15 May 2007
Finally, Some Good News
Jerry Falwell, founder of the so-called "Moral Majority" died today.
According to unconfirmed reports, he was met at the Gates of Hell by Satan himself, who said, "Heckuva job, Jer!"
11 May 2007
Impeach this President, or Remove the Impeachment Clause
From Dave Lindorff
What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so
frightened?
Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I know Bush
and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad
idea.”
The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon
flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:
Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a
diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing
important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the
administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings
would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities
in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive
legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement)
and the record shows it.
Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of
absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were
setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point.
Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White
House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all
the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a
stand.
Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply
wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as
one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want
it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate
for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution,
not to act.
Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney
president—a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in
Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president
because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few
months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public—currently
about 9 percent and falling—he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to
do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove
him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason—they would not
want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is
exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general
managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon’s presidency. The
same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either
a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption.
Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses of power need
to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An
impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the
president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the
House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill’s merits and decide whether
to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an
impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only
after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full
House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations
before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a
grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.
Besides, some of this president’s high crimes are self-evident. Take the
case of Bush’s ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’
communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no
denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question
the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a “high crime”
warranting impeachment.
The same applies Bush’s refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws
duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn’t deny that he has usurped the power of
the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he
asserts—with no basis in the wording of that document—that as commander in
chief in the war on terror, he has the “unitary executive” authority to
ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an “investigation” to
establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether
this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.
Likewise the president’s authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the
president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his “unitary executive”
claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress
outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US
and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of
command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.
There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president),
such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy
(or treason) in the Niger “yellowcake” document forgery scandal, conspiracy
to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in
responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc.,
which would require Judiciary Committee investigations.
In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility.
If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well amend the
Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have
become as much an anachronism as prohibition.
------------------------
About the author: Philadelphia journalist Dave Lindorff is co-author, with
Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for
Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
due out in paperback later this month).
His work is available at This Can't Be Happening
What is it about impeachment that has the Democratic Party leadership so
frightened?
Talking with members of Congress, one hears the same refrain: “I know Bush
and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but impeachment is a bad
idea.”
The rationales offered are many, but all are either specious or based upon
flawed reasoning. Let’s consider them separately:
Excuse one, offered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that impeachment would be a
diversion from Democrats’ main goals of ending the Iraq War, and passing
important legislation. The reality, of course, is that many of the
administration’s impeachable acts relate directly to the war, so hearings
would only build support for ending it. Meanwhile, with the slim majorities
in both houses, Democrats cannot pass any significant progressive
legislation that could survive a veto (or a presidential signing statement)
and the record shows it.
Excuse two is that impeachment is divisive. This seems the height of
absurdity. When voters handed Congress to the Democrats, they knew they were
setting the stage for divided government. That was the whole point.
Moreover, divisiveness in Washington has largely emanated from the White
House, not from Congress. Anyhow, given administration intransigence on all
the issues that matter to Democrats, they have no alternative but to take a
stand.
Excuse three is a claim that the public opposes impeachment. This is simply
wrong. The few straightforward scientific polls done on impeachment, such as
one published by Newsweek last October, show a majority of Americans to want
it. Furthermore, if Bush has committed impeachable acts, it is inappropriate
for House members, all of whom swore to uphold and defend the Constitution,
not to act.
Excuse four is that old canard that impeaching Bush would mean making Cheney
president—a deliberately scary prospect but one which any politician in
Washington knows is garbage. Firstly, if Cheney were to become president
because of a Bush impeachment or resignation, it would only be for a few
months, and given his stunning lack of support among the public—currently
about 9 percent and falling—he would be the lamest of lame ducks, unable to
do anything. But more importantly, his own party would be certain to remove
him before any removal of Bush, and for exactly that reason—they would not
want to be going into the 2008 election with Cheney as party leader. This is
exactly what happened to Spiro Agnew, whom a Republican attorney general
managed to indict and remove before the collapse of Nixon’s presidency. The
same thing can be expected to happen to Cheney, who would surely face either
a sudden health crisis, or an indictment for corruption.
Finally, excuse five is that the president’s crimes and abuses of power need
to be proven before any impeachment bill. This is completely backwards. An
impeachment bill can be filed by any member of Congress who believes the
president has violated the Constitution. At that point, it is up to the
House Judiciary Committee to consider the bill’s merits and decide whether
to ask the full House to authorize impeachment hearings. It is at an
impeachment hearing where investigations should proceed. After all, only
after the Judiciary Committee votes out an impeachment article can the full
House consider whether to actually impeach. Calling for investigations
before an impeachment hearing is like asking for an investigation before a
grand jury investigation. It’s redundant, simply a dodge.
Besides, some of this president’s high crimes are self-evident. Take the
case of Bush’s ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’
communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no
denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question
the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a “high crime”
warranting impeachment.
The same applies Bush’s refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws
duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn’t deny that he has usurped the power of
the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he
asserts—with no basis in the wording of that document—that as commander in
chief in the war on terror, he has the “unitary executive” authority to
ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an “investigation” to
establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether
this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.
