the Twighlight Zone or, in many cases, a long journey through the nation's legal system followed, in a few cases, by prison.