Tannishblog

Two separate reporters have noted our president’s uncanny, disquieting confidence in the outcome of the forthcoming election. Both Bush and Rove are quite upbeat about the eventuality of keeping the Republican Majority.

Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more. But party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats — shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats for the first time since the 1994 elections and probably hobble the balance of Bush’s second term.

In typical Bush pathos, no contingency plans have been laid. One would think any politician worth a pillar of salt would at least hedge his/her bets by having a "plan B." But not our boys.

"They aren’t even planning for if they lose," says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing. If Democrats win control of the House, as many analysts expect, Republicans predict that Bush’s final two years in office will be marked by multiple congressional investigations and gridlock.

"The Bush White House has had no relationship with Congress," said a Bush ally. "Beyond the Democrats, wait till they see how the Republicans–the ones that survive–treat them if they lose next month." GOP insiders are upset by Bush’s seeming inability to come up with new ideas or fresh approaches.

Their certainty is pathological. Perhaps this is why… From BradBlog:

Former U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) chair Rev. DeForest Soaries was appointed by George W. Bush as the first chair of the commission created by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in the wake of the 2000 Presidential Election Debacle. In the interview, available here for the first time, Soaries excoriates both Congress and the White House, referring to their dedication to reforming American election issues as "a charade" and "a travesty," and says the system now in place is "ripe for stealing elections and for fraud."

Having resigned from the commission in April of 2005, Soaries goes on to explain that he believes he was "deceived" by both the White House and Congress, and that neither were ever "really serious about election reform."

[…]

On Electronic Voting System standards — which HAVA mandated would be created by the EAC — Soaries blasts both the White House and Congress for failing to supply them with the needed resources to complete the mandate, both for the federal government and the states that were relying on them to do so.

"[T]he states were forced to comply and they were asking us for guidance. We were ill-equipped to provide guidance. We didn’t begin our work until January 2004 and we spent the first three months of our work looking for office space. Here we were, the first federal commission, responsible for implementing federal law in the area of election administration and for the first three months we didn’t even have an address. And we physically had to walk around Washington DC looking for office space. This was a travesty. I was basically deceived by the leaders of the House, the Senate and the White House."

"Someone has got to be able to say, no one in America should use machine ‘A’ ever again," he says, in reference to the EAC’s failure to decertify electronic voting systems even after they have been proven to be easily vulnerable to hackers and tampering.

"And if it’s not EAC," he continued, "it’s got to be someone. Someone in America has got to hold America accountable for protecting the most fundamental right in a democracy and that is the right to vote."

We already know that, while the former CEO of Diebold quit because of alleged misconduct, he is also a staunch Bushite, so much so that he was asked to keep his head down during the 2004 election in case some embarrassing connections were made. The fact is that four major corporations are involved in our administration’s attempt to digitize the voting process, and none of them are providing assertions to the public about how failsafe their products are - except Diebold, and we already know they can be hacked with just a thumb drive and a screwdriver.

So the smug look on George’s face may have reason to be there. If the last two presidential races were any clue, we can look forward to an "anything goes," midterm next month. Even those who would scoff at this post would agree it will be interesting.

P.S. Get out and vote. It may be the last time you can with any certainty.

By now, you’ll know that Mr. Bush has proudly signed into law the controversial Military Commissions Act of 2006. We have taken another giant step for mankind - backward.

Terror is in the eye of the politico. The Decider ™ now get a choice upon whom to practice of "coercive interrogation" in the name of "Protecting America" (patent pending.) This law has "legitimized" immoral behavior toward enemy combatants that retroactively clears the administration of wrongdoing perpetrated before this "law" existed. Let us not forget the penalty for violation of the Geneva Conventions is execution - be assured Mr. Bush know this. Not only the offending persons but the whole chain of command could be liable if it is proven to be that America had at any time ignored international law. So, the "American lives" he claims to be saving by signing the torture bill, just might be his own.

