Election 2010 Ballot Recommendations (Part 2)

I'm back from the bike ride: Beautiful late Fall So Calif weather - not too hot, not too cold, moderate cloud cover. Now for the propositions:

19 - Legalizes marijuana under CA law. - Yes
20 - Redistricting of Congressional districts. - Yes (probably)

This initiative had me sitting on the fence for a while. I voted NO on the measure a few election cycles ago that created the commission to redraw the state districts not because I'm enamored of the current, legislation-dominated system but because I don't trust Schwarzenegger (who sponsored it). This prop expands that commission's duties to include federal districts. In for a penny, in for a pound, however. I could be pleasantly surprised by the commission's results and we might as well try to make all our legislative districts, state and national, more balanced and competitive.

I'm troubled, however, by a concurrent proposition passed last cycle that mandates open primaries where the top two vote getters will be the only candidates on future ballots. This is the kind of measure that gives ammo to the modern-day Burke who sees only gloom and doom in the extension of the franchise to the hoi polloi. What's the point of competitive districts if the primary campaign sticks two Republicans (or two Democrats or, one could hope, two Greens) in the top slots?

One can hope that a disastrous election cycle will prompt an initiative repealing it.

21 - $18 surcharge on vehicle licensing to fund state parks/wildlife programs - Yes
22 - Prohibits state from borrowing or taxing funds used for transportation projects, etc. - No

Yet another bar to any hope (however faint) of rationally allocating state/local funds.

23 - Suspends implementation of air pollution control law - No

I'll repeat myself - NO. This is a God-awful, short-sighted, oil-industry-sponsored menace not just to the California economy but to the entire frakking world.

24 - Repeals legislation allowing businesses to lower tax liabilities - Yes

We're $50 billion in debt, it's not like we need an incentive to dig the hole any deeper.

25 - Changes voting requirement to pass budget to a simple majority - Yes
26 - Requires certain state/local fees be approved by 2/3rd majority vote - No
27 - Eliminates state commission on redistricting - No

Election 2010 Ballot Recommendations

This is, of course, exclusive to California, though if anyone outside of the Golden State is reading this, I'd say - in general - avoid the Tea Party candidate and anything supported by the Chamber of Commerce.

State Races:
Governor - Laura Wells (Green).

The mainstream options are between Meg Whitman (R), a millionaire whose prescription for California's woes is to turn it into a corporation-friendly, regulation-hostile free-for-all zone, and Jerry Brown (D), who was governor 30 years ago. Of the two, a second Brown administration would be better than a first Whitman but I think it's symptomatic of the state's sclerotic Democratic Party that the only viable candidate they can find is a pol from the '70s.

It's heartening that despite spending over $100 million (reportedly) of her own money on this campaign, Whitman still trails Brown, who's been outspent 86 to 1 (as of August, I doubt the ratio has changed all that much). There may be hope for the electorate after all.

Lieutenant Governor - Gavin Newsom (D).

I was sorely disappointed when Newsom withdrew from the gubernatorial race but the Lt. Gov is a fairly powerful position under CA's constitution so I'm happy there's a potential he can bring his populist, progressive agenda to a statewide venue.

Secretary of State - Debra Bowen (D).

I still think Bowen is doing a good job.

Controller - John Chiang (D).

The same goes for Chiang, if only because he's fighting Schwarzenegger and the Republicans at every turn.

Treasurer - Charles Crittenden (Green).

The odds of Mr. Crittenden becoming our Treasurer are...slim...to say the least but the Republican, Libertarian and American Independent candidates would be disasters and the Democratic nod, Bill Lockyer, is another long-time insider who is (in my mind) too tainted with corporate and development-industry ties.

Attorney General - Kamala Harris (D).

I've heard/read good things about Ms. Harris and if my vote can help keep Steve Cooley (R) out of the office, then she has it.

Insurance Commissioner - William Balderston (Green).

Not much to say about this position. I'm sure the Democratic candidate, Dave Jones, would do fine but I want to help keep a third-party option alive in the state so I'm going with the Green candidate. (Besides, he looks too much like the office manager of the company - which shall remain as nameless as Voldemort - that I work for.)

