Hank "in the Tank" Paulson and the Last Great Bushist Power Grab

The similarities to 9/11 are stark: pass the bill, now! This is not a time for thinking, it is a time for acting! Sadly, we fell for this line twice already. In the House, a meager 66 Representatives opposed HR 3162 (62 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independent; 9 didn't vote), what would become known as the USA Patriot Act of 2001. In the Senate, Russ Feingold (D-Iowa) stood alone in his opposition to the bill. The whole thing was pushed through Congress by 1:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, on October 25, 2001. Those who opposed the measure were branded "unpatriotic," "bleeding-hearts," or accused outright of being traitors. In doing so, the Bush Administration silenced those who saw this as a cynical power grab. A year later, having failed to capture Osama bin Laden, but with a new interloper to divert the attention of voters, Congress voted 296 to 133 to invade Iraq (81 Democrats helped; 6 Republicans and one Independent didn't). Russ Feingold was no longer alone in his opposition, as 25 other Democrats joined him in voting against the invasion of Iraq in the Senate, which has since been proven to be an unnecessary and costly war: over 4,000 dead, hundreds of billions spent, the United States' international reputation in tatters and the removal of military capital from the threat of a emerging belligerent powers, such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia and Russia.

Then, starting last Monday, the failure of several key financial institutions, resulting , at least in part, from deregulation, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. As with 9/11, people were hoping for someone to step forward to save the day. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's solution sounded a lot like a trick played by Dark Age mystics on a superstitious and ignorant populous during a total solar eclipse: "Grant me power without oversight, and I will bring back the economic sunshine." His proposal consisted of three pages - three pages, stark in their simplicity, horrifying in their cynicism and arrogance, summed up in the now infamous "Section 8" of the proposal:

Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

It is perhaps an unintentional coincidence that Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman, Benjamin Bernanke picked "Section 8," which was, at one time, the rule cited for discharging mentally unfit soldiers from the army. Indeed, the suggestion that the systemic collapse caused by deregulation could somehow be cured by an individual demanding more deregulation, is madness. It has even less rationale when one considers that this is the same, former CEO of Goldman Sachs who raised his company's debt from $20 billion to $100 billion in his 6-year tenure there. Finally, it has been reported that Paulson and Bernanke drafted this astonishingly elegant proposal six months ago, and hence, saw this collapse coming. Their concern, clearly, was not for the taxpayer or for how many innocent people would be hurt through this nightmare, but themselves and their friends and colleagues on Wall Street.

Well, I have a six point plan for what we can do about this mess. Review this, Bushies:

1) By purchasing bad debts, the United States taxpayer gains controlling interest in these firms. Those CEOs who opt out, risking the collapse of their firms will be required to surrender their passports, will undergo a criminal investigation, and may be subject to criminal prosecution and seizure of their personal assets; we do the same thing to drug dealers, embezzlers and child pornographers, and while I wouldn't place what they've done on the same plane as kiddie porn, I personally find it equal to embezzlement and worse than selling drugs. Those who opt in would be given immunity from criminal prosecution. That's their incentive for helping to keep the economy from crashing: they won't go to jail.

2) All executives suspected of having a role in the banking collapse must surrender their passports until they are cleared; those who opt in that are found to be instrumental in the banking collapse will be terminated with no additional compensation (no golden parachutes). Because the taxpayer has essentially enacted a hostile takeover, any contracts between executives and the firms they were employed by are null and void. They get nothing; they can stand in the unemployment line next to the people they sold out.

3) Absolutely no quarter should be given to the housing speculators who drove the housing bubble. If there were a cost-effective way to do so, I would ask for a mandate making them wear a scarlet letter ("A" for asshole).

4) A moratorium should be declared and defaulted home loans should be evaluated. Those home buyers who clearly have no visible means of paying for their homes, or whose homes are clearly beyond their means, should be foreclosed upon. Those who are in affordable homes should have their loans refinanced so that as much money as possible can be recovered. The United States will recover money from the sale of foreclosed homes at fair market value, only. These properties should not be auctioned off or sold at any discounted rate. This will prevent further damage from speculators.

