Bush has been holding an unknown number of "enemy combatants" on a military base in Cuba.
Gonzales and others helped Bush avoid giving a fair trial to these "enemy combatants."
The kangaroo court failed today. Horribly. See the full story from the AP here.
The system set up by "legal experts" like Gonzales, only has jurisdiction over "unlawful enemy combatants."
We don't have any of those. Only "enemy combatants."
Today, that military court correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the "enemy combatants" held in Cuba.
All the enemy combatants remain in legal limbo despite the best legal minds in the U.S.
Well, at least those legal minds willing to work for Gonzales and Bush et al.
If the prosecution in today's ruling wants to appeal the judges decision, there is an appeal process.
However, the appeals court does not exist. It was never formed.
How do you think this will work into the hands of our enemies?
If I were going to put a spin on it, I'd get footage from the old black and white Superman television series. Remember that little slogan, Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Good old Superman with his hands on his hips, cape blowing in the wind?
Just slow down the speed. And have a talking head ridicule Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Maybe put Bush's head on Superman's body.
But, I don't have to spin it.
Monday, June 4, 2007
The Lie of better economic times
I'm never going to finish exposing all the lies by the GOP's talking heads.
But, I'm starting to move on.
Under Clinton, crime as measured in statistics fell while the population grew. A good source for this is the FBI national crime statistics.
Clinton did not impose restrictions on libery such as have been imposed by the Patriot Act.
Television entertainment shows were not doing internet stings operations on child predators like Dateline and a few others have done.
Crime rates overall fell. The economy grew. Population grew.
Since the year 2000, Clinton's last year in office, the economy has staggered a couple of times.
The standard Republican tool for any economic condition, good or bad, is cutting taxes for corporations and the rich by a huge amount. While giving average people a few scraps that look like tax cuts.
Yummy!
Here is a story from the AP on how crime is increasing. Increasing despite combining many criminal databasess under a department of Homeland Security. Despite record levels of the stock market. Despite political stumps speeches how GOP candidates are the party of Law and Order.
Tongue in cheek, notice that the Liberal Heartland, the northeast did not have the problems of the Deeply Conservative South.
"Violent crime rose in every region of the country except for the Northeast."
That would include Boston and New York. Kennedy Country and Clinton Country.
But, I'm starting to move on.
Under Clinton, crime as measured in statistics fell while the population grew. A good source for this is the FBI national crime statistics.
Clinton did not impose restrictions on libery such as have been imposed by the Patriot Act.
Television entertainment shows were not doing internet stings operations on child predators like Dateline and a few others have done.
Crime rates overall fell. The economy grew. Population grew.
Since the year 2000, Clinton's last year in office, the economy has staggered a couple of times.
The standard Republican tool for any economic condition, good or bad, is cutting taxes for corporations and the rich by a huge amount. While giving average people a few scraps that look like tax cuts.
Yummy!
Here is a story from the AP on how crime is increasing. Increasing despite combining many criminal databasess under a department of Homeland Security. Despite record levels of the stock market. Despite political stumps speeches how GOP candidates are the party of Law and Order.
Tongue in cheek, notice that the Liberal Heartland, the northeast did not have the problems of the Deeply Conservative South.
"Violent crime rose in every region of the country except for the Northeast."
That would include Boston and New York. Kennedy Country and Clinton Country.
Tom Nichols Column, Gainesville Times
I thought this column earned a reprint on my blog. Thanks Tom.
On the same day in late May that my great friend RW died of a heart problem, some seven U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. I have been thinking about war and death ever since.
RW and I often talked about our military service. He was two years older than me and served in the Navy in World War II and was part of the Normandy Beach invasion as a medic.
After he came home, he decided to go to pharmacy school and joined the Army ROTC to help pay for his education. His dad had died when he was only 17 and so he had to pay for his own college education. ROTC helped.
But when the Korean War broke out, his unit was called up and he spent three long and very difficult years as a medic in several M.A.S.H. units near the front line.