Senator (US) - Duane Roberts (Green).

Carly Fiorina (R) - the woman who ran HP into the ground and had to be bribed into leaving the company. Yes, this is just what California needs. Barbara Boxer (D) is a decent enough senator and I won't be disappointed if (when, finger's crossed) she wins but she's too tied up with corporate/business interests to be really effective at changing the way things are done. At most she's holding the line but won't fundamentally reorient the system.

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Tom Torlakson (nonpartisan).

I like the cut of his jib.

The other state offices are district specific and unless you live near me would be of even less interest. But here they are:

State Board of Equalization - Jerome Horton (D).
US Representative (32nd) - Judy Chu (D). (I'd go Green but they didn't put up a candidate.)
State Senator (24th) - Ed Hernandez (D). (I have no choice - unless I wanted to leave it blank - he's running unopposed.)
State Assembly (57th) - Roger Hernandez (D). (No relation to Ed, I think.) (Again, I'd go Green but his only opponent is a Republican.)
County Assessor (LA) - John Wong (nonpartisan). (His opponent still thinks 1978's Prop 13 was a good idea.)

Regarding the judicial elections (which are nonpartisan, yes-or-no votes for a name unfamiliar to anyone who hasn't been before their bench or are family members), I direct you to this website: Judge Voter Guide, which is put together by a conservative, Republican-leaning industrious blogger with a lot of time on his hands. NB - VOTE OPPOSITE TO WHAT HE RECOMMENDS. If he's against a judge, then I'm for them.

I'm going to save the ballot measures for a second post later today. Right now (Sunday, Oct 24, 10:32 am), I have to give my cat his thyroid medicine and get my daily bike ride in.

Things to Be Thankful For? #1 - Healthcare "reform" debate?

How mortally damaged is our democracy that the Democrats declare it a great victory when they win a procedural vote to allow debate on a healthcare reform bill? Not, mind you, an up-or-down vote on a bill. Not even a vote on a critical amendment. But a vote on whether or not to allow the Senate to simply talk about a bill. And the leadership had to kow tow to Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson and Lieberman to get that!

The Senate has not been a great deliberative body for a long time (and even back in the day, their reputation was exaggerated) so maybe the Republicans were hoping to spare us a tedious round of endless speechifying? I doubt it. It seems to me that the Republicans (and their faux Dem allies) are afraid that some real information might leak out to the public if a debate were to take place - like that fact that no civilized country on the planet (including free-market bastion Switzerland) allows its citizens to suffer so at the hands of for-profit, private insurance companies.

But should the question of debate even be up for a vote? Why is the agenda of the Senate subject to a vote? It's the responsibility of the majority party to set the agenda and if they want to debate something, then the minority should just deal with it.

We've long lost sight in this nation that our society is made up of different interest groups. Some of those interests are complementary, some relationships are neutral, some are going to be actively antagonistic, and many overlap. At the moment, unfortunately, the only representation we have is that of the financial elites, who've managed to convince over the last 30 years that bloody, unregulated capitalism is a benison.

The Most Powerful Senator of the 20th Century?

I nearly lost it in the days after Ted Kennedy's death. It was all I could do not to throw the radio against the wall or swerve into a lamppost just to end the agony of Ted's canonization. He was a man after my own heart; many of the bills he sponsored or supported in his long career, I too supported or support. But as I look over all the verbiage and bandwidth devoted to his legacy, I am struck by his ineffectiveness.

Yes, there's some landmark legislation to his credit - Title IX and other civil rights law from 30 years ago - but much is like the little Dutch boy who tried to stop the flood. Where Kennedy could stick his liberal fingers the water was stopped, but the conservative flood overwhelmed the levee and the country is demonstrably worse off.

While this post is a response to the general tenor of the Kennedy hagiographies, it specifically plays off two blogs at the Rude Pundit, where the author (who I like and follow) lists some of Kennedy's achievements, many of which illustrate my point.

1. State control over school curricula. Nice concept but because of the way the school-book publishing industry is gamed, the nation's schools' curricula is largely determined by a few school districts in Texas, that bastion of enlightened, rational thinking.

