Ted Auch

Regarding Supreme Court case No. 08-205 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that the federal government may not ban politically motivated spending by corporations in candidate elections:

“…the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.”

“It’s basically the neutron bomb in our election system. It’s such a reversal, you can only guess at some of its far reaching implications.”

You would think these were the words of someone who had done everything in his or her power to prevent the inevitable 5-4 ruling handed down by the Supreme Court last month. You would think if this is the ex post facto reaction of a legislature than maybe that legislature had exhausted all avenues of preventing such a ruling. You would be wrong. These are the words of Vermont’s senior senator Patrick Leahy in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html?ref=todayspaper) and on VPR (http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87100/), respectively.

It is really quite simple Senator Leahy as the lead Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmations of both Chief Justice John Roberts and his sycophant Samuel Alito had the option to filibuster the confirmations of both to the Supreme Court. He chose not to do so in both cases. He chose a more conciliatory tact instead, because George W Bush had been so amazingly conciliatory I guess?

Even the least schooled legal onlooker could see during the confirmation of these two archconservatives they were hell bent on reshaping the American legal system. Neither judge gave what appeared to be answers to the questions posed to them by Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats. In all fairness the questions were quite pointed, however, the problem was that for as pointed as the questions were the answers were equally opaque to the point of being complete mumbo-jumbo. Yet, the point that both justices made perfectly clear was their allegiance to the principle of stare decisis, which basically means that judges are obligated to show deference to historical precedent. Judge Roberts especially was quite adamant in his loyalty to this principle, while judge Alito as was his want preferred a more circuitous route. Here is where it gets juicy last month’s ruling on which both judges predictably sided with big corporations overruled two…PRECEDENTS! The first being Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell (i.e. Senator Republican Leader Mitch McConnell) v. Federal Election Commission, both of which challenged the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or as it is commonly referred to McCain-Feingold.

The conservative majority and fence rider Anthony Kennedy decided that corporations are entitled to protections under the Fourteenth Amendment as jurisitic persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person). This idea that corporations should have the same inalienable rights as citizens dates back to cases like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886and later U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber in 1905 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad; http://www.answers.com/topic/santa-clara-county-v-southern-pacific-railroad). The common thread is the debate about what constitutes a person in the United States. With this latest ruling the Supreme Court came down decidedly in favor of the idea that my vote and your vote are no less important than the collective will of corporations. This is a very scary thought as is evidence in Senator Leahy’s comments. More importantly this was a ruling that could have easily been avoided if Senator Leahy had stood up to the corporatist and civil liberty violating ways of the Bush administration. He didn’t and I would hasten to add that is why we’re at the dawn of a new era in electoral subterfuge

What these two judges said and how they ruled, wrote, and spoke in the past were two entirely different things. I knew this from my brief reading-up on the two candidates and I am sure Senator Leahy and his considerable staff at the Senate Judiciary Committee, with considerably more resources and expertise was well aware of this double-speak and -think. Yet, Leahy knowing all this and with his considerable legal background decided to back away from a filibuster the most extreme tool he had left. Extreme times call for extreme measures Senator Leahy and make way for someone that wants to stay in the ring for all nine rounds.

That is what California should do in putting forth their latest effort to curb their CO2 footprint (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/science/earth/13emissions.html?ref=todayspaper).

I commend California for taking an important and bold step to curb their CO2 footprint. However, it is worth noting their proposal is a duplicate of Washington Senator Maria Cantwell’s CLEAR Act (The Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s renewal). CLEAR would bill would cut national GHG emissions 20% and 83% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 2050, respectively. Seventy-five percent of refunds would be returned to the taxpayer and 25% to green energy technologies and infrastructure. The refunds would amount to $1,100 annually for a family of four according to Senator Cantwell’s calculations. We could make more money off emissions if we assumed a higher range, which Senator Cantwell’s office set at $7-21 per ton of C02 in 2012, with annual floor and ceiling increases of 5.5 an 6.5%, respectively. This seems like an idea that even those that don’t believe in climate change could support given the non-trivial contribution to their bottomline and those of us on the left will accept is an acceptable, albeit not ideal, first iteration.

