Clemency

Kudos to Mark Warner for doing the right thing. He may be a lame duck governor--only because of Virginia's archaic one-term rule--but he has national aspirations as either a Senator or even for a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidacy. He took the most prudent path by commuting a man whose conviction may have been tainted.

I support the death penalty, but I believe there are serious problems in our administration of it. It is clearly sexist, definitely racist, and too often we are executing people whose trials are suspect and who may even be innocent. The era of DNA evidence is exonerating many inmates on death row, and thus allowing the "real killer"--to steal from OJ Simpson-- to remain free forever.

Warner did not release this man, and he is still in prison for life. At least this gives the state time to thoroughly examine his case. If he is indeed guilty and fairly tried, he will still be in prison. If he is innocent or unfairly convicted, then we can release him. Proceeding with an uncertain execution is an irrevocable act. While innocent people may lose years of their life in prison, we can never resurrect those who are unjustly executed.

Warner made sure that justice can be served without imperiling the public safety. For that he should be commended.

Gov. Warner Commutes Sentence

Corporatism

Normally, I find comparisons to Nazism to be adolescent, as though the only evil thing we can all agree upon is fascism. That said, a thorough analysis of the past eras can shed some light on the direction of our own time.

Read this great comparison between our own economic policies and those of Italy and Germany leading up to the days of Mussolini and Hitler. This isn't predicting an American fascism, but we have to be on guard that our complacency about the greatness of American democracy don't lead to its gradual disappearance.

Fascism and Corporatism

Happy Holidays

Sorry for the long pause in between posts. I hope that everyone had a great Thanksgiving.

-Axel

Jimmy Carter: 'This isn't the real America'

IN RECENT YEARS, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.



Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.

Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

Of even greater concern is that the U.S. has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in U.S. custody.

Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.

Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.

It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years.

JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," published this month by Simon & Schuster.

Thanks to Smirking Chimp.

Silencing Democracy

George W. Bush, facing a nation that hates him and his twisted policies more every day, is resorting to his favorite defensive tactic: attack the attacker. He is perverting the hollow saw of "support the troops" by stating that criticizing him is "sending mixed messages" to them. I guess our boys in Iraq will feel bad knowing that their war was a hoax and not fight as hard. He has even stated that people have died because Congressmen are criticizing Bush and his handling of the war, from the initial sales pitch to the muffed post-war state of affairs.

To take his argument at face value, this means that no one has the right to criticize the President as long as American troops have boots on foreign soil. Since America has been at war--Cold or hot, declared or undeclared--since December 7, 1941, this means that Bush is favoring an unofficial reinstatement of the Alien and Sedition Act. Actually, I'm surprised he hasn't had his lapdog, Bill Frist, introduce such a measure explicitly.

Besides the fact that American democracy is based entirely on our ability to criticize and reject our own government, Bush's argument is extremely dangerous to our national security. A President who fails in the deadly business of War and Diplomacy is putting the lives of Americans, both civilian and military, at risk. A government which mismanages its foreign and military affairs, especially in times of war, leads its nation to the brink of extinction.

If no one speaks out against the President in the moments of his greatest failings, then he can assume that he is on the right course. He can then proceed to even further wreckless adventures, costing Americans more in lives, money and deteriorating security.

Bush is not just saying that American citizens cannot speak up. He is specifically stating that Congressmen, those elected to speak for you or me--Okay, not me, since I live in DC and have no voice in Congress-- have no right to speak out against his policies. He is saying that the Opposition Party should have no right to mount any opposition to his government. Since Republicans love talking about our glorious fight against Communism and Fascism, shouldn't they recall that the biggest problem with those systems was the complete domination by one party over all the others?

To be snide, we might also point out that Bush was among those Republicans who openly criticized Bill Clinton's handling of Somalia. Did American soldiers die in Africa because Republican Congressmen and then-Texas Governor Bush sent "mixed messages" to our troops there?

Apparently, this principle only applies if the President happens to be a Republican. Otherwise, he is unworthy of the enormous priviledges and exemptions from criticism that Republicans have been ascribing to the Presidency since 2001. I also somehow doubt that John Kerry would be afforded the same luxury that Bush seems to claim for himself.