After those experiences he had nightmares, which brought back memories of those events. After a while those dreams ceased, he got married, had a family, and began a 50-year career as a pharmacist.
He hated war because of the hell he had lived through.
To beat the draft, and to gain GI Bill financial support for my education after graduating from high school, I joined the Army and was assigned to the Army Air Corps in the occupation of Japan.
While I had not seen the cruel reality of the killing that war entails, I hated war for what it does to all involved. I passed through Hiroshima less than a year after we dropped an atom bomb on it. I remember what ruins I saw from the train window.
The atom bomb ended World War II. But we killed civilians as well as military, old, young, everybody in range of the blast. War is hell.
When our Founding Fathers drafted the U.S. Constitution, they made the president serve as commander in chief of all the military. But they put a restraint on his military powers. He cannot declare war. Only Congress has that power.
Perhaps a second restraint is stronger. The president must go to Congress for all money to be spent on our military. Congress controls the purse strings, but when war is waging, they usually give the president what he wants so as not to leave our military without funds to continue fighting.
The Constitution did not envision a standing army. Instead, it gave citizens the right to bear arms so that when the British redcoats or other invaders approached their village, the citizens could rush out the door after grabbing the handy musket and become a form of local National Guard. After the war, the citizens would return home, replace the musket by the door, and let life continue.
Now, we have a standing Army, and a National Guard that can be called up by the president.
I believe that conflicting viewpoints in an open discussion are absolutely essential to the existence of a true democracy.
The discussions we are having currently about the validity of the war in Iraq are healthy for our country, but they should have been done much earlier. I wish that President Bush had asked for a declaration of war that would have given Congress the opportunity to have a debate. Congress represents us, the people, and we are divided over this war. A debate could help us think about options, and consequences.
I know that current conditions are different from when the Constitution was drafted. Then, we could declare war on nation states only. Now we are fighting terrorists in many guises.
We could declare war on a nation state that directly supports terrorist organizations by providing money and a safe haven in which terrorists could organize and train would-be terrorists. However, our main enemies today are not nation-states, but elusive terrorist organizations in fanatic cell groups.
No war since World War II has been a declared war. Beginning with the Korean War, we have fought "police actions."
I see no reason that Congress could not have a debate over whether or not to declare a state of emergency that would justify a police action on behalf of the United Nations, NATO or other organizations.
My friend, RW, and I believed that to live is to have the opportunity to make a difference in our world in which we exist. To die is to end that opportunity forever.
Our greatest national treasure is not gold in Fort Knox. It is the blood of those who fight to defend our country. We should not waste any of our military's blood. We should debate fully before any of our military are sent into harm's way to undertake a war or police action necessary to our national security.
I greatly value the discussions that RW and I had, especially those about his accounts of war that he had seen firsthand. It was an honor to have been his friend.
Tom Nichols is a retired college professor who lives in Gainesville; e-mail, wtomnichols@charter.net.
Originally published Monday, June 4, 2007Saturday, June 2, 2007
Reposting some Employment figures
People often think numbers and facts should be in any positive discussion. In heated conflicts with multiple points of view, numbers and authority based on numbers will not settle the dispute. With the understanding that sources are always open to question, including government web pages, I am presenting the an unpopular point of view in North Georgia.
Year Civilian Labeled % Labeled Labeled Unemployed Discount
Population Employed Employed Not-Employed Rate*
1992 192805 118492 61.5 64700 9613 3.00
1993 194838 120259 61.7 65638 8940 3.00
1994 196814 123060 62.5 65758 7996 4.75
1995 198584 124900 62.9 66280 7404 5.25
1996 200591 126708 63.2 66647 7236 5.00
1997 203133 129558 63.8 66837 6739 5.00
1998 205220 131463 64.1 67547 6210 4.75
1999 207753 133488 64.3 68385 5880 4.00
2000 212577 136891 64.4 69994 5692 6.00
I assembled the Clinton data table from only two sources. The discount rate information comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. This single rate figure per year does not fully reflect all changes within that respective year. The Discount Rate, as it was called, can be changed up and down within a year. Data was selected to be near the year-end. As the population grew between 1992 and 2000, more people became employed and fewer people were classified as unemployed.