2. Getting to vote at 18. Considering the usual turnout of the 18-21 crowd at election time, does this really signify? And considering the voting patterns of the 40- and 50-somethings who first benefited from this amendment, can we consider this the wisest piece of legislation anyway?

3. Cheap airfares (aka, deregulating the airline industry). Talk about mixed blessings. And, this was the opening salvo in the senseless and disastrous assault on any form of government regulation.

4. Mental institutions should treat people humanely. A no-brainer by any standard of morality but this was also the era of Reagan, when such institutions were defunded and their patients dumped on the streets.

5. Minimum wage. This is one fight I was personally involved in. In 1987/88, during my junior year at college, I interned with the Americans for Democratic Action in Washington. One of the big legislative pushes for that year was a Kennedy-sponsored increase in the ludicrously inadequate minimum wage to increase it to a slightly less inadequate wage. The legislation went nowhere (I don't think we got a federal increase until the Clinton era).

6. Health care. For this latest round, I have to give Kennedy a pass - he had his own crisis to deal with - but he was fully competent in 1993 when Clinton introduced his disastrous solution, and he was fully competent for most of the intervening 15 years. I guess we should be grateful he helped block "medical savings accounts" and privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

7. The war(s). Kudos to the man for voting against the original "war" resolution (in 2002 or 2003) but where was he for the next 6 years? Where was he at the anti-war rallies? Where was he on the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, immunizing the telecoms from illegal wiretapping charges, the legality of rendition, and the other successful assaults on civil liberties and justice? Small comfort to imagine how much worse things might have been if Kennedy hadn't been in the Senate.

His heart was in the right place and he will be missed in the Senate but he never commanded the respect and support he needed to effect his policies, a political tragedy with more far reaching results than either of his brothers' legacies.

Mr. Monika's 2008 Voter Guide (w/ especial emphasis on California)

The week after next, the country goes to the polls once again. More than ever, we really might be determining the fate of the world for a generation to come

Considering our batting record the last four election cycles (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006), I recommend prayer...lots of it...to any benevolent deity you can think of. (Forgive me, I'm feeling particularly snarky at the moment. I'm actually quite optimistic about the long-term survival of the species, I just think the next few decades are going to be brutal. More brutal for us, anyway, it's always been brutal for far too many people in this world.)

But on to my recommendations for the interested. Except for the presidential vote, I'm afraid they're quite California-centric for the simple reason that I happen to live in the Golden State but as my "follower" is also a Californian, I don't feel too bad about that.

President/Vice President: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

• All right, if I thought there was any chance for their victory, I'd be voting Green, McKinney/Clemente, but there isn't, and we need to so overwhelm the Republicans with numbers that there's no way they can steal the election again in any state. California is fortunate to have a decent secretary of state in Debra Bowen, who's done what she can to make sure the voting machines are on the up and up.
• While I like Nader's positions on many of the issues, he would go down in history as one of our worst, least effective presidents solely based on his personality. The man is not a politician. And then there's the fact that he has even less chance of winning the White House than McKinney.
• So I'm "stuck" with Obama, who (I think) would much rather rule as a second Clinton than a second Roosevelt. He's about as much a socialist as he is an Arab or a Muslim - i.e., he isn't! He's a centrist Democrat. I'm worried about his votes on the telecom immunity and bailout bills, and his eagerness to escalate the occupation of Afghanistan. I'm worried that he's so much a product of the last 30 years of neoliberal economics in this country that he'll be unable to experiment like FDR. But he's our best hope, so he's got my vote.

United States Representative: Hilda Solis

• This district is so safe, the Republicans didn't even field a candidate. Solis is a mixed bag: Sometimes she votes with the angels; other times, with Satan. But the only way I can get somebody in the office with whom I'm in total agreement is to run myself, so I'll vote for her without serious problem.