Yet as Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post notes:

Here’s what Bush had to say at his signing ceremony in the East Room: "The bill I sign today helps secure this country, and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair, and we will never back down from the threats to our freedom."

But that may not be the "clear message" the new law sends most people.

Here’s the clear message the law sends to the world: America makes its own rules. The law would apparently subject terror suspects to some of the same sorts of brutal interrogation tactics that have historically been prosecuted as war crimes when committed against Americans.

But that’s just one opinion. DownsizeDC.com has kindly enumerated all the implications of the law and all the liberties we’ve limited.

The entire bill is bad, but the "killer" passage is subsection ii which defines an Unlawful Enemy Combatant as anyone . . .

"who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

This section makes it clear that this law applies to anyone appointed bureaucrats label an "enemy combatant." That could be you.

There’s no limit to application of this law. It could be applied to anyone at anytime — war or no war.

Notice also that this new law is retroactive. You could have done something to violate this law before it even became a law.

Please also notice that the President is given the authority to create another "competent tribunal" to make these decisions if he or she is not satisfied with the efforts of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. In other words, the President can create other tribunals, not even governed by this law, as long as he declares them to be "competent" to make decisions about who should be disappeared, detained, tortured, tried and punished, all without recourse to a legal defense.

. Hear that? It sounds like thousands of jackboots in perfect unison. Slowly, the erosion of American freedom is advancing

Have you ever wondered how life would be in BushAmerika? Here’s a glimpse of what happens to people as a result of a loose-cannon, NRA gun policy like they have in Florida: Gruesome Highway Shootings.

[T]he four victims were shot multiple times while kneeling or lying on the ground. "The woman in a defensive posture, had both of the children surrounded, underneath her arms, in an effort that we can assume was to protect them from the gunfire," [St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken J.] Mascara said.

Our growing national penchant for random acts of violence would escalate like it has in Jeb country, land of Tasered Children. The Boston Globe notes that the victims were well loved by friends.

“Everybody loves them. They would do anything for anybody. There’s not enough words — they were just funny, caring, very lovely people," said Lisa Salazar, a relative in Brownsville, Texas.

The tragic irony is that they were moving from Texas to "start a new life" in Florida. A quick Google shows that , while the national average of violent crime is plummeting, Florida cannot boast the same trend. There, as in Texas, crime has increased.

Welcome to a view of Red Amerika, land of the pistol and home of the frightened. While urbanites, living in small spaces within big cities, are forced to recognize the values of promoting welfare through acceptance of diversity, others in our great nation are still able to pretend that their towns are largely unchanged since the days of  the Wild, Wild West. It looks like their vision of the New American Century is similar to America’s nineteenth century.

Crossposted at: Democrats.org.

King George signed another useless and unenforceable law onto the books yesterday. In the name of Republican hegemony, we now have provisions for make our ports "Safer" weeks before an important election. It’s been five years since the last terrorist attacks, and now we’re just getting to looking after a huge gaping hole in national security. I guess it just wasn’t important until now.

Attached to the port-security bill is another issue vital to national security: online gambling. A rider proudly named Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act now makes it a crime to use credit cards and electronic funds transfers to place bets at online gambling sites. No, wait! This is important, guys. Imagine the Islamofascist suicide gamblers clicking their way to millions of American funds through the nefarious combination of identity theft and Internet gambling. This is an under-reported security threat. Why, they can bankrupt the people throught these means just as surely as congress has impoverished our economy to fund an un-winnable illegal war in the name of God-and-Country, Amen.

The conservative Caucus is showing desperation, here. They couldn’t keep Terri Schiavo alive, They lost critical momentum on vital national security issues like anti-Darwinism, Abortion, Gay Marriage and Dominionism. They’re weeks away from the scariest election in years, and - most frightening - they’re bag of dirty tricks has a hole in it: obfuscation and damnation has not secured out nation, and the people are finally waking up to that.