Likewise the president’s authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the
president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his “unitary executive”
claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress
outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US
and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of
command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.
There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president),
such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy
(or treason) in the Niger “yellowcake” document forgery scandal, conspiracy
to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in
responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc.,
which would require Judiciary Committee investigations.
In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility.
If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well amend the
Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have
become as much an anachronism as prohibition.
------------------------
About the author: Philadelphia journalist Dave Lindorff is co-author, with
Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for
Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
due out in paperback later this month).
His work is available at This Can't Be Happening
20 April 2007
Happy 420 Day
4/20/2007
Behold!
"I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."
- God
Behold!
"I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."- God
18 April 2007
Guest Editorial
A Statement from the International Action Center
Why Virginia Tech shootings happened
Yet another rampage has occurred at a school, this time leaving 33 people dead at Virginia Tech—the worst such incident ever at a U.S. college campus.
The news media seem stunned and surprised, yet their coverage sounds so similar to the stories about Columbine eight years ago. They dwell on the personality of the young man the police say did the shooting, before killing himself. They talk about him being a “loner,” depressed, perhaps angry at women.
But aren’t there lonely and depressed people all over the world? Many countries have high suicide rates. Why is it that here some become mass murderers?
The U.S. is the world leader in seemingly random acts of violence by individuals. Why?
President George W. Bush rushed to Virginia to speak at a large convocation the day after the killings and tried to set the tone for what could be said about them. “It’s impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering,” he said.
Don’t ask why, don’t try to understand. It makes no sense. “Have faith” instead, was Bush’s message.
But there ARE reasons these things happen here, and they are pretty clear to the rest of the world. It’s just in the United States that no one is supposed to talk about the reasons.
What distinguishes this country from the rest of the world? It is neither the most affluent nor the poorest. It is neither the most secular nor the most religious. It is not the most culturally homogeneous nor is it the most diverse.
But in one area, it stands virtually alone. It has the biggest arsenal of high-tech weaponry in the world, way surpassing every other country. It has military bases spread all over; most countries have no troops outside their borders.
It is conducting two hot wars at the moment, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has sent hundreds of thousands of troops abroad over the last few years. Every day, the public here is supposed to identify with soldiers who burst into homes in Baghdad, round up the people and take them away for “interrogation”—which everyone knows now can mean torture and indefinite detainment.
It also sends heavily armed “special ops” on secret missions to countless other countries, like the ones who just facilitated the invasion and bombing of Somalia, or the ones who have been trying to stir up opposition in Iran. This is documented in the news media.
The immense brutality of these colonial wars, as well as earlier ones, is praised from the White House on down as the best, the ONLY way to achieve what the political leaders and their influential, rich backers decide is necessary to protect their world empire. Do lots of people get killed? “Stuff happens,” said former war secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “Collateral damage,” says the Pentagon.
At home, the U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Over 2 million people are locked up in the prison system each year, most of them people of color. When commercial armed security guards are also taken into consideration, the U.S. has millions of employees who use guns and other coercive paraphernalia in their jobs.
In the final analysis, the military and the police exist to perpetuate and protect this present unjust system of capitalist inequality, where a few can claim personal ownership over a vast economy built by the sweat and blood of hundreds of millions of workers.
And the more divided, the more polarized the society becomes, the higher the level of coercion and violence. Assault weapons are now everywhere in this society, as are Tasers, handcuffs, clubs and tear gas. They most often start out in the hands of the police, the military and other agents of the state, and can then turn up anywhere.
Violence is a big money maker in the mass culture. Television, films, pulp novels, Internet sites, video games—all dwell on “sociopaths” while glorifying the state’s use of violence, often supplemented by a lone vigilante. By the time children reach their teens, they have already seen thousands of murders and killings on television. And these days even more suspense is added in countless programs that involve stalking and terror against women—and increasingly children.
As the Duke rape case and so many “escort service” ads show, women of color are particularly subject to exploitation and have little recourse to any justice. And as the murders along the border show, immigrants of color are fair game for racist killers.
The social soil of capitalism can alienate and enrage an unstable and miserable person who should be getting help but can’t find it. If, as reports are saying, the young man accused of these killings was on anti-depressant medication, it is all the more evidence that, at a time when hospitals are closing and health care is unavailable for tens of millions, treating mental health problems requires more from society than just prescribing dubious chemicals.
Many liberal commentators are taking this occasion to renew the demand for tougher gun laws. Yes, assault weapons are horrible, but so are bunker buster bombs, helicopters that fire thousands of rounds a minute, and the ultimate—nuclear weapons. Disarming the people is not the answer, especially when the government is armed to the teeth and uses brutality and coercion daily.
The best antidote to these tragedies is to build a movement for profound social change, a movement directed at solving the great problems depressing so much of humanity today, whether they be wars or global climate change or the loneliness of the dog-eat-dog society.
