Campaign Wrap Up

The calendar says September 19 was only 45 days ago. It has been 45 of the longest days of my life. Not is a bad way but in literally long hours of hectic, interesting and stressful days. I wouldn’t have missed it for the world. Here are some things I’ve learned in the last 45 days:

Some of the side streets of Clinton are among the worst streets in the developed world. Seriously. I've been to some pretty run-down places in Europe and certain streets in Clinton put the side roads of Slovakia, Poland and Croatia to shame. To wit: Parts of Cleveland Avenue, 14th Street by the Arboretum – one of our finer City institutions no less – blocks long stretches of Roosevelt and McKinley, so say nothing of 18th Avenue N. by my own home. This situation is the product of decades of neglect. It is going to take at least a decade to fix.

People sense that times are changing; that with great changes come opportunities. The citizens of Clinton know that we are well positioned to take advantage of those opportunities. They also know that it will take a change in mindset and a change in the way of doing things if we are going to be a leading city in the Midwest instead of a laggard.

The citizens of Clinton are weary of the same old way of doing things. They want a city government that is more transparent and more engaged with the voters. Far too many people feel --rightly or wrongly -- that important decisions are back-room deals and the results presented to the voters as fait accomplis. Improving this situation is mainly the responsibility of the city staff and city officials. But a big part of fixing this also means getting our local media more involved. It is not good enough just to report literally what is said every two weeks. The job of the media is to provide all-important background, analysis and context for voters. We have to demand more of both the city and the media.

Finally, the people of Clinton are tremendously optimistic, honest, engaged, informed and open-hearted people. Through all the hard work, it has been a great pleasure to get to know Clinton better. It has been an honor to have many place a great burden of trust in me. It is no wonder that Iowa has become the place where the process of picking our next president begins.

That same burden of trust has been placed on all of us by our founding fathers. I urge all of you to pick up that burden for the half-hour or so it will take to vote on Tuesday. In these troubled times, where so little is being asked of us in support of such vital causes it is one thing we can do that matters the most.

Whatever the result on Tuesday night, I look forward to continuing to work and serve in this wonderful city on the Mississippi. I hope that this election can be a new beginning of community involvement. Because I truly believe that together, we really can make Clinton a great place to be.

----------------
Now playing: The Pogues - Young Ned of the Hill
via FoxyTunes

Keys to Success in Iraq

I attended Sen. Barack Obama's speech on Iraq in Clinton today. First, off I was rather impressed that he has attracted Zbigniew Brzezinski as an advisor to his campaign. Mr. Brzezinski introduced Obama.

The actual pullout plan was a small part of a speech that was focused on the need for a pull out as a prerequisite to re-engage America's diplomatic and political efforts to secure peace not only in Iraq but in the region. Obama promised to personally conduct diplomacy to this end.

Obama also stated that a final resolution must come from the Iraqi people as part of a new constitutional order. He mentioned a soft partition as a possible solution but stressed that it must be the Iraqis' decision, not one imposed from above.

He focused on the cost of the war in both lives, money and in the things not done: education, healthcare, etc.

Good speech. Rational, and as many have said, there are no good choices left in Iraq any more. Only bad choices and worse choices. A lot of this is straight out of the Iraq Study Group proposals from last year. The rest just common sense.

Mock this (or any Democrat's) plan if you must. But compare it to the Bush administration's Keys to Success:



----------------
Now playing: Pearl Jam - Black (2004 Remix)
via FoxyTunes

Meanwhile, Back at the Statehouse...

Sen. John Putney, R-Gladbrook, has become the third Iowa senator to retire in a few weeks.

Putney was elected in 2002 and is in his second term. He is head of the Iowa State Fair Blue Ribbon Foundation, and said he'll focus his time and energy on the State Fair after he leaves office.

He joins Senate Republican Leader Mary Lundby, of Marion, and Sen. Thurman Gaskill, of Corwith, in announcing plans to not seek re-election.

All three are veteran lawmakers who would be overwhelming favorites to win another term in office, and their decisions mean Republicans will have to defend at least three open seats in next year's election.

Democrats grabbed control of the Senate in last year's election by a lopsided 30-20 edge. They also control the House by a 53-47 margin and hold the governor's office. That gives Democrats control of state government for the first time in 42 years, and Republicans are struggling to recover.

Of the 25 Senate seats that will be on the ballot next year, Republicans must defend 14 while 11 Democrats are on the ballot. None of the Democrats facing re-election have announced plans to step down.

Progressives are presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cement a veto-proof majority in both houses of the legislature.

We need to focus on finding good candidates in all districts. And in January when the legislature convenes, we need to apply pressure to this new legislature to follow-up on the wishes of the people that put them there: to pass VOICE with mandatory limits and to produce some meaningful health care reform, for starters. Then they can get down to the serious work of finding a way to fund the maintenance of Iowa's roads and bridges in the future.