Seriously though, Can we do away with legislative riders that have nothing in common with the thrust of the bill to which they are attached? In my mind, this is beyond sneaky and most of the way to criminal. Yes. I know both parties do it, whatever, it’s still a disservice to hardworking Americans who don’t have time or means to follow all the underhanded disjunction of legislative process. If you want to attack a person’s freedom to gamble, put it on the top of the table, instead of at the bottom of a ream of non-related legalities and force it through via sleight-of-law.

We live in a Democratic Republic, "we, the people" have all kinds of "rights," including the right to be wrong. At least we did when I woke up yesterday. Although, I don’t gamble, I support the rights for others to find their thrills by risking their incomes. I cannot countenance my government telling me whether or not to risk my family’s security on a few cheap (make that expensive) thrills. I especially can’t stomach our lying, warmongering, greedy and corrupt leadership telling me how to live my life on any level. We have a pack of thieves, liars, profiteers with the occasional pedophile running our country. Who would take their word on any moral issue? Not me.

…and on a Friday the thirteenth, too. Go figure…

On these posts I like to quote Westerners. While the sages of the East have much to teach us, I feel a phrase has more poignancy when uttered by someone from a different philosophical tradition. This shows us the universality of Dharma. It is a human pursuit, and so it is open to all people, regardless of upbringing. The Dharma does not contradict religious traditions, nor does it negate philosophical perspectives. It reinforces and often unites the two.

One precept of Zen is often confusingly termed, due in part to the vagaries of translations, "No Self." This is quite the foreign concept to most Western thought. Essentially, the sages are saying that to get rid of our sense of "self as a central viewpoint." (my term) We can then open our minds to the inter-connectivity of all things, which leads to the peace of mind and wisdom thought to be the end result of Dharma practice. To put it bluntly: We are not the center of the universe. Understanding this leads to happiness.

What is troubling us is the tendency to believe that the mind is like a little man within.
– Ludwig Wittgenstein

The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.
– Albert Einstein

The sages would have us ask: Who is this that is thinking? Much thinking goes into this question. If we examine our concept of self, break it down to its constituent parts, we begin to see that most of what we call "Me" is fabrication, a conceptual framework that has no substance. The is no single "thing" we can point at and say "that is me."

Search back into your won vision — think back to the mind that thinks, Who is it?
– Wu-men

If I am not my body nor its parts, and I am not my mind - what am I?

Scanning the broadcasts of Blather Radio yesterday I first heard about the latest marriage of airplane and building in New York City. Although this morning we know who was in the unfortunate craft, we didn’t then. As I listened to the radio host take callers I couldn’t help noticing the vacuity of speculation. The callers - and the host’s - responses ranged from "Oh my God!" to "Whose that stupid?" What really struck me was when the announcer recapped the story, saying: "…Nobody knows what happened except for the incident having scared the heck out of America." He intimated by this the possibility of it being another terrorist attack. Bullshit!

Who’s scared. Beyond the normal reaction of those in the building or on the ground nearby, is anyone really thinking terrorists are so dumb as to try the same stunt twice? They’re not. Does anyone think they would be so desperate to hijack the first plane they can - in this case a small personal aircraft - and ram it into an apartment building? What significance is that? What kind of symbolic gesture would that make?

I switched the radio off then. How incredibly ignorant of the media to even suggest such an accident is terror related. Unfortunately, planes have been known to ram into building before 9/11. No one made a big deals out of those. Perhaps the coincidence of it being the eleventh day of a month was too much to resist, or the fact that it was again in New York. Foolish.

Are Americans really that fearful, or is the media blowing smoke. I have no doubt that the powers-that-be are trying their best to manipulate the public through fear. That is obvious. Fear is a great motivating factor of the human psyche.