Member of the State Assembly: Ed Hernandez

Judicial (for the Superior Courts):

• Steven A. Simons (72nd)
• Cynthia Loo (82nd)
• Lori-Ann Jones (84th)
• C. Edward Mack (94th)
• Rocky L. Crabb (154th)

It's difficult to get information on these offices, though the Internet has made it far easier, assuming they have a website. My guiding philosophy is to read their blurbs if available and vote for anyone who isn't a prosecutor. Thus, Simons is a consumer-rights attorney, Loo is a court referee, Mack is a trial attorney, etc.

State Measures (propositions) (In California, it's far too easy to get a proposition on the ballot and, thus, we tend to legislate through them, taking Sacramento off the hook. And it doesn't help that these propositions are written by special interests and often in nearly opaque legalese or so poorly that they'll be litigated to death in the courts and never even have a chance to prove worthy or unworthy.)

1A - NO: This is a $9.95 billion bond measure that will (supposedly) fund high-speed rail lines. Now, I find the idea of high-speed rail very attractive but my problem is with the method of financing. If we want something or feel it's necessary to continued well-being, then we should be willing to pay for it up front. Despite the lessons of the Asian meltdown in 1987, the Mexican meltdown in 1995 and our meltdown in 2008, we are still operating under the insane assumption that we can simply continue to borrow money and pass off the costs to our descendants, and that we don't have to raise taxes (and make them more progressive, to boot). California is already under such a debt burden that we're constantly threatened with a lowering of our bond status, and the interest payments are becoming oppressive.

If we want high-speed rail, let's raise a tax somehow. Perhaps via gas sales, perhaps a sales tax, perhaps we'll have more funds if we simply close loopholes and spread the burden more fairly. And it doesn't have to be permanent - we tax for 5 years, and all the proceeds go to the rail fund. If we need more money, the legislature can revisit the issue at the end of 5 years. It's why I'm voting "yes" for Measure R below because it's funded via a 30-year, 1/2-cent sales tax.

2 - YES: This measure requires the animal-husbandry industry to humanely treat their animals. No brainer.

3 - NO: Another worthy cause (renovating children's hospitals). Another bond measure, though (only $980 million).

4- NO: Waiting period and parental notification of teen-age abortions.

5 - YES: I'm a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks our penal system would benefit from a concentration on redemption rather than retribution. Most assuredly isolate violent offenders and even nonviolent ones may deserve some prison time but when we strip a felon of every chance to redeem himself, why are we surprised that things don't get better?

I was pretty definite about my "yes" vote for this one but when I saw the "No on 5" commercial where Diane Feinstein endorsed their position then I knew I would be voting well. Another one of my voting tenets is that anything Feinstein is for, I'm against, and vice versa.

6 - NO: A bond measure ($965 million) to pay for more police. If we need more police, then we need to pay for them up front (see above).

7 - NO: This measure is supposed to force government and private utilities to be 50% renewable energy by 2025. Good "ends" but the "means" are suspect. I've read both sides' arguments and still don't know if this measure would do any good, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the environmental groups, most of whom don't support the proposition.

8 - NO: This vile measure would strike down the recent CA Supreme Court ruling making same-sex marriage possible (and possibly invalidating the marriage of a friend of mine) and enshrine it in our state constitution. Like 2, it's a no brainer.

9 - NO: For all their bleating about "the rule of law," I sometimes wonder if Republicans and your rank-and-file conservatives know what it means. This gem would allow victims' input during the entire criminal justice process - from bail to parole. Part of the appeal of the rule of law is that it's an impartial system - at least as impartial as anything can be - and I cannot countenance allowing the least impartial element of a crime to have any say over how the system treats the suspect (and felon, if convicted).

10 - NO: This is T. Boone Pickens attempt to get the state to subsidize his move into renewable energy (to the tune of $5 billion in bonds).

11 - NO: Here's another good end arrived at via suspect means. We desperately need to reform the way districts are apportioned but I don't trust Schwarzenegger.

12 - NO: A $900 million bond to subsidize homes and farms for veterans. Why can't we subsidize the homes and farms of nonvets? Don't they work just as hard? Don't they deserve the chance to make a decent living and dwell in a decent home?