5) All firms participating in the bailout agree to a similar, best-effort financing agreement offered to responsible, but troubled home buyers. In other words, the companies that caused this mess will ultimately have to pay for their mistakes in the years to come. They will be responsible for paying back the amounts of money that the government is short from housing sales and loan payments. There is no reason that the United States should give away the store without getting something back. Agreement to such terms - along with contractual obligations of transparency - could be offered as a condition for some executives to continue their employment in certain cases.

6) The regulatory boards that were gutted by the Reagan, Bush and Bush Administrations will be funded by the payments from the firms participating in the bailouts. There should be additional oversight by Congress to make sure that the regulatory agencies don't wind up in the pocket of the firms they regulate.

If my plan sounds punitive, good: it's humane, compared to what I would do, were I not an employee in a large firm with payroll expenses exceeding $100,000. Were that the case, I would say, let the banks fail and put their CEOs in prison next to rapists, murderers and drug dealers. Secretary Paulson's proposal was a naked power grab by an administration already grotesquely bloated on them. Once again, the Bushists have presented us with a crisis and told us that if we do not act against our own best interests, we are doomed. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us; fool us a third time and clearly, we are too stupid for the responsibilities necessary to be a citizen of this, or any other Republic.

McCain, Palin and Gustav: The GOP Faces the Perfect Storm

If you're still scratching your head about Republican Presumptive Presidential Nominee, John McCain's Vice Presidential pick, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, you might also be asking why he's rushed headlong into a hurricane. After literally eating cake while Katrina destroyed New Orleans, Senator McCain appears to be seeking redemption through the destructive force of the category 2 Gustav.

Independents: are you honestly buying this?

I know that the once liberal mass media has closed ranks around McCain, stifling giggles as well as outrage at McCain's choice of running mate, then scrambling desperately as one after another of her scandals have trickled out - despite the GOPedia's best efforts to stem the tide. First, her ethics violations came out. Then, we're expected not to believe our eyes when we see an allegedly third-trimester pregnancy looking as lean as she did seven months earlier; not to mention the miraculous story of her water breaking in Texas - which, conveniently, no one knew about - and then a woman having her allegedly fifth child managed to somehow hold it until the plane reached Alaska, some eight hours later, without complaining about contractions. Even if she's telling the truth, any other woman would be in jail for child endangerment. Further, how does a parent with a Downs baby make time for a political career? Who's taking care of this kid? Oh, that's right, she has a seventeen year old daughter at home, who's conveniently five months pregnant to dispell the dreaded "internet rumours."

Five months? Of course it's conveniently five months. Six months would raise the Republican's favorite tool of campaigning, the auld October Surprise - as in, "SURPRISE! No baby, and she's still not showing (just like mom)!" And four months pregnant wouldn't work either, since Trig was born in April. Pardon me, former Miss Congeniality, Alaska, but would you mind releasing your medical records - and a certified ultrasound for your daughter? Oh, and a DNA test of yourself, your daughter and your "son" for comparative purposes, if that's not too much trouble.

But Sarah Palin aside, why is Senator McCain going to Mississippi? Come on, Independents; don't tell me you think McCain isn't politicizing Gustav. I know that the GOPedia, including Time magazine, CNN and the major networks have their talking points in hand (and aren't ashamed to use them), but we're Independents! We're smart enough to read between the lines, believe our eyes, and not fall for the magic bullets that history is heir to. Senator McCain couldn't show more cynicism toward the city of New Orleans if he were to say, "Category 2 - that's not so bad. When I was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, we had a real hurricane . . ." (Joe Lieberman pulls him aside, whispering in his ear, McCain nods, then returns to the mic), "Excuse me, it was a tsunami."

By going there, Senator McCain diverts law enforcement personnel from their vital tasks, such as controlling looting and rescuing people who aren't there for photo-ops. Yet the mainstream media unashamedly praise him for his choice to go to the Gulf of Mexico, just as they've managed to put on straight faces to rescue him from his self-inflicted disaster of choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Why haven't they asked him if he's seeking political redemption for Katrina? Why haven't they asked him why he's diverting these key personnel during a crisis? And why haven't they asked him if this isn't just more cynical politicking?