By branding his opponents as unpatriotic and detrimental to national security, Bush is treading a dangerous path that would lead to the extinguishment of our democracy. Without the right to criticize our own government, what is the point of our foreign adventures to "promote democracy"? If we allow Bush to use such crass tactics, we effectively allow him to destroy our right to control our own government, which is the very definition of Democracy: rule by the people.

Those who count the votes

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
-Joseph Stalin

Imagine walking up in 2006 to this nightmare headline: "Republicans Defy Polls to Make Historic Gains!" Such a story may be in the works, even as the Republican Congress and Bush both see their popularity fall into the mid to low 30s.

Everyone knows the story of November 2004: Kerry wins in the exit polls, but somehow Bush wins Iowa, New Mexico, Florida and Ohio in defiance of those polls. Many suspect, including myself, that the Diebold computers were the real problem. They also resulted in surprise wins in close Senate races in Alaska and Florida, handing the GOP 55 seats in the Senate.

Previously, Diebold computers had been suspected in the surprise victories of Republicans in the 2002 Georgia governor's race and senate race. The GAO recently issued a report detailing potential problems with such computers, showing that you wouldn't trust your bank account to one, let alone your democratic rights.

Now we have hard evidence of fraud. On November 8, 2005, Ohio voters faced 5 ballot issues. The Ohio newspapers posted polls showing that Issue 1 would pass with 53% of the vote. It passed with 54%, proving that the pollsters were dead on. So what's the controversy?

Issue 2 was leading with 59% to 33%, with only 9% undecided in the polls. It lost 36-63%. How do you lose 23% of the vote in 2 days?? Since when do all undecideds swing one way? Even in the relatively uncontroversial returns from Issue 1, the Nays got 90% of the undecideds.

Issue 3, on campaign contributions, was leading with 61% of the vote. Pretty safe to assume you are going to win, right? They lost with 33-66. It looks like someone just reversed the buttons to get those results, since 66-33 would be much closer to the polling. BTW, this is one of the possible scams that GAO presents in its reports on computer voting.

Issue 4 was only getting 31% of the polls, and got 30% of the vote. Non-controversial? Then how do you explain that the went from 45% to 69%, meaning that they of the 25% of undecideds, they lifted 24% points at the polls. Just like Issue 1, the undecideds all swung as a group one way.

Issue 5 is less clear cut, but the results are just as improbable.

Take the 2004 Exit Polls and the "Official Results", add in the fact that the Diebold CEO's promise to deliver Ohio for Bush, and you can see that Democracy is no longer a consideration in the State of Ohio, or anywhere else these monster machines are eating votes.

This isn't whining about 2004. This is worrying that America's Democracy may be vanishing without even a puff of smoke.

Here are the pre-election polls and the "official" returns:

ISSUE 1 ($2 Billion State Bond initiative)
PRE-POLLING: 53% Yes, 27% No, 20% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 54% Yes, 45% No

ISSUE 2 (Allow easier absentee balloting)
PRE-POLLING: 59% Yes, 33% No, 9% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 36% Yes, 63% No

ISSUE 3 (Revise campaign contribution limits)

PRE-POLLING: 61% Yes, 25% No, 14% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 33% Yes, 66% No

ISSUE 4 (Independent Commission to draw Congressional Districts)
PRE-POLLING: 31% Yes, 45% No, 25% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 30% Yes, 69% No

ISSUE 5 (Ind. Board instead of Sec. of State to oversee elections)
PRE-POLLING: 41% Yes, 43% No, 16% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 29% Yes, 70% No


Ohio Referenda Defy Polls

Mormons, Christians and the White House

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a case study in contradictions. He is a Mormon Republican in a liberal Catholic state. In 2002, he had to choose between the safe bet of replacing Gov. Leavitt in Utah, where he is a hero for saving the Olympics, or running for the more high profile, high risk governorship in Massachusetts. He pulled off a win, but his Mormon credentials caused many to wonder how he would fit in, especially considering the hostile homophobia of his religion.

In 2004, this clash became evident. The Commonwealth passed the first gay marriage bill in the US, and overrode his veto in the process. He fled to Washington, begging Congress to override his own state government by passing the Federal Marriage Amendment. On the very day that he testified on the horrors of gay marriage in his own state, his two predecessors, former Republican Governors William Weld and Jane Swift, were attending the wedding of one of their former male staffers to another man. While he was spewing hyperbole at gay marriage, his fellow Republicans were throwing rice at a gay wedding.