It's nice that there are people willing to defend me if America suffers an invasion and that there are people willing to assist the National Guard and the fire department in case natural disasters get seriously out of hand but America hasn't needed defending since at least 1941, and the subsequent career of our military has been an unending march of imperial domination since then. Why should my hard-earned cash and that of my descendants go to support the legions of Caesar?

And while we're on the subject, why aren't firefighters included here? Doctors? Teachers? The latter three groups do far more to make this country a decent place to live than the military.

County Measures

R - YES: As I mentioned in my diatribe under Measure 1A, this measure to reduce traffic congestion and fund rail extensions is going to be paid for by a 30-year, 1/2-cent sales tax, and will be subject to public review and audits.

Community College Measures

RR - NO: A $353 million bond measure.

Municipal Water District: Andrew M. McIntyre

Well, that's it. If you're a Republican, stay home Nov. 4, it'll be for the best.

He's baaack!

After an extended absence, I have returned (hopefully my "follower" will be well pleased; I have a "follower" - I have to be careful I don't develop a messiah complex).

For my loyal fan, my absence was not the result of illness, vacation or any other cause than that I am fundamentally lazy. There's certainly enough "crap" going on right now to raise my ire.

For example, this so-called bailout of Wall Street. I was excited when the House quite properly voted the first incarnation down; but realized it was business as usual when they approved the Senate's version, which added $150 billion in pork and ill-considered incentives.

Had the loyal opposition any backbone or guiding philosophy other than getting re-elected, Congress would have shelved any comprehensive scheme to aid the economy until we knew who would be in the White House come January and what kind of majorities the Dems would enjoy in the House and Senate. In the interim, they could have put a moratorium on foreclosures and, perhaps, granted a small measure of funds to shore up the worst-off investment banks. The latter was floated by Schumer (I believe) but disappeared in the panicky frenzy to be seen as doing "something."

Instead, Congress handed the most incompetent, most corrupt, most power-hungry administration since the Reagans were reading their Tarot cards $700 billion and carte blanche to do anything it wanted with it.

Words continue to fail me.

Speaking of incompetence and corruption, I direct my reader to October 23's Tom Dispatch by Michael Schwartz, Iraq in Hell.

The Limits of Power

Just a short post to publish links to two essays on TomDispatch taken from Andrew Bacevich's latest book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism:

The American Military Crisis
The Lessons of Endless War

He's also appearing on the Aug 15 episode of Bill Moyer's Journal so you should look him up there as well.

I'm probably (no, definitely) more radical in my solutions to our imperial overreach but even his reasonable, even-handed voice is inaudible in the current discussion about foreign policy and America's future role in the world (from both parties and candidates).

A Call to Revise the Constitution (amended 8/5)

When I was an undergraduate, I had the opportunity to take a class that was rewriting the Constitution for the late 20th century. I didn’t take that opportunity; and I’ve regretted it ever since but I’ve always had a hankering to tinker with it. The danger in calling a second Constitutional Convention is that it might do what the first one did: Toss out the baby with the bathwater (the Articles of Confederation) and adopt a completely different child. But absent a comprehensive 27th Amendment, I’m not sure there’s a lesser remedy.

That said, I like the Constitution. It is one of the most remarkable political documents in human history but it is 220+ years old; the world is a far different place than it was in the late 18th century; and the current, sad state of our politics suggests that it needs a “tune up.” As someone I read pointed out recently, our Constitution was the first of its kind – ever. And while it has stood up very well over the course of time (better than many of its imitators), we’ve learned a great deal in the interim and we’ve progressed in our understanding of democracy. So much so, that the document is beginning to show its grey hairs and is looking positively arthritic in many respects.

The following is by no means a comprehensive attempt to rewrite the Constitution but I have gone through the document section by section and have tried to address at least some of the more egregious problems that have arisen over the last two centuries.

The Preamble: There’s no way I’m going to touch this. It’s one of the few pieces of literature I can cite from memory, and I still can’t do it without singing it to the tune from the Schoolhouse Rock series. And, to be honest, it lays out why we have a government: Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility (the “rule of law”), provide for common defense, promote the commonweal, and secure our inherent rights.

