mycatharsis.com

They show they’re every bit as beholden to corporate interests as the Republicans, passing bill H.R. 4279 through the House by a massive vote of 410 to 11. Dubbed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, an apparently painfully mangled phrase meant to abbreviate to PRO-IP Act, it should be named the “Government is going to come and take your computer act” if the sponsors were at all interested in a descriptive, rather than gimmicky, name.

The key phrase as far as forfeitures go ..

`(iii) Any property used, or intended to be used, to commit or substantially facilitate the commission of an offense under subsection (a).

Pretty general, to say the least.  If this kind of forefeiture of property sounds familiar, it should …

(B) The forfeiture of property under subparagraph (A), including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the procedures set forth in section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970

So they’re going to follow the example set by the drug war, in forfeiting as much property as possible from people.  Of course, the government would never think of seeing these laws as a way to enrich  Apparently the fact that our government is already devaluing the money we earn, and taking a larger portion of it all the time, is not enough.

Of the 11 votes against it, included are both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.  Good company, but unfortunately way too small.

Ok Bob Barr, you’ve got my attention.  As much as I like Obama, if the Congress he’s going to work with will pull this kind of garbage, I can’t see any reason to vote for them, because nothing will truly be any different.  Seeing what happens when it gets to the Senate will be interesting.

Actually, yeah, I really like the Democrats proportional representation/delegate system.  Criticism of it has been rife lately, mainly because Hillary Clinton has been losing under this system since about February 5th.  And any system that does not allow the Clinton’s free rein over the Democratic party is immediately suspect.   Now the superdelegates, on the other hand, I certainly do not think that was a good idea.  But look at what has happened to this campaign under the current system.  Every state has become involved, and the candidate who adopted a 50 state strategy has the nearly insurmountable lead over the establishment candidate.  Turnout last night in Pennsylvania was great, and with the way delegates were apportioned, there was great incentive even for Obama voters, many of whom probably knew deep down he wouldn’t win, to get out there and make their voices heard. Even though their guy lost, their votes still worked to elect delegates who will represent them at the Democratic convention.  Perhaps the closeness of this race is partly a function of the proportional representation, but on the other hand, so is the 50 state strategy that now seems integral to winning the Democratic nomination.

This system forces their nominee to tailor a message suitable to all of America, not just the cities and college campuses they see as their strength.  And this, I think, could help them greatly in November.  They actually have to run a little to the middle now during the primary season, while the Republicans, who value loyalty and a clear winner, all had to line up behind the most unpopular President in history in order to get the nomination. And that’s going to be a central theme in the campaign against McCain.

Since Senator Clinton is losing this race, I expect a movement to start among her cronies to ‘reform’ the system and make it more ‘fair’ (politcalspeak for unfair, ironically) once all is said and done.  However, moving to a winner takes all strategy would reform nothing, and again only serve to tailor their message to the coastal big delegate states. In fact the Republicans should adopt this very same system as a way to get their message to all of America, although there’s virtually no chance that will ever happen.  Does it seem fair that, under a winner take all strategy, that a win by one of these candidates in PA last night would count more than a win by the other in Wyoming, Hawaii, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wisconsin combined? Or that the votes of the losers of all of these states would count for nothing? And under such a system, doesn’t it seem obvious that Pennsylvania would then also receive a greater amount of attention from the candidates than all five of these states combined?  Ok, so maybe that happened here, but that was more a function of Pennsylvania being the only primary within a two month time span.

Maybe the Dems should shorten the primary schedule for 2012, and it seems indubitable they should get rid of the superdelegates next time around.  But keeping the proportional delegate system should also be just as high a priority for them …

Senator Clinton on the travesty ABC called a debate …

“We need a president who is going to be up there fighting every day for the American people and not complain about how much pressure there is, and how hard the questions are.”

However, don’t confuse this with complaining about getting the first question at every debate.  That, of course, is entirely legitimate.  And lord knows, Hillary certainly couldn’t be accused of ‘complaining’ throughout these primaries!

I’m sure there’s a method to her madness that I’m just missing.  She seems to have really painted her career into a corner with her ‘win at all costs’ mentality.  She must know she’s doing herself more harm than good.  I thought there was a political truth that when an opponent’s digging a hole for himself, you sit back and let him dig, lest you look like you’re piling on.  Yet that’s exactly what she’s doing, and I think she’s starting to feel the blowback from it, she’s allowing Obama’s troubles to hurt her as well.  She almost seems politically tone-deaf, to a degree not unlike our current president.