In part because of this, Romney is highly unpopular in his own state. He probably will not seek re-election, and I view his testimony before Congress as a betrayal to his own state. In exchange, he thinks that his anti-gay stance will win over GOP voters in his bid to become the first Mormon President of the US, something that previous candidates like George Romney (his father), Joseph Smith or Orin Hatch came close to achieving.

Ironically, it is his Mormon religion that may be his undoing. Highly Mormon Utah is one of the most solid GOP states. Other than in downtown Salt Lake City, hippie Moab and ski resort Park City, the GOP is the only game in town. The LDS Church has tried to ally itself with the Religious Right on social issues ranging from antigay initiatives to abortion. They have swallowed the red pill without even tasting it first.

The Religious Right, however, is not so keen on Mormonism. Southern Baptists and other Evangelical Fundamentalists view Mormonism as a perversion of Christianity. Just yesterday, someone handed me a flier in downtown DC debunking the idea that Mormons are truly Christians. They will take LDS votes, but still insist that Mormons are not one of them.

Will Mitt Romney be able to overcome both the concerns of liberals and moderates that Mormons are too conservative and the concerns of the Religious Right that Mormons are a cult? With a religious background that reeks of polygamy, racism, sexism, secretism and rampant homophobia, Romney will have to work hard to convince Americans that he won't be taking orders from Salt Lake City and try to bring back Prohibition. (Ever try getting a drink in Utah??) Will he even be able to get out of Super Tuesday with Southern Republicans worried about putting a non-Christian in the White House?

Romney has cast his lot with the Religious Right. The question remains if the Religious Right will accept him as one of their own:

Is Romney Christian enough for the Theocrats?

Attack, Slander and Repeat

Karl Rove, the man with his hand up the President's back, only knows one mode of politics: attack, slander and repeat. With Bush's numbers headed toward Nixon-land, W goes on the campaign trail and attacks those accusing him. Never mind that 60% of the country thinks the war was a mistake. Forget the recent indictment and ongoing investigation of the Plame case, which is directly related to his pre-war fabrications. Don't mention that the WMDs that were going to blow us to Kingdom Come were not only nonexistent; Bush knew they were from Day One of his war drumming.

Now Bush goes on the trail with his old line: support the troops. If you question the President, you are unpatriotic. People who oppose the war are unAmerican. I suppose it's only wrong to question a Republican President, since W himself attacked Clinton's integrity.

Fortunately, people are realizing how corrupt this administration is. How effective is Bush's recycled attack line going to be when most people think he lied to them? To me at least, his latest attacks look like a way to lash out at his critics. It's more like a temper tantrum than a serious foreign policy discussion.

America needs an adult in the White House, not a frat boy with an oversized temper.

Defensive Bush Goes Back on the Warpath

Red and Blue

The overly simplistic analysis of the elections from 2000-2004 has been the infamous "Red State, Blue State" fallacy. This theory stems largely from the Electoral College maps that TV election night coverage loves to display. In a way it is a fun and simplistic way to understand the breakdown in American.

Take a look at the 2004 election by county. At first glance, the nation is a sea of red with pockets of blue. Even Kerry states like California and Pennsylvania look more red than blue. When you look at the blue, you can pick out the major urban centers in the US. The predominance of red counties reflects the large amounts of sparsely populated land in the US. The Republicans dominate the country geographically, but the Democratic areas contain much higher population densities.

The real divide in this country is the urban rural split. The Democrats dominate in big cities; Republicans are most powerful in rural areas. The reason that Republicans do well in the farmbelt and the Sunbelt is because of larger rural populations. The coasts contain most of the biggest cities, so the Democrats dominate the Pacific Coast and the Northeast. Midwest states like Ohio and Minnesota are evenly divided, and so they are the "battleground states".

The real battleground is the suburbs. Suburbanites are evenly split and more likely to be independents. Inner suburbs are more urban-like and therefore more Democratic. Outer suburbs are more rural and thus more Republican. Whoever can swing the suburbs can win statewide elections much easier. Most of the precious few competitive House seats lie in suburban areas.