So I have not entered the cellphoneisphere at this point and I don’t have a Facebook or Myspace or Twitter account. This blog is as close as I have gotten to such exhibitionism. However, it is our right to engage in all these activities even if the 30-35minutes on average US citizens spend on their Facebook or is it MySpace? Whatever same difference. Anyway even if this 30-35 minutes a day or 7.6 days annually is a complete waste of time, energy, and cloud space (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/weekinreview/12helft.html?scp=3&sq=cloud%20computer&st=cse) we have the right to waste this time as we see fit right? Right.

Well the other component of this continuous digital footprint is the idea that some in law enforcement would like to use this data to find, construct, and prosecute criminal behavior across the board. Okay well that is a complete and utter violation of our privacy as citizens of this country BUT lets say it isn’t and lets for the sake of argument Hallelujah to this ancillary benefit of the web, smartphone technology, and GPS. Well wouldn’t the logical extension be that if a citizen witnesses a crime and happens to have a cellphone/smartphone with a camera or video recorder that individual would be obligated to capture said crime with said device? NOPE!! Not according to the Boston police and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in a 4-2 ruling (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/).

The court stated in it’s majority opinion “”Secret tape recording by private individuals has been unequivocally banned, and, unless and until the Legislature changes the statute, what was done here cannot be done lawfully”

However, in a dissenting and what appears to be more rational take on the case Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote “Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals when they seek to hold government officials responsible by recording, secretly recording on occasion, an interaction between a citizen and a police officer.’”

I have always been very concerned about the personal and more recently digital privacy we have bequeathed to large and remote multinational corporations as well as law enforcement. Now I am even more worried because it appears that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander! Do as I say not as I do! And this from a supposedly progressive and erudite state like Massachusetts…I can’t wait to see what happens when folks like Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal here about this. Maybe we aren’t all Socialist America haters up here after all.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and……..1+1 = 3!

This is architecture on viagra.

I can’t help but wonder if something more long-lasting or as the U.K.’s Adair Turner (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKeO6gsaeQ_M#) would most likely say “socially useful” could have been done with the materials used to build these phallic symbols of excess and upper 1-2% decoupling from the rest of society? I am sure the folks in Malaysia could think of a couple of things and those that have been displaced from the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans would most assuredly have some ideas for what could be done with the $3.2 billion being spent on NYC’s rising symbol of patriotism 1 Word Trade Center.

Given the recent announcement by President Obama that he will be upping the ante by 30,000 troops in Afghanistan I was left to ponder for what seemed to me a logical question: Mr. President what in your portfolio of beliefs and objectives is worth losing an election for? Do you not have any ideologies that you feel so passionate about that you are willing to sacrifice all or most of your political capital to steward such beliefs across the finish line? I voted for you sir and I am not sure at this point whether you have any convictions you feel so strongly about that you would put your political neck on the line for. That is quite disheartening to me because when I saw you speak on the steps of the Ira Allen Chapel here in Burlington, Vermont in March of 2006 I was convinced that you were a man with a spine, conscience, and an intellect unsurpassed in modern day politics. I still believe that the latter is true but as for your spine and to a lesser degree your conscience I am left wondering what you stand for and what you will fight for to the very end, whether it means political suicide or not.

Show us some fight sir! Show us that the issues you campaigned on are part of your very fiber and not simply the populist rhetoric you knew would get the vote of people like myself. It is beginning to feel like you are ashamed that the left supported you and your “progressive” agenda. That is not the man I saw speak in 2006. That is not the man I promptly told my friend Dennis Ailor would win the presidency in 2008. And that is most assuredly not the man I thought was capable of thinking through some of the most complex issues ever to face an incoming president. Sure you were handed a mess but are you going to continue to compare your administration to the one that preceded you? I would caution against such comparisons given that the bar could not have been set any lower.