I would incorporate here a new Article I, pushing the currents articles down one rung (i.e., the current Article I becomes Article II, etc.). The new Article I would concern “the people” and incorporate the Bill of Rights and other relevant amendments.

(new) Article I.

Section 1 et al.: From the get go, we need to incorporate the Thirteenth – Fifteenth Amendments, particularly the 15th, which ensures that these rights are recognized by the states.

Section 2: First Amendment

Section 3: revised Second Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, except to secure the domestic tranquility and commonweal as determined by the individual states and Congress.

I’m not persuaded that having the right to own a 45 magnum is going to prevent the government from becoming despotic (look at our current situation) but I also don’t think it’s unreasonable that people would want weapons to feel secure. I think this is a reasonable compromise between the NRA nuts and their opposite number – those who would take away all guns. It’s up to the states and Congress to set reasonable gun-control laws and it leaves the debate open to discussion.

Sections 4-11: The remaining amendments in the original Bill of Rights.

Section 12: Congress and the states shall not infringe a citizen’s right to vote except insofar as to reasonably safeguard against electoral fraud. Congress shall also legislate a uniform voting system that ensures maximum opportunity for participation and the ability to audit said elections in the case of dispute.

I think this is necessary because, at the moment, we really don’t have a “right to vote.” This also would need a little tweaking to make sure voters weren’t disenfranchised because of sexual orientation, gender, religion, race, etc.

Section 13: The right of every person to be secure in their privacy shall not be abridged, and all branches of government are enjoined to ensure this.

This would need a bit of tweaking since there may be legitimate reasons for people to give up some of their privacy rights in certain situations but the principle we need to make explicit is that the government has to present a compelling reason to invade a person’s privacy.

[Addendum: Section 14: A "citizen" shall be defined as an individual born in the United States, who has at least one parent who is a citizen, or who is naturalized according to procedures prescribed by Congress. It shall not include corporate bodies that may be treated as people under certain laws.

I feel this is necessary to preclude the ludicrous situation we're in now where corporations are accorded all the rights of real people. I understand that, for legal reasons, it may be advantageous to treat corporations as persons in some respects but they are not humans, they have no inherent rights, and they do not deserve the protection of the Constitution.

Section 15: Congress and the states shall establish procedures for the public financing of elections.

This provision would be a step in severely restricting the influence of money on our political process.]

Article II.

Section 1: I considered a unicameral legislature (like, I believe, Nebraska’s) but I’m not sure that would be workable so for the nonce, we’ll stick with a House and Senate.

Section 2: There are two changes I would like to see in the House: One, moving to a parliamentary system so that we aren’t stuck in the duopoly that has developed over the last half century and which relegates third parties to being spoilers (vid., Nader in 2000, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912).

I’m going to avoid mechanics for the moment but would suggest that any party that could muster 10-20% of the vote in a general election deserves a spot at the table. This would make it possible to accommodate more representative viewpoints of concerned citizens without making politics so fractious that we’re stuck with the situations in Italy or Israel, where parties polling the ridiculously low 1-2% can become major players in forming governments.

The second change I would like to see is an expansion of the number of representatives. Around 600 would help bring reps closer to their constituencies and still be a workable number (I believe the Brits have around 600, so it’s doable).

Section 3: The only change I would immediately consider here is eliminating the requirement of a supermajority to impeach. I don’t like supermajorities.

Section 7: Though I just said I don’t like supermajorities, I’d keep that requirement in this section regarding presidential vetoes.

(added): No amendments shall be offered to a bill that does not have a direct relationship to that bill.

I offer this caveat in an effort to discourage “poison pills” and earmarks. An amendment should amend the basic thrust of the law in question; if some legislator’s proposal is worthy of consideration, they can offer it as a separate bill or append it to a related measure.

Another addition I would like to see here (though I’m not sure how to word it) is a stipulation that bills cannot be passed that affect an individual or particular entity. Thus congress wouldn’t be able to propose bills or offer amendments that favored a single company; they could still legislate to subsidize an industry (say, solar power) or affect a class of citizens.