People died in Katrina. Died while Senator McCain and his beloved George W. Bush ate cake together. And now, as a means of distracting us from the sea of scandal swirling around his choice of running mate - whose only real qualifications seem to be a wealth of experience in the type of cronyism we, as a nation, have been forced to endure these last eight years - uses real tragedy as yet another Rovian weapon from the "permanent campaign" arsenal of distraction, fear and misinformation.

We're smarter than this, Independents. John McCain, who we have revered for his maverick legislative style, his straight talk and his forthrightness, for whatever reason, is no longer that person. His judgement on selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate without vetting her - arguably the most important decision he will make before entering the White House - was not sound. His decision to go to the Gulf of Mexico during a time of crisis and potential tragedy was both political and self-serving. No matter what the mainstream press tells us, we have eyes, ears, memories and minds. We read between the lines because the media are unwilling to print the facts without spinning them. We seek alternative news sources to find the pieces that the corporate press has left out all together. And then, somewhere in the garble of spin, misinformation and non-information, we converge to expose a corrupt and unreliable "Fourth Arm of Government."

AKA, John McCain's base.

Update: Hurricane Gustav has been downgraded to a category 1 as it moves inland toward the Louisiana-Texas border. It is thought that little damage occured, and due to the evacutions, the casualties are expected to be low. We can breathe a sigh of relief that this time, at least, tragedy wasn't in the cards. It also shows that we can learn from the lessons of history: evacuation saves lives.

The West's Side Story: an Analysis of how Russia was Blamed for Georgia's Invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia

When I first heard the news, I tried to make sense of it. Why would Russia just invade Georgia out of the blue? Georgia is energy rich, but a the contest of petrobucks between Russia and Georgia, it's Megarubles to millikopeks, far in Russia's favor. And just as the Russian Army had overwhelmed Georgia to the point where a belicose President Saakashvili and his security detail were literally jumping at shadows, Medvedev offered his Southern neighbor terms for a cease fire.

Until this week, I had only heard one side of the story - the West's side. The story of how this conflict started was slow to ooze out. On the BBC Radio World Service's World Have Your Say, Chloe Tilly and Co. dedicated a progamme on Friday, August 8 (On Air: Can Anyone Stand up to Russia?) to blaming the entire event on Russia. Tilly didn't mention one word in the blog accompanying the radio programme about Georgia's aggression toward Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Nonetheless, she did indulge a National Enquirer-worthy narrative about Russian-backed gas supply disruptions and political assassinations.

It wasn't until Tuesday, August 12 that The Los Angeles Times dedicated an entire story to Saakashvili's role in the conflict. Marjorie Miller and Geraldine Baum broke a story which was not, by that time, news to anyone with a brain: "Brash Georgian President May have Gambled and Lost" (print title), finally revealed Saakashvili's plot to invade the breakaway republics while the world's eyes were on Beijing. Later that same day (August 13, Russia/Georgia time) beside French President Nicholas Sarkozy, a soft-spoken Medvedev made public his terms for a cease fire. Russia Today reported that President Sarkozy stated that Russia had acted appropriately under the circumstances. A humiliated Saakashvili accepted the terms, but defiantly vowed that "one day Georgia would beat Russia."

Not letting the facts get in the way of politics, the U.S. President and even the Presidential candidates weighed in against Russia, calling their defense of Russian nationals in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as " . . . a brutal escalation" (Bush), "Moscow's violent path of aggression" (McCain) and just plain "aggressive" (Obama). And indeed, Russia is aggressive and was clearly ready for trouble the moment Georgia moved to invade the breakaway republics. They didn't spend six months building up to it like George Herbert Walker Bush did in Desert Storm in 1991, nor did they use it as a distraction from a sex scandal as Bill Clinton did in 1998, nor did they make false claims of WMDs like George Walker Bush did to invade Iraq in 2002. They simply secured the borders of the republics who asked them for help, sacking a military base in Gori, not destroying a civilian airport, as John McCain has claimed That's called strategy, and as with the naval blockade the Russians employed, it wins wars and gets soldiers home to their families. Bush, McCain and Obama may consider taking note of this.