Look at last night's election results. True, Michael Bloomberg won a fourth consequent term for a Republican mayor in NYC, but NYC Republicans are a lot different from the Bill Frists and Tom DeLays who dominate the GOP today. Bloomberg himself was a Democrat until fairly recently, and both he and Giuliani embrace multiculturalism, gay equality, abortion rights and other issues that drive Tom Coburn mad.

In Virginia, Tim Kaine easily won in a state that is part of the GOP solid South. He won largely because of dominating the vote in the DC suburbs of Northern Virginia. Even though he is from Richmond, he even won the more conservative suburbs like in Loudon County and Prince William County. This is largely because of voter anger over Bush.

The middle class in America, who largely dwell in suburbia, are not happy with Bush and are taking it out on the GOP. They are not getting the tax breaks he is doling out, and they are getting a much smaller share of the GDP growth than the upper class is. The Republicans don't even pretend to care about the poor, and prove it by cutting more and more support from the budget while doling out massive corporate welfare. However, they have to at least fool the middle class to think that they represent them.

If the GOP does as poorly next year in the suburban districts as they did in Virginia and New Jersey last night, the Democrats will make serious in roads into the GOP majorities in Congress and win key races on the state level. Bush can afford to be cavalier towards the poor, but an angry middle class will turn those swing suburban counties a deeper shade of blue.


Democrats dominate Virginia's DC Suburbs

Are you on the list?

When the Patriot Act was passed, many said that the government was being given broad powers not only to spy on US citizens, but to harm them as well. It looks like the "Radical Lefties" were not so crazy after all.

Bush has a list of 10,000 potential enemies. Joe Wilson was just one name on the list. Makes you wonder who else they have on their list, furnished with your tax money and the FBI's hard work.

Bush's Naughty List

Falling Behind

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

That single line put Reagan in the White House and ousted Jimmy Carter in 1980. Despite four years of relative prosperity in GDP terms, the median worker is making less each year once inflation takes its toll.

If Bush wonders how his poll numbers can be so low in when GDP looks so promising, he should start worrying about the average voter--not the one's in the nation's top 1% who are receiving all his tax kickbacks.

It's not the economy, stupid. People outside Washington don't care about GDP. They care about their family's individual budget, and most people are falling behind.


Wages falling behind inflation

Conflict of Interest

While I think their argument is constitutionally sound, it seems like these judges should have recused themselves from the case. Chief Justice Roberts, and probably others on the Appeals Court, live outside the District and commute in.

These judges sound more like plaintiffs in a class action suit instead of impartial observers.

Commuter Tax Decision

The answer is for Congress to let DC govern itself. I guess the rights of citizens of Baghdad are more important than those of DC residents.

Right-Wing Nuts

Here is a good editorial on the fallacy of Rove's political strategy. Moderate Revolt

Rove's problem is that he relies far too heavily on catering to conservatives and fooling moderates to win a "permanent majority" for the GOP. His poll numbers, down to 35%pro to 58% against in today's CBS poll, show that Democrats loathe him and indepents choose against him 2-1. That leaves his supposedly secure base.

The theocrats are like keeping a tiger for a pet. Sure, keep him happy, and you can ride his pack and scare lots of people into submission. But don't give him what he wants once and he will do some serious damage. Witness what they did to Meirs, whose lack of qualifications didn't phase the theocrats, but her lack of clear cut conservative credentials did. W responded by handing them a died in the wool conservative, assuming that the moderates would fall into line. We'll see if his gamble pays off and if he doesn't convince the dozen moderates left in America who still like him to run for the left.

Unfortunately for this country, should the GOP lose ground next year, most of their lost seats will be among moderate Republicans. Sure, Santorum will lose, but he is a right-winger in a Democratic leaning state. Lincoln Chafee is also in big trouble, as any other Republican from a solid or leaning blue state will be. The dearth of moderates will force the GOP further to the right and make the Democrats the only viable party for people who don't believe in the Bible as part of our Constitution. That's unhealthy for democracy and very unhealthy for America.

Once big correction to this article: It's not that life isn't fair; it's that our electoral system is unfair and consistently fails to reflect the make-up and will of the American people in Congress.