Article III. [This is actually the most important part of the new Constitution in my opinion since the need to revise the document comes primarily from the President’s creeping increase in power and influence.]

Section 1: Eliminate the Electoral College entirely. Presidents should be elected by direct vote just like their legislative counterparts.

And though this runs the risk of letting Arnold Schwarzenegger become president, I’d remove the requirement that they be natural-born citizens.

Section 2: Again, I’d remove the supermajority requirement to ratify treaties. I’d also remove the power to make recess appointments. There’s no situation so desperate that the president can’t wait until Congress is back in session to name a permanent head to any position.

(added): The president shall have the power to grant pardons subject to the consideration and approval of both Houses of Congress. No more midnight pardons of any future Richard Nixons or George Bushes.

(added): The president may not commit US forces or authorize covert operations without the advice and consent of both Houses of Congress absent a declared state of war. This provision would save us (I hope) from the last 50 years of “foreign misadventures” that have given us the glorious successes of Iran, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

(added): The president may not declare martial law without the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Supreme Court and/or both Houses of Congress. Nor shall the president be authorized to use US military forces as domestic law enforcement absent rebellion, invasion or a state of martial law (incorporating Posse Comitatus).

(added): Presidential signing statements shall be limited to addressing how the executive will implement the will of Congress. In the case of disputes between the Legislative and Executive branches regarding that implementation, the Congress shall pass a resolution instructing the president how to do so. This measure is an attempt to restrain the abuse of the signing statement that we’ve seen George Bush use in the last seven years.

Article IV.

The only change here would be to explicitly incorporate Marbury v. Madison (the Court’s power of judicial review).

Except for changing the numeration, the remaining articles appear to be functioning quite well.

Article VIII.

Except in time of declared war or as needed to defend embassies and consulates, no US military personnel shall be stationed overseas.

This removes the impetus to empire that is destroying this nation yet still leaves us room in case of a real war situation to send troops where they’re needed.

Desiderata:
Eliminate the District of Columbia and reincorporate the land into Maryland and Virginia (it’s not that much territory and Maryland is so small anyway, so maybe we can give it all to them – sorry, I was born in Annapolis and have a soft spot for the state). We can retain a Federal District (the Mall and other government property) but people living in the former district should have representation. At the very least, those living in formerly Virginian territory could be counted as Virginians; those in Maryland, Marylanders.

I’m not a fan of term limits so I’d be loath to include the 22nd Amendment.

Don’t know where I’d put it but I’d also include a provision that the federal government cannot use private contractors (mercenaries) to fulfill its duties under the Constitution. This provision would need work since the government couldn’t do everything on its own. But perhaps we could work out a system where government had to exercise control and oversight over private contractors. I would forbid any use of military contractors entirely.

"Celebrating" the Fourth of July

Last Thursday (July 10), I was listening to Randi Rhodes' show on my local radio station. The topic was the abominable FISA Amendment bill that our hopelessly spineless Congress passed the day before. In all seriousness, a caller asked, "Except that it's unconstitutional, what's the big deal about warrantless wiretapping?" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist.)

It's times like this that I want to get that lobotomy and just join brain-dead fools like this guy in their ignorant bliss.

That or move to Canada.

Honestly, there was nothing in the original FISA law as it stood before 2001 to stop Bush from wiretapping pretty much anyone he damn well pleased. Out of nearly 20,000 requested FISA warrants, literally a handful were refused -- five! Of course, to this administration even the possibility of someone checking its authority is anathema, and, hence, the need to eviscerate an already suspect law.

David Bromwich's post on HuffPo eloquently presents the case for why July 9's vote is a disaster for this country. Why should we trust any president to voluntarily relinquish any powers he's able to squeeze out of supine Congresses and Supreme Courts? Why should we depend upon Obama's promise to "fix" the legislation when he becomes president?

Joseph Galloway, of McClatchey, poses two pertinent questions in his excellent column here:

How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?

How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?

George Bush broke the supreme law of the land (and there's evidence he was doing it before 9/11, the ostensible reason for amending the law in the first place). That we haven't stripped him of his office, not to mention his freedom, shows just how far we've fallen from the ideals of the Founders.