And the Vice Presidency?  She must know her attacks give her no shot at it, that even if Obama wanted her as his running mate, and I can’t imagine why he would, he probably couldn’t do it because she would be the ultimate distraction during a general election.  Could he really trust her not to make an ‘innocent’ slip-up or two along the way that costs him the election, but preserves her chances in 2012?

She’s painted herself into a real corner here.  So much of her future relevance in politics depends now on Obama’s future irrelevance.  How powerful could she be if Obama wins the presidency? And does it with a large mandate for his vision?  Even at her current job as Senator, will she feel that she’s going to be marginalized?  What does she do about it? In that light, I can see some sense what she’s doing now, running despite having almost no chance to win, and dragging herself down in the process. As long as it drags down Obama as well, it helps preserve her 2012 campaign.  This theory makes a lot of sense, but is also incredibly cynical. Unfortunately, after seeing the Clintons in action for 16 years, that cynicism can’t be easily dismissed.

2005’s Republican bankruptcy reform bill opened my eyes to what a crock the ‘getting tough on crime’ mantra can be.  Mainly because it is usually crouched in terms of going after individual criminals while turning a blind eye to other kinds of crime, some that do MUCH more damage.  The bankruptcy bill was couched in terms of going after those people who ‘gamed’ the system and tried to use bankruptcy as a way to avoid bills they purposely ran up.  In truth, it was a massive sop to an industry whose laws are already so much on their side that they’re known for offering even more credit to those so-called ’serial abusers’ of the system.

I’m reminded of that reading the New York Times today.  On the same day that his trial ended in a hung jury, federal attorneys immediately announced that they would retry Cyril Wecht on charges of public corruption, in a case tainted by the accusation of political vindictiveness, by a former REPUBLICAN Attorney General, no less.  Heck, even in murder cases they usually take a day or two before deciding to retry or not.  Wecht’s case has been lumped in with two others, Don Siegelman  and Wisconsin’s own Georgia Thompson as possibly politically motivated.  In all three cases, all three defendants are now free citizens, freed on appeal or not yet convicted.  Yet the U.S. attorney leaves no doubt that they will bear the cost for another prosecution on charges that sound flimsy, at best.

Yet even in cases of corporate corruption as cut and dry as a company giving gobs of money to government officials and being caught covering it up,  our Justice Department basically gives them the ‘get out of jail free’ card known as a  deferred prosecution agreement.   Oh, and how are these agreements enforced, as high a priority as enforcing dpa’s surely are?  In at least some cases, by giving MILLIONS to the former attorney general and his company! Meanwhile, the cost to ours and now the world’s economies of the mess mortgage companies have brought us look to top 1,000,000,000,000 dollars, and are bringing the world, not just the U.S., to the brink of a recession/depression. Perhaps knowing they faced no worse than a stern “don’t do it again” from a judge left them free to f**k things up to such a royal degree?

But don’t be too hard on our Department of Justice.  At least they’re still apparently trying to realize Karl Rove’s dream of a ‘permanent Republican majority’!  You know, the important stuff.  But still, you’d like them to try a little harder where corporate crimes are concerned.  After all, a trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. 

They really should preface Hillary Clinton’s public appearances with this disclaimer, because it sure seems she has no real point to dragging down Barack Obama every chance she can get.  Her ‘chances’ for the nomination just simply would not be ‘chances’ if the candidate was anyone else.  Yes, the delegate race is close, but not close enough.  It is entirely within Clinton-think to sabotage Obama now and actively, if perhaps not overtly, work for the election of John McCain in 2008 to preserve her an opportunity to run for President again, in 2012.  I’m sure her own mental calculus is that she can possibly run again in 2012 if Obama loses the general election. But if he wins it, she may never have another chance to run.  Obama would obviously run in 2012 and his VP would be the establishment candidate in 2016.  Observe Carville’s calling Bill Richardson “Judas” if you have any trouble believing the Clinton’s have the sense of entitlement necessary to pull off such a destructive course of action.  And if they do, they’re sacrificing the good of the country to advance their own personal ambitions, actions little different from Rush Limbaugh’s attempts to get his listeners to vote for the weaker Democrat.

Look how quickly Giuliani, Thompson, and even say-anything-at-all-to-win Mitt Romney got out of the race when victory looked merely improbable.  Even against a candidate that looked as weak as McCain did a few months back.  And the one establishment candidate who stuck in the race, Mike Huckabee, made a point to be gracious and effusive in his praise for McCain on the campaign trail.  Instead, we have Hillary unleashing the full Clinton playbook against Obama, including the gem of recycling a scandal just as it appears to be passing out of the public view …

 ”He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”…

I gotta say, as someone who watched the Clintons demonize the Republicans throughout the 90’s, there’s a part of me from that time laughing at watching the Clinton’s do this to their own party, the same party that excused basically every wrong they committed because they won.  That same part of me just also looks incredulously at this mess and sees the stark difference between the Democrats and Republicans in how they choose a candidate.