Clinton Era ’92 to ’00 Data Table
Numbers in thousand unless expressed as a percentage or a rate*.
Bush Era Data Table ’01 to ‘04
Year Civilian Labeled % Labeled Labeled Unemployed Discount
Population Employed Employed Not-Employed Rate*
2000 212,577 136,891 64.4 69,994 5,692 6.00
2001 215,092 136,933 63.7 71,359 6,801 1.25
2002 217,570 136,485 62.7 72,707 8,378 0.75
2003 221,168 137,736 62.3 74,658 8,774 2.00
2004 223,357 139,252 62.3 75,956 8,149 3.75
Numbers in thousand unless expressed as a percentage or a rate*.
I assembled the Bush data from the same sources. It shows more people unemployed and fewer people (as a percentage) as employed. This represents trends that differ strongly between the two administrations.
There is more information out there. This data is my choice. The employment numbers during the Clinton era grew under a heavier discount rate burden. The economic growth rate ( as defined by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, including inflation ) grew rapidly. The discount rate was increased to slow that growth during the Clinton Era just as it was lowered during the Bush Era to increase growth (and recently raised to control inflation ).
I don’t look upon these numbers as settling any dispute. Other data to be examined include Balance of Payments, Total Debt as reported by the US Treasury, money supply, velocity of money, savings, consumer debt and its components. Some might include stock market figures and exchange rates.
Year Civilian Labeled % Labeled Labeled Unemployed Discount
Population Employed Employed Not-Employed Rate*
1992 192805 118492 61.5 64700 9613 3.00
1993 194838 120259 61.7 65638 8940 3.00
1994 196814 123060 62.5 65758 7996 4.75
1995 198584 124900 62.9 66280 7404 5.25
1996 200591 126708 63.2 66647 7236 5.00
1997 203133 129558 63.8 66837 6739 5.00
1998 205220 131463 64.1 67547 6210 4.75
1999 207753 133488 64.3 68385 5880 4.00
2000 212577 136891 64.4 69994 5692 6.00
I assembled the Clinton data table from only two sources. The discount rate information comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. This single rate figure per year does not fully reflect all changes within that respective year. The Discount Rate, as it was called, can be changed up and down within a year. Data was selected to be near the year-end. As the population grew between 1992 and 2000, more people became employed and fewer people were classified as unemployed.
Clinton Era ’92 to ’00 Data Table
Numbers in thousand unless expressed as a percentage or a rate*.
Bush Era Data Table ’01 to ‘04
Year Civilian Labeled % Labeled Labeled Unemployed Discount
Population Employed Employed Not-Employed Rate*
2000 212,577 136,891 64.4 69,994 5,692 6.00
2001 215,092 136,933 63.7 71,359 6,801 1.25
2002 217,570 136,485 62.7 72,707 8,378 0.75
2003 221,168 137,736 62.3 74,658 8,774 2.00
2004 223,357 139,252 62.3 75,956 8,149 3.75
Numbers in thousand unless expressed as a percentage or a rate*.
I assembled the Bush data from the same sources. It shows more people unemployed and fewer people (as a percentage) as employed. This represents trends that differ strongly between the two administrations.
There is more information out there. This data is my choice. The employment numbers during the Clinton era grew under a heavier discount rate burden. The economic growth rate ( as defined by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, including inflation ) grew rapidly. The discount rate was increased to slow that growth during the Clinton Era just as it was lowered during the Bush Era to increase growth (and recently raised to control inflation ).
I don’t look upon these numbers as settling any dispute. Other data to be examined include Balance of Payments, Total Debt as reported by the US Treasury, money supply, velocity of money, savings, consumer debt and its components. Some might include stock market figures and exchange rates.
Friday, June 1, 2007
FEMA WARNING!
No, FEMA did not issue a warning. I'm warning taxpayers about FEMA.