[Addendum: I just came across this op-ed from Chris Hedges that ran in the LA Times on Friday. Just another reason to oppose everything this administration does.]

A Miscellany - 19-Feb-2008

Just a few things on my mind, in no particular order:

1. I urge everyone who may come across this blog to go to the Discovery Channel's web site and register your disgust that they have refused to air the documentary Taxi to the Darkside, which recounts the murder of an innocent Afghani taxi driver in the custody of the U.S. Army.

This is the same outfit that has the Military Channel, which glorifies all things deadly.

2. To get another perspective on just what war/violence costs, go to this latest (Feb 17) dispatch on Tom Engelhardt's page about what's been happening to the women and children of Sierra Leone, Liberia & Cote d'Ivoire -- all countries suspiciously absent from Bush's African itinerary.

[Erratum: I was slightly off in Monsieur Bush's travel agenda - he did go to Liberia, afterall.]

3. And, while I'm thinking about it -- please make Bill Moyer's Journal's homepage one of your favorites, and make a point of watching it on your local PBS station (or get them to carry it, if they don't).

4. Book Recommendations (from the last 6 months or so of my reading schedule):

• Cultural Amnesia, Clive James. The book is a series of essays about various people James considers important. Not all of the essays were interesting to me, but I did learn things about people I hadn't known before and James introduced me to several interesting figures that my education had neglected.
• The Blood Knight, Gregory Keyes. Book three in his Kingdoms of Bone and Thorn series.
• Reapers' Gale, Steven Erikson. Book seven in his Malazan Book of the Fallen series. I cannot praise this author enough. He's reminiscent of Glen Cook's Black Company and Dread Empire series, but he's a better writer (though it pains me, somewhat to say that since Croaker of the Black Company is my all-time favorite fantasy character; Signy Mallory of CJ Cherryh's Downbelow Station is my SF fave).
• Legacy of Ashes, Tim Weiner. The sad, sad history of the CIA and its "successes."
• Ella Minnow Pea, Mark Dunn.
• Soon I Will Be Invincible, Austin Grossman. A novel in the tradition of The Watchmen but less grim.
• House of War, James Carroll. The sad, sad history of the Pentagon and the erosion of America's democracy.
• Kushiel's Justice, Jacqueline Carey. The second book in her second series set in the alternate Earth of Terre d'Ange. I was disappointed in Carey's second foray into fantasy (Banewreaker, Godslayer); they're decent enough novels but they didn't grab me the way Terre d'Ange has.
• Takeover, Charlie Savage. Another in those sad, sad chronicles of American decline.
• Reading Lolita in Tehran, Azar Nafisi, and Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi. Two incredible chronicles of life in a theocratic dictatorship. On the one hand, they were windows into a world that would be utterly alien to most Americans; on the other hand, they showed just how much every human being has in common with their fellows.
• The Basic 8, Daniel Handler. This is Handler's first novel (as Handler, he's also the guy who writes the Lemony Snicket books) and his best in my opinion (though the others, Shut Your Mouth and Adverbs are pretty good, too). I identified a lot with the main character Flannery Culp.
• Gentlemen of the Road, Michael Chabon. I chose to read this one because it dealt with my favorite, unknown medieval kingdom -- Khazaria -- not because I'm a fan of Chabon. I still have no great desire to read Chabon but I did enjoy this novel, reminiscent of Fritz Leiber's Fahfrd & the Grey Mouser (in fact, it prompted me to reread Leiber).

I just finished Barbara Mertz's popular history of Egypt, Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs. It was written a little too "folksy" for my taste but it gives the reader a taste of just how fascinating history is, and it's sobering in just how little we really know about what's gone on in our pasts. Right now, I'm in the middle of Orville Burton's The Age of Lincoln. I was hoping the author would spend more time on the 1840s and '50s because that's a period of U.S. history I'm woefully unfamiliar with. What he did cover, was interesting because it showed that America has never been "united" in the sense the Republicans (and many Dems) would want us to believe. It was only after the Civil War, in fact, that our modern concept of the federal government and its relationship to the states emerged (for better or for worse).