On the other hand, Barack Obama seems like a heckuva candidate, a scholarly and yet down-to-earth politician who can bring a vast well of intelligence to the job and yet not alienate either the working class or most other constituencies.  And it’d be more than just a shame to see him ground under the wheels of the Clinton machine.  The country would be much poorer, but at least the Clinton’s would have their precious power.

If McCain wins the presidency, he’ll owe Hillary BIG-time.   She’s been by far his most effective campaigner for the past month or so, and looks as if she’ll continue that trend for longer yet.   A month ago, I wasn’t sure I bought all the hype I was hearing about Clinton’s desperate refusal to acknowledge could kill their chances in the general election.  Now I have to say I’m starting to see their point.

In President Bush’s very own extremely loaded words …

Unfortunately, some of the private companies have been sued for billions of dollars because they are believed to have helped defend America after the attacks on 9/11. Now the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service?

IF that’s the question, the answer seems simple. Why NOT let the lawsuits proceed? What possible reason is there for interfering in the process of justice?  If there is a question about the legality of what was done, let the justice system take it’s course.  That USED to be conservative reasoning, at least.

Of course, the real  reason he wants immunity so desperately is to protect his and his administrations own hide from the discovery process in these lawsuits that could expose large scale illegal action.  In other words, the system might actually work as long as immunity is not given.

And, of course, the other reason is that these lawsuits are entirely without merit.  We live in an era Antonin Scalia describes as one of “rising police professionalism”, so of course skirting the constitution is just fine.  Our government would NEVER abuse the power we give it …

Now it’s Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson bringing the bile up in your throat… from Time’s The Page blog …

Senior adviser Ann Lewis scolds Obama on media conference call for stepping up attacks against Clinton instead of talking about “positive ideas” on the issues.

“I did not realize that their version of new politics is to recycle some of the same old Republican attacks on Hillary that have failed for years.”

Howard Wolfson says he doesn’t “believe imitating Ken Starr” is a way to run a nomination campaign.

Ugh, the gall of these people is just incredible.  Enough that I gotta wonder about the suitability for office of a candidate who can make politics as dirty as she wants, and then plays the victim card as soon as anyone dares criticize her.  They drag a race into the gutter and then blame their opponent for getting himself dirty.  Classic Clinton and classic Clinton-lackey.  At least the reference to Ken Starr should backfire, I believe.  Yes, I’m sure he’s not a popular figure among Democrats, but referencing him would only, I think, remind people of just how nasty and divisive the Clinton years were and will subtly play on voters minds.  Do they really want another four years of independent prosecutors, and the do-anything-to-win politics that is the Clinton’s trademark?

Sanity has yet to return in the drug war …

Lt. Kevin Navarro, commanding officer of the Chicago Police Department’s Narcotics and Gang Unit, said the ordinance will be an “important tool” to go after grocery stores, health food stores and other businesses. The bags are used by the thousand to sell small quantities of drugs at $10 or $20 a bag.

That’s good, if there’s one common theme out there, it’s that grocery stores and health food stores NEED to suffer a crackdown.

ACSBlog has an informative analysis of the legal issues presented by each side in the flap over Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten ignoring Congressional subpoenas and the Attorney General’s refusal to allow the U.S. attorney referred in the case to follow the law and present the case to a grand jury. Reading the links for Miss Pelosi’s letter and Mukasey’s response, I gotta say that Pelosi sounds a lot more reasonable, presenting the point that even if they refuse to answer questions, they still should at least respect the subpoena and appear …

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so.  Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place.  Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury.

Not only that, but Mukasey’s refusal to even allow attorney Jeffrey Taylor to bring the congressional contempt charge before a grand jury IS pretty stunning.  Far from seemingly being independent as past attorney’s general (even Janet Reno angered Bill Clinton when she appointed independent counsel Ken Starr), this AG seemingly is willing to not only refuse to investigate his boss, but to actively interfere in a legal process taking place against him.  Maybe he has a stronger argument than he laid out in his response to Pelosi, because citing two memo’s from this own administration as evidence of a long-standing policy is not that strong in itself.  Again, it speaks to this administrations belief that they are above the strong law-and-order surveillance society they say is necessary for all of us.