----------------
Now playing: Chicago Public Radio
via FoxyTunes

Tidbits for the End of Summer

I've set a personal record for monthly billings this month so, I'm a bit bushed. I'll be making some major posts soon. In the meantime, here are some tidbits that will be of interest to regular readers:

One of the best sources for inside information on energy policy has called it quits. Policy Pete has hung 'em up. His last post should be at the link above. As far as I know, Pete -- whose pseudonym I have cursorily attempted to break through to no avail, but whose domain is owned by, Grand Finandels Trust, a company that seems to abide by the old WASP slogan, "A person's name should appear in the paper when they are born, when they marry and when they die." --is apparently a player in in the energy and financial sectors. Hopefully he will keep his archive up in perpetuity. It's links will remain a treasure trove of resources on energy policy. And for what it is worth in regards to my last post on the Magic Number for Peak Oil being 86.13mdb in 2006, Pete's pick is: 107mbd in 2017. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

If you are going to go and make one of the centerpieces of your political career anti-homosexuality and you have irresistible urges to engage in intercourse with members of the same sex you should probably consider a job in the private sector. What is it with these guys anyway?

If have that feeling, as I often do, that despite "reasonable" raises over the past six years or so you feel like you actually have less to spend, then you are probably right. Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture wraps up some recent findings in Real Income Fails to Rise for Most of the 2000's. Remember, the Fed's inflation statistics measures inflation ex-inflation

Hang in there. A site redesign is in the works and a major post coming early next week.

----------------
Now playing: This Picture - "Naked Rain"
via WOXY Vintage

Whither the GOP

Watching the continuing pissing contests between Rudy and Mitt about who is "tougher" on immigration is really quite sad. The entire GOP nomination contest thus far seems like a race to the bottom to corner the market on the religious fanatic and crypto-fascist voting blocs which, apparently are now necessary to secure the Republican nomination.

All to the good in my opinion. The Republican party in its present form could use eight, twelve or sixteen years in the political wilderness.

Former John McCain political strategist, Patrick Hynes, takes a magnifying glass to his own party's increasing fragmentation.

First, let’s be clear, American conservatism has devolved from a movement into an identity group. After my client Sen. John McCain decided not to attend this year Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) a great many of my friends demanded to know why. Now, these were my friends and I knew which of them did and did not support Sen. McCain (or were ever even likely to support Sen. McCain), so I countered their demands with a simple question: But you don’t like Sen. McCain and you have said you would never vote for him under any circumstances; why would you even want him here? Without exception the reply came back as some variation of the following: Because he needs us and if he expects us to support him he needs to come to us, we’re not going to go to him.

This is the language of an identity group, not a movement. This is the identical sentiment expressed by the NAACP when Bob Dole decided not to speak at their conference in 1996. My conservative friends were not the least bit interested in John McCain’s 24-year pro-life voting record or his stalwart fight again corrupting pork and profligate spending. No, they were interested in being shown respect.

But respect is a two-way street, which brings me to my second point: Identity-group conservatives have shown a shocking lack of respect for fellow conservatives who stray on a particular issue or two. I have personally had my patriotism questioned by (ex-) friends because I believe in a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. National Review infamously lambasted non-Iraq War supporting conservatives as “Unpatriotic” in 2003. A healthy movement can withstand the occasional division on key issues; a chauvinistic identity group cannot...

Of course, winning the War on Terror - whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Boston, New York or wherever — is vitally important. I’m not warning my conservative friends off the idea of furthering the cause of global freedom; but we need to acknowledge that the public is simply not with us on the Iraq War and growing more distrustful of us by the day on the broader conflict against radical Islamism. If we are going to insist that national security is one of our two signature issues, we ought to, at the very least, have credibility on it...

When it comes to our issues matrix in the present political environment, I have to be the bearer of bad news to my rightwing friends: The party of torture and immigration restriction is not a majority party and doesn’t have much of a future.

Petition Drive 101

For those from out of town, the Clinton Community Schools wish to extend the Instructional Support Levy (property tax assessment) a further one percent to a 9 percent rate. This translates into 26 cents per $1,000 of assesed value. On a $200,000 home, that's $52.00 per year. $52 per year, per homeowner to help fund the schools.

More background here, all the financial details, here.

There are those who feel that any tax increase no matter how small, no matter in what cause is one more small step towards Communism. They announced a petition drive to force a referendum on the tax increase, as is their Constitutional right, nay duty to do. Of course, they knew full well that no city referendum has passed in Clinton since the original ISL Levy passed on its second attemt in 2002. And there is one nearly every year.