Sir you know that the right would gladly fall on their sword for issues like abortion, the sanctity of marriage, gun rights, and the military industrial complex. That is a given and that for better or worse is one thing I respect about the neoclassical and neoconservative movement. When they give speeches in Portland or Corpus Christi you know what you’re gonna get and they make absolutely no apologies for their beliefs. It is time you get a little neocon in you Mr. Obama and by that I mean pick an issue any issue, whether it be health care, climate change, FISA, bank reform, or torture and go to the wall for it. Own the issue sir. Take back any one of these issues from those in your party that are self-hating Democrats. Just like Iraq and Katrina will define George W Bush (and no one else!!) one of these issues will define you and it would be a shame if you let the spineless wing of your party co-opt your presidency.

I and many like me – and I would hasten to guess those on the right – are anxiously or should I say nervously waiting and wondering if you will ever stand up and be accounted for with respect to some of the aforementioned issues. I would suggest firing Geithner, Summers, et al as a start. The left rightly sees them as an extension of the Greenspan-Rubin virus that has infected the nation’s financial services regulations for far too long now and the right won’t support them because….well who cares they just won’t because you do and that is reason enough for them.

Apologizing for our hegemonic history and bowing to Emperor Akihito shows that you are sensitive to our fragile status as a global power and more importantly the proper way in which you interact with others when on their turf. However, tacitly apologizing for being liberal or in any way concerned with the appalling trend in wealth, health, and education distribution in this country makes those of us on the left wonder if we were sold a bill of goods and those on the right question your leadership capabilities, both from a foreign and domestic perspective.

You may be wondering at this point why we don’t have your back on some of these crucial issues? Well all is not lost and believe me if we see fight emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue we will most assuredly get in the ring with you but until then you’ll have to rely on the likes of the Blue Dog Democrats. BTW how’s that working out so far?

So I just finished an amazing book by Naomi Klein called “The Shock Doctrine”, which basically chronicles the dark side of capitalism via the actions and thinking of folks like Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Eugene Fama, and Jeffrey Sachs. Anyway the book is revealing and pokes lots of holes in the Efficient Market hypothesis of Fama and Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”. Ms. Klein mentions in passing the SPADE Defense Index, which according to www.amex.com

“…is a modified market capitalization weighted index, comprised of publicly traded companies that seeks to measure the performance of securities in the defense, homeland security, and space marketplace.”

For those that deny the existence of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) described by Dwight D. Eisenhower as he left the oval office I think I can prove empirically that the SPADE Index demonstrates the naivete of such a view (See Figure).

Between the end of 1997 and September 10th 2001 the SPADE rose by 107%, but between 9-11 and 9-14-2009 it more than doubled (205%). Overall the SPADE has grown by 233% since it’s origination in December of 1997. So whats so important about these data? Well looking at the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), S & P 500, and NASDAQ we see that they grew by 103%, 99%, and 90% respectively between December of 1997 and 9-11. These trends are well alligned with what I described for the SPADE during the same time period. Heres the rub these indices only grew by 111%, 103%, and 142%. It is understandable that the NASDAQ would outpace the DJIA and S & P 500 as it was operating from a lower base. We are seeing that this country is relying more on the financial services and war profiteering industry 2 nefarious and wealth concentrating sectors of our economy. I must wonder where the outrage is? We have been conditioned to believe that all of us can have a big piece of the pie when infact the folks that pull the strings of these industries would in no way allow such an event to occur. It would be called wealth redistribution and we know what the neoconservatives and evangelical right-wingers think about such a prospect. The SPADE provides concrete evidence that we are moving towards a society that embraces Frederick the Great’s belief that “Diplomacy without war, is like music without instruments.” For those that think that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al’s fingerprints have been removed from the dialectic I call your attention to the Supreme Court and the SPADE’s trajectory.

“Even as Islamist terrorism grabs the headlines, more familiar varieties cling stubbornly to existence. It would be a brave man willing to bet where the next attack will come from.”