Why Virginia Tech shootings happened
Yet another rampage has occurred at a school, this time leaving 33 people dead at Virginia Tech—the worst such incident ever at a U.S. college campus.
The news media seem stunned and surprised, yet their coverage sounds so similar to the stories about Columbine eight years ago. They dwell on the personality of the young man the police say did the shooting, before killing himself. They talk about him being a “loner,” depressed, perhaps angry at women.
But aren’t there lonely and depressed people all over the world? Many countries have high suicide rates. Why is it that here some become mass murderers?
The U.S. is the world leader in seemingly random acts of violence by individuals. Why?
President George W. Bush rushed to Virginia to speak at a large convocation the day after the killings and tried to set the tone for what could be said about them. “It’s impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering,” he said.
Don’t ask why, don’t try to understand. It makes no sense. “Have faith” instead, was Bush’s message.
But there ARE reasons these things happen here, and they are pretty clear to the rest of the world. It’s just in the United States that no one is supposed to talk about the reasons.
What distinguishes this country from the rest of the world? It is neither the most affluent nor the poorest. It is neither the most secular nor the most religious. It is not the most culturally homogeneous nor is it the most diverse.
But in one area, it stands virtually alone. It has the biggest arsenal of high-tech weaponry in the world, way surpassing every other country. It has military bases spread all over; most countries have no troops outside their borders.
It is conducting two hot wars at the moment, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has sent hundreds of thousands of troops abroad over the last few years. Every day, the public here is supposed to identify with soldiers who burst into homes in Baghdad, round up the people and take them away for “interrogation”—which everyone knows now can mean torture and indefinite detainment.
It also sends heavily armed “special ops” on secret missions to countless other countries, like the ones who just facilitated the invasion and bombing of Somalia, or the ones who have been trying to stir up opposition in Iran. This is documented in the news media.
The immense brutality of these colonial wars, as well as earlier ones, is praised from the White House on down as the best, the ONLY way to achieve what the political leaders and their influential, rich backers decide is necessary to protect their world empire. Do lots of people get killed? “Stuff happens,” said former war secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “Collateral damage,” says the Pentagon.
At home, the U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Over 2 million people are locked up in the prison system each year, most of them people of color. When commercial armed security guards are also taken into consideration, the U.S. has millions of employees who use guns and other coercive paraphernalia in their jobs.
In the final analysis, the military and the police exist to perpetuate and protect this present unjust system of capitalist inequality, where a few can claim personal ownership over a vast economy built by the sweat and blood of hundreds of millions of workers.
And the more divided, the more polarized the society becomes, the higher the level of coercion and violence. Assault weapons are now everywhere in this society, as are Tasers, handcuffs, clubs and tear gas. They most often start out in the hands of the police, the military and other agents of the state, and can then turn up anywhere.
Violence is a big money maker in the mass culture. Television, films, pulp novels, Internet sites, video games—all dwell on “sociopaths” while glorifying the state’s use of violence, often supplemented by a lone vigilante. By the time children reach their teens, they have already seen thousands of murders and killings on television. And these days even more suspense is added in countless programs that involve stalking and terror against women—and increasingly children.
As the Duke rape case and so many “escort service” ads show, women of color are particularly subject to exploitation and have little recourse to any justice. And as the murders along the border show, immigrants of color are fair game for racist killers.
The social soil of capitalism can alienate and enrage an unstable and miserable person who should be getting help but can’t find it. If, as reports are saying, the young man accused of these killings was on anti-depressant medication, it is all the more evidence that, at a time when hospitals are closing and health care is unavailable for tens of millions, treating mental health problems requires more from society than just prescribing dubious chemicals.
Many liberal commentators are taking this occasion to renew the demand for tougher gun laws. Yes, assault weapons are horrible, but so are bunker buster bombs, helicopters that fire thousands of rounds a minute, and the ultimate—nuclear weapons. Disarming the people is not the answer, especially when the government is armed to the teeth and uses brutality and coercion daily.
The best antidote to these tragedies is to build a movement for profound social change, a movement directed at solving the great problems depressing so much of humanity today, whether they be wars or global climate change or the loneliness of the dog-eat-dog society.
15 April 2007
11 April 2007
03 April 2007
Baby Seals are Drowning
The lack of ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has led to a mortality rate for seal pups that could be close to 100%. And yet the cruel hunt to kill baby seals continues. The Canadian government has announced that 270,000 seals can be taken in this year’s hunt. Yet according to the government’s own scientists, this number is well above the amount of seals needed to maintain a sustainable population.
Please donate what you can now to stop this irresponsible slaughter.
Surveillance flights are reporting that there are virtually no harp seal pups to be found in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Without ice, mothers are forced to give birth to their pups in the water before they can swim.
In light of these tragic ice conditions, the responsible thing for Canada’s government to do would have been to call off this year’s seal hunt. Tragically, the Canadian government continues to put politics ahead of science.
The Canadian government is on record stating it will take ‘real action’ on global warming. And yet they ignore a real action they could take to combat the effects of global warming in their own backyard: ending the seal hunt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.gif)