So to answer Chloe Tilly's question, after eight years of usurpations of our civil liberties under the guise of "security" and outright lies by the Bush Administration, not to mention complicity to these high crimes by the UK and the Western press in general (including the BBC), why on earth would we concern ourselves with Russia? Don't we in the West have enough of our own despots to contend with?

The Russian Phoenix

Their economy was in tatters. Proud soldiers of the once mighty Russian Army were forced to beg in the streets because the emerging democratic State could not pay them. But the sleeping giant has awakened. Mother Russia, thought to be in a permanently weakened state following the fall of the Soviet Empire, has risen dangerously from the ashes of communism, its military having regained much of its cold war potency.

But what of South Ossetia? Discussion turns away from whether or not the breakaway republic might have a moral right to secede from the Georgian State. Indeed, under Soviet rule, South Ossetia enjoyed a great deal of autonomy. Having suffered at the hands of Czarist Russia, is it any better that the Caucasus should now be at the mercy of Georgia? And what of the West's role in the unfolding epic in the East?

After the US's unjustifiable invasion of Iraq - with Tony Blair's blessing - the West has neither the moral high-ground, nor the military resources to keep the re-emerging Russian State in check. It's not a matter of right or wrong, but as with the US invasion of Iraq, might becomes the criterion for what is right. Sadly, having exhausted both diplomatic and military capital in trade for Iraqi oil, the US and its allies have painted themselves into a corner. Beyond public denouncements, the West has little choice but to abandon its Eastern friends to their fate, leaving them to the mercy of a reinvigorated and increasingly belligerent Russia.

The Beijing Olympics: Can we Separate Sport from Politics?

The BBC World Service programme, World Have your Say, asks, Are we Turning a Blind Eye to China. I responded with the following blog entry:

The games date back to warring tribes of Greece. "Citizens" of the Athenian City-State were exclusively male property owners. Slavery was legal throughout Greece, and the concept of human rights was virtually non-existent at that time. The games, in which athletes from a variety of military states competed, were about Greek solidarity.

The Olympic games are a worldwide event. There are terrible human rights violations that happen all over the world. The United States, for example, has held alleged terrorists for years without trial, subjecting them to what Geneva defines as torture. Yet I doubt that there would be this kind of human rights discussion if the games were being held in New York this year. While it is true that China is guilty of human rights violations, this travesty of justice is outside the scope of the games. The Chinese deserve our criticism, but if we want to take political action for their policies in Tibet, we need to hit them where it hurts - in the pocketbook: we simply boycott companies that manufacture their products in China.

Peace.

Critiquing the Critics

I read The Huffington Post from time to time. Today, I think I decided why it is that I've never fully bought into Arriana Huffington's pet project. Jacob Heilbrunn reminded us that people who work in the Bush State Department are not free to pursue politics on their own time - as though this is something new. In his pithy posting on , "Bush Bans State Department from Obama Rally" Heilbrun misses a point that I think the political structure and the media will need to face at some point down the road, if not very soon.

Does Heilbrun think this is somehow an "extreme" position for the Bushies to take? Does anyone sincerely believe that Nancy Pelosi or any of the other majority WIMPS in the legislature will take a stand on this, when they won't even vote to impeach our despot/President for High Crimes, that only Karl Rove and Fixed News can deny with a straight face?

There are a list of offenses against the despot, George W. Bush, so grievous as to demand redress by an informed and concerned electorate, to say nothing of bringing the full and proper weight of checks and balances down on him by a Legislature and Judiciary WHO FAILED US, and continues to fail us to this day.

And what about the press - that fourth branch of the government we've all heard so much about? Why were they silent for so long, only now summoning the courage to shout at the bully when his back is to you, on his way out of the room?

Don't do us any favors, Heilbrun. The two party system needs to go. The existing press needs to go with them.