This is a quote from an article titled “The Airline Bombers: Bang to Rights” in the September 12th-18th 2009 edition of The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14424960). However, given a recent and very disturbing story emanating from from a town called Big Creek in Clay County, KY this quote could easily be superimposed on the current moral and political divide in this country (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/us/25brfs-CENSUSWORKER_BRF.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=kentucky%20census&st=cse; http://blogs.newamericamedia.org/nam-round-table/1777/locals-parse-death-of-kentucky-census-worker). Bill Sparkman a Boy Scout leader and substitute teacher was found dead, naked, and gagged in the Daniel Boone National Forest, with a rope hung around his head and looped over a tree. The coroners believe that Mr. Sparkman was dead prior to being hung as his feet were in contact with the ground. One of the more disturbing aspects of this story is that Mr. Sparkman a part-time census field worker was found with the word “FED” written across his chest with red ink. Folks at New America Media noted that a blogger named “Hill Jill” an appalachian resident was defending her region on the Daily Kos:

“This does not strike me as a “native” crime. A native might shoot you, I won’t argue there-but they would not do the whole elaborate staged crime scene.”

This is something I would whole-heartedly agree with and having worked in Northeastern Kentucky and much of Western West Virginia I know that there are plenty of folks in this region that are pissed that they are immediately conflated with the folks in Deliverance. Yet, there is a problem here and unfortunately The Times has not deemed it worthy of sending someone to the region relying instead on AP reports. Yet, apparently the Roman Polanski story is worthy of round-the-clock editorials and in-depth coverage. Why is this so scary? Well because we need to know how many people are in this country and census workers in no way reflect the Big Brother image promulgated in this country since Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. I must wonder why the coward that killed Mr. Sparkman didn’t revolt against the Bush administration’s constant probing of our phones, emails, and if they had their way our bedrooms? Why did the coward who killed Mr. Sparkman not revolt when the 2000 election was literally stolen from the people of this country by Antonin Scalia et al.? Why did the coward who killed Mr. Sparkman not revolt when his or her taxes were used to bail out a bunch of criminals on Wall Street?

I think the reason he or she didn’t revolt is because this country has transformed from the United States of America into nothing more than a bunch of “tribes with flags”, which ironically was coined by Tahsin Bashir to describe the 22 Arab states of the Middle East and Africa (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14027698). I think if we were to lift up all the rocks surrounding the crime scene in Big Creek we would be mightily disturbed by what we find. But here in this country the truth more often than not doesn’t set you free, rather it gets you jailed, fired, or relegated to the marginal fringe. It is a shame because what happened in Clay County, KY last week is a symptom of a great sickness that appears to be spreading. It will be easier to address this issue now rather then later. This will require us to engage in thoughtful inter-state dialogue with the politicians and lobbyists locked out, because all they seem to want to stoke rather than quash divisiveness.

The lack of attention this story has received in favor of more titillating and irrelevant events is a shame but in no way surprising. Accountability is something we need to demand of our politicians and current-event purveyors alike.

Quite simply it is the nasty and bullying nature of the Democrat establishment in New York. The party bosses are doing all they can to line the path for Kirsten Gillibrand the default junior Democratic senator form NY who took the spot vacated by Hillary Clinton on January 19th, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/nyregion/31nyc.html?ref=todayspaper).

It seems as though we are throwing coals in the fire that doesn’t want to confuse folks with the facts but rather distract them with bluster, pandering rhetoric, fiction, and more often than not outright fiction.

This is an amazing example of how we in this country have come to view political power as a game and not a responsibility. I have nothing against Ms. Gillibrand other than her apparent Blue Dog predilections. She is I assume loyal to her constituents in upstate New York. However, the likes of Chuck Schumer are determined to hold her hand in 2010. Do we really want someone representing us (ie New York in this case) that can’t fend for themselves in a primary battle? We have a similar predicament here in Vermont where Patrick Leahy are 6-term (soon to be 7) has essentially been unopposed throughout his tenure, with the exception being the yeomen effort of Fred Tuttle (http://www.newenglandfilm.com/news/archives/98october/fredtuttle.htm; http://www.vtonly.com/loresep8.htm).

These are just 2 examples of the inability of the Democratic Party to set aside it’s collective ego and acknowledge it’s broader identity. Until they do this folks like myself and skeptics writ large will align with folks like Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold. You can say voting for the former is a wasted vote….and I could just as easily invoke the same when noting the supposed neoliberal capitulation to the Democrats.