Now, thought, we know the owner of the plane was a baseball player. How American can you get? Surely he’s no terrorist. While the circumstances remain mysterious, at least that specter has evaporated. Now we can get back to being scared of real things like the rise in health care, under-education, national bankruptcy, the morphing of the middle class into the working poor. If we must fear, those are sound choices for concern.

So, North Korea has joined the nuclear club. No doubt they’ll sell to the highest bidder, just like any civilized nation. Weapons, after all, are just another commodity subject the the laws of supply and demand, the gravitational pull of shareholder greed. I bet the Kim guy is grinning. Now, the North Koreans can strut their stuff on the international stage.

A niggling thought: Nobody thought through the consequences of creating a super bomb with which to end WWII. So focused was the American government upon immediate concerns that any hint of ethical hand-wringing was stifled quick as a political smear campaign. Thanks to 20-20 hindsight, we can now see that the atomic bomb has much in common with Pandora’s box, where the contents, once exposed, cannot be contained again.

So, as a consequence of our opening the box of nuclear discontent, we have to deal with other nations with the same powers we have, leveling the political playing field. The A bomb was fine when America and her friends were the only ones playing. Now the other team has some, and our double standard starts to worry us. Too bad. Look whose getting the bomb: Pakistan - their only our friends for convenience and for the fact that they can blow a hole in India; Iran is not far behind, and all the whinging at NATO can’t stop it; Now Mr. Kim Jong Il is holding the fuse, and he’s just crazy enough to use it. The Axis of Evil is turning and we’re on the loosing end this time.

Score another point for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The past week’s Big Story is the newest Congressional mishap starring Mark Foley. This brings to mind two teachings that, if taught in wider circles of influence, would go far to alleviate these types of problems.

First, teaching on the dangers of attachment. While it is natural and necessary for the mind to become attracted to ideas, concepts or objects, it is harmful to cling to our attractions too tightly. In the case of Mr. Foley, as well as many instances in our own lives, the very act of longing for something caused his undoing. His inability to distance himself from the objects of his desires, even those objects were only theoretical, caused human suffering. While all current evidence suggests that no child was hurt by his interests, the potential for damage was high. Regardless, Mr. Foley’s behavior hurt himself, his friends and members of his family.

This leads to the Buddhist teaching of the "three poisons", which are essentially the judgments we make against all things: like it; hate it; indifference. The judgments themselves aren’t problematic, but our attachments to them are. If we like something too much, we suffer because of it. Common examples of too much attachment include various addictions people are subject to, like drugs and alcohol, gambling, greed and gluttony. All these expressions of liking things too much cause suffering of self and others.

Likewise, over-avoidance leads to problems as well. We see what hate can do to people everyday in expressions of anger, murder and warfare. All the myriad shades of negative emotions cause suffering. Even if the hatred is kept at bay, secreted in ones’ heart, health issues can occur so that, the very act of feeling hatred, although not openly acted out, can cause great suffering to the person harboring such feelings.

Even the decision to ignore or be indifferent to a person or idea can cause suffering. Although this is the hardest of the three to quantify, the very act of turning one’s back to an issue can have indirect negative ramifications. The current political strife in Darfur, while not obviously connected to any in the West, is affected by our collective indifference to the plight of this poor nation. The longer we ignore the horrors in Africa, the more innocent lives are lost and ruined. Likely, if we continue to do nothing, the perpetrators will become emboldened to advance such tactics elsewhere on the continent or in the world. Thus, indifference can be as dangerous as hatred itself.

As for Mr. Foley, he could benefit by understanding of the three poisons, and by a concerted effort to wrest control of his life from the choices he’s made. Making value judgments is a necessary part of functioning in our world, but letting those judgments control us is backward. Instead, we should understand how we feel, accept our decisions, and strive to keep an emotional distance from them - a buffer zone, if you will, from which we can keep our perspective and a clear understanding of the benefit or detriment of acting on our impulses. If Mark Foley has such a internal check in place, perhaps he and his family wouldn’t be hurting now.