Mike Brown ran FEMA into the gutter. Yeah, you would think that would be the gutters in New Orleans. But, no, I'm talking about how FEMA has been put in charge of deciding to remove wetlands from federal protection.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 as modified in 1977 protected wetlands and gave the Army Corps of Engineer power to define and delineate wetlands for protection.
Not any more. Since the Homeland Security Act, FEMA has been running that show. FEMA can issue a letter at whim making wetlands disappear. POOF!
All it takes is a letter and not only are wetlands gone but floodplains, too.
Not what does that mean to the taxpayers?
IF a hurricane hits and floods an area, with several inches of rain, homeowners will be begging the Federal government to rebuild their flooded home. Yes, like in New Orleans where the federal and state governments are spending BILLIONS to repair private homes and businesses.
But New Orleans is just one area. Georgia has 1 out of every 10 acres of wetlands in the United States. And, huge coastal floodplains as well as huge flooding in the mountains and the city of Atlanta just to name three areas.
What is happening and has been happening, in parts of Georgia, developers are having entire subdivisions removed from the 100 year floodplain with just a letter. No investigations. Plats are being filed in court houses that don't show existing wetlands or existing floodplains.
People, innocent people, buy the houses built in the real world floodplain with a 1 in 4 chance their properties will be damaged by a flood. But, because FEMA filed a little old piece of paper, the builders did not disclose the flood history of the property. And, property buyers were not FORCED to buy flood insurance.
No private insurance coverage means the federal government will be doing more than it's share of water removal and repair.
If the severe drought gets hit hard by a hurricane.
Think about the GOP policy of being pro-development at any costs to the taxpayer and consumer.
FEMA is eliminating history. A history home buyers have a right to access in public records. Records that builders don't want the buyer to see. After all, who would knowingly buy a home in a floodplain? A rational buyer would not.
Look for a huge liability for state, local, and federal taxpayers in the upcoming hurricane season.
Thanks to Mike Brown, FEMA, Homeland Security, the GOP, and the special interest called developers.
Mike Brown ran FEMA into the gutter. Yeah, you would think that would be the gutters in New Orleans. But, no, I'm talking about how FEMA has been put in charge of deciding to remove wetlands from federal protection.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 as modified in 1977 protected wetlands and gave the Army Corps of Engineer power to define and delineate wetlands for protection.
Not any more. Since the Homeland Security Act, FEMA has been running that show. FEMA can issue a letter at whim making wetlands disappear. POOF!
All it takes is a letter and not only are wetlands gone but floodplains, too.
Not what does that mean to the taxpayers?
IF a hurricane hits and floods an area, with several inches of rain, homeowners will be begging the Federal government to rebuild their flooded home. Yes, like in New Orleans where the federal and state governments are spending BILLIONS to repair private homes and businesses.
But New Orleans is just one area. Georgia has 1 out of every 10 acres of wetlands in the United States. And, huge coastal floodplains as well as huge flooding in the mountains and the city of Atlanta just to name three areas.
What is happening and has been happening, in parts of Georgia, developers are having entire subdivisions removed from the 100 year floodplain with just a letter. No investigations. Plats are being filed in court houses that don't show existing wetlands or existing floodplains.
People, innocent people, buy the houses built in the real world floodplain with a 1 in 4 chance their properties will be damaged by a flood. But, because FEMA filed a little old piece of paper, the builders did not disclose the flood history of the property. And, property buyers were not FORCED to buy flood insurance.
No private insurance coverage means the federal government will be doing more than it's share of water removal and repair.
If the severe drought gets hit hard by a hurricane.
Think about the GOP policy of being pro-development at any costs to the taxpayer and consumer.
FEMA is eliminating history. A history home buyers have a right to access in public records. Records that builders don't want the buyer to see. After all, who would knowingly buy a home in a floodplain? A rational buyer would not.
Look for a huge liability for state, local, and federal taxpayers in the upcoming hurricane season.
Thanks to Mike Brown, FEMA, Homeland Security, the GOP, and the special interest called developers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