I for one do not? Does that make me an advocate of Big Brother type big government advocate? Nope. I don’t want government to be looking in our bedrooms or bookshelves or email or tapping our phones. Rather I want them to do with our precious tax dollars what they should be doing…..fixing stuff, supporting those in need, and fueling innovation. You may ask what does it mean to starve the beast? (bartlett_starve-the-beast)

Well “starving the beast” is a term originally coined in a WSJ article by Paul Blustein (http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp) and adamantly preached by the neoconservative wunderkind. This theory reduces taxes on the upper 2% via reduced capital gains, estate, and income taxes, primarily by allowing the elite to declare income as capital gains, which reduces taxable income from 34-38% to 15%. A classic example of this is Warren Buffet noting his personal assistant coughs up a greater percentage of her annual income in taxes than he does, because most of his income is declared as capital gains.

The starve the beast argument foments outright hatred of government by conflating taxes with socialism and the near and dear gun rights of this nations many cowboys. Of course this plays to the underlying fears of an already petrified nation. The last thing this country needs is another thing to be afraid of as we now have climate change, Iran, the Taliban, North Korea, China, Russia, lawyers, unemployment, diabetes, etc. Yet, given all this neocons feel the best remedy is adding to rather than ameliorating these fears. What a bunch of great folks? They must be true patriots.

However, I ask of those interested in an anorexic beast: Do you drive a car or better yet do you like smooth drivable roads? You do? Of course you do we all enjoy our asphalt alleys winding their way through urban centers and rural outposts alike. Well there is a price associated with that privilege and it is a privilege when compared to developed and undeveloped nations alike. Congress has been forced to bailout the fund that pays for the various interstate transportation projects this country takes on every year. Don’t worry its just $7 billion which pales in comparison to things like defense spending (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/31brfs-TRANSPORTATI_BRF.html?ref=todayspaper).

Starving the beast is a convenient and short-term method of consolidating wealth, is completely counter intuitive, and a theory that we should hope is entering the twilight of its relevance.

So there is a group called Pro-English that recently got a city councilman in Nashville, TN named Eric Crafton to put on the city ballot a measure that would make English the city’s language de jure (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31176525/ns/us_news-life/). The scariest part about this situation is that this measure received 43% of the vote. Of course all the requisite scare tactics are being used by proponents with Mr. Crafton being quoted in an MSNBC piece as saying “English is under attack…”

ATTACK I TELL YOU! MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS IMMEDIATELY!

Give me a break Mr. Crafton with the hyperbole. There is no war on language anywhere unless you count the extinction of countless Native American languages….but let me guess you probably don’t right? Figures as much.

BTW Eric you know your barking up the wrong tree when your putative ally the Chamber of Commerce ain’t (Oops!) got your back! (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/us/11english.html?scp=1&sq=crafton%20tennessee&st=cse)

It stands to reason these measures are being introduced now, because had they been introduced in the previous 8 years one can imagine the irony and late-night fodder given we had a president who so bastardized the King’s English (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM). I wonder if Crafton cringed every time he listened to Bush botch a simple word like nuclear or invisible or……..!

These same groups are talking about shearing money for English as a Second Language (ESL) in Georgia and elsewhere. The beacon of acceptance Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) was quoted….and I am not making this up as saying “A nation of immigrants needs one national language,”

Now wouldn’t a nation of immigrants need a bunch of languages or at least access to them in order to accommodate it’s workforce? Or maybe just as a sign of respect and gratitude?

Again I hope they aren’t targeting the Longhorn state because without this service W. doesn’t stand a chance and even with it his odds aren’t that great.

Well anyway you lost and that is a good thing, because further isolation of our foreign and domestic policy from those who built and continue to build this country does no one any favors I guarantee. OR for that matter those that speak Southern Appalachian English in the eastern part of your beloved state (http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/dictionary/dictionary.html). Are they any less American or patriotic? Careful what box you open Sir for the next one might be Pandora’s.

If people like Mr. Grafton and Inhofe spent half the time and tax-payer money ($350,000 allotted to Mr. Grafton’s stunt) on things that matter maybe we would not be in the climate, economic, and health care pickle we find ourselves in today.

PS Mr. Crafton what were your grades in high school english? I know mine weren’t anything to write home about, but I am pretty sure that doesn’t make me any more or less American than you or the Bhutanese refugees that just moved in down the street from me here in Burlington.