As I follow the Mark Foley "Innocence Lost" tour, I get curious about what the Fighting Keyboarders are typing. I try not to rail against the furious in Right Blogistan. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to resist.

My first foray led me to a site called Passionate America which took the stance that the MSM is doctoring data in the form of minor edits to published Foley emails. We’re talking punctuation, here. This pundit’s big question is - writ in red, no less - "Who Altered Foley’s Emails?" Let me be the next to say, a missing apostrophe does not a conspiracy make, fool! It seems the larger issues of congressional sexual misconduct and the attendant hypocrisy by a member of the Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children are too much for this little mind.

The good Captain, celebrating his third blogiversary, (Congrats!) goes after speaker Hastert for his hand-off approach to a hands-on situation. One for the record books: I agree with the Captain: boil ‘em in oil, those foul beastians who look askance who pretend it will go away! (Okay, so I missed pirate-talk day. Whatever.) The Captain is casting wide for expulsion of Speaker Hastert for doing nothing since last year. 

Malodorous Michele sharpens her scalpel on the whole issue. She condemns Mark Foley easily enough, but is carefully avoiding casting her net too wide. She can’t avoid altogether the possibility of a complicit GOP, but no names are offered. How adroit.

There is a time and place for attacking the Dems and the MSM. Now is not that time. Parents need assurance that their kids are safe on Capitol Hill. If Beltway GOP elites can’t understand this, they are beyond hope.

Then there’s LGF, the site you love to hate. A loud silence is heard from that quarter, as the only mention of Mark Foley is circular link to the email- altering non-question. No scathing editorial about ethics, protection of children… nothing. I guess the whole thing is okay with them. Such a little thing couldn’t distract them from their focus in terror 24/7/365.

Next, onto Freeperland followed by a careful washing of hands. A quick search of the word "Foley" small results. A blurb about how the President is "Disgusted," and a notion about how ABC News is (apparently to some) playing up the story in a possible effort to "make up with the Democrats," after taunting them with the 9/11 docudrama thingy. Next up, a scathing attack against the NY Times for - get this - running over a Republican:

For the Times’ editors, sexual perversion in political Washington is always a sideline issue. Nothing has changed at the Times; they will run with a sex scandal only if they can run over a Republican. This morning, they glance over Congressman Foley’s alleged behavior, move on to their target, and totally ignore that a watchdog group and members of the media may have let children remain at risk.

Just how free is this republic lately?

That’s about all I can stand of the polluted waters of Right Blogistan. It sometimes amazes me how quick we humans are to defile each other. While I believe Mr. Foley escaped the worst of possibilities by his quick resignation, and I believe much needs to be done in congress with a pervasive look-away attitude toward their peers (both parties), it nevertheless amazes me how quickly the carrion dogs feed.

This reminds me of an important moral lesson I learned from my cat: Don’t Shit Where You Eat. Humans, I’m reminded once again, tend to do that.

Furthering my bias that modern conservatives are nasty people, I read in the NY Times (where else?) about the latest scandal in the republican leadership. Rep. Mark Foley, of Florida, has a history of "overfriendly" email correspondences with teenage pages he's met - a boy . Apparently, more than one.

Taken by itself, that is not surprising; Morality and self-control has not been qualities of our government lately. What really gets me is this: Top house Republicans knew about this for months - AND DID NOTHING! I bet this guy - and his silent friends - think they're "Good Christians."

After the disgust wears off, I realized how unsurprised I am. On this page of NY Times web site, we see a compendium of articles about the Republican Party. The list begins thusly:

MORE ON REPUBLICAN PARTY AND: SUSPENSIONS, DISMISSALS AND RESIGNATIONS, PORNOGRAPHY AND OBSCENITY…

Isn't this the party reformulated resulting from the hard work of a group who called themselves the Moral Majority? Never mind, that was rhetorical. (BTW; read their site, if you dare. Hatemongering and politics are "Values." Did you know that?)