When the petitions were submitted<, well, things weren't quite as cut and dried as they seemed as today's article shows:

On Aug. 6, a petition was filed by community members, with Board Secretary and District Business Director Gayle Isaac to submit the following resolution to the voters: “Shall the Clinton Community School District, of Clinton, Iowa, be authorized to levy a 1 percent increase from 8 percent to 9 percent, the assessed rate of 26 cents per $1,000 property evaluation and to also increase to 8 percent the state income tax surtax rate from the support of the Instructional Support Levy; with the collection of the levy commencing July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013.”

The petition has to have 401 valid signatures. But according to Clinton School District Superintendent Randy Clegg, the petition was worded incorrectly and the petition did not have the required number of signatures.

...

“Their petition actually calls for an election on an instructional support program that is worded in such a way that it will not work,” he explained.

The petition also failed to be presented with the required 401 signatures of eligible voters as required under Iowa Code Section 257.18(2).

The petition was forwarded to the Clinton County Auditor, Commissioner of Elections, Charlie Sheridan. He reviewed the petition to determine if it contained the required number of signatures. An analysis provided to the district showed that only 374 verifiable signatures of eligible voters were on the petition.

During tonight’s meeting, the board will go into closed session as provided in Section 21.5(1)(c) of the open meetings law to discuss strategies with counsel. When the meeting reopens, Clegg said the board will act on a resolution to invalidate the petition.

Does anyone know how many signatures the committee claimed to have? Shocking I know, but the Herald seems to have omitted this salient fact.

410 are required but how many did they claim to have turned in? The article says the Auditor only validated 374. That's a six percent miss.

Six to ten percent is pretty average for a petition drive. People sign twice (deliberately or not) non-eligible people sign ("Here, have my cousin from Sabula sign too!"). So in order to guarantee a good petition drive, you should have, say at least 10 percent more signatures than you need.

Of course, turning in more signatures shows political muscle, so lots of groups will go out of their way to deliver two or three times the required number. But, 28 days is a tight schedule, so I can see where just getting the bare minimum for comfort was the best doable option.

So, a ten percent cushion would mean submitting at least 442 signatures.

If the signature count isn't good enough, then arcane arguments about resolution language are moot. Of course, if one were in deadly earnest about this issue, one would probably also have an attorney familiar with ballot language at least have a look at it first.

The petition language thing is (I suppose) legit. Although I think what it is really about is a big middle finger from the School District to the petition organizers. It is the School District saying, "We can pay for lawyers. Can you?" Hardball? Certainly. Suitable for Clinton? Most would say no, but a great man once said, "Politics ain't beanbag."

Play to win or go home.

The hearing was tonight. More as it develops.

Edit The wife informs me that this article from last week tells me that 475 signatures were handed in. That's a whopping 25 percent miss rate. So, pretty sloppy work on the petition drive. You have to police that stuff. It's not total signatures, it's total valid signatures.

Still, if the School Board had any inkling they were that far off the mark, why bother to play hardball with the petition language?

----------------
Now playing: Duke Ellington - "Mood Indigo"
via FoxyTunes

Real Energy Bills Pass the House

H.R. 2776, The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act was passed in the House in a rare Sunday session. The vote was 215 - 191 with five Democrats and all Republicans voting nay. Link to roll call. Next step the Senate.

Key provisions of H.R. 2776:

• Extends through 2012 the tax credit for the pro more...duction of electricity from renewable resources (e.g., wind, closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, small irrigation power, municipal solid waste, and qualified hydropower).


• Allows a new tax credit for the production of qualified plug-in hybrid motor vehicles. Defines "qualified plug-in hybrid vehicle" as a motor vehicle weighing less than 14,000 pounds that meets certain emission standards under the Clean Air Act and that is propelled to a significant extent by an electric motor that draws electricity from a rechargeable battery.

H.R. 3221 was re-titled at the last minute, The United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act. (ed. - I have no idea.) It passed on Sunday also on a mostly party line vote, 241 - 171. (Link to roll call.

This bill contained the Udall Renewable Energy Porfolio Standard. Link to bill.

Earlier in the year the Senate had rejected a bill with an RPS provision. So conference committee is where the sausage will finally be made.
----------------
Now playing: Sugar - "Helpless"
via WOXY

House Energy Legislation Update

The CAFE standards seem to have been pulled from consideration. The renewable energy portfolio standard (former H.R. 969) has been added as an amendment to H.R. 3221, a general energy bill being sponsored by Speaker Pelosi.

The Oil Drum will have all the developments. Check the comments.

----------------
Now playing: Joan As Police Woman - "I Defy"
via WOXY

Motion on Energy Bills in the House.

Two major energy bills are headed towards floor votes in the House probably Friday, Aug 4. I haven't yet sorted out what amendments were made yesterday. This is one of those Congressional doozies, a 700-plus page bill of high complexity that will have a lasting impact on the future of the nation. Lawmakers will thus only have about 48 hours to familiarize themselves with its provisions.

In all likelihood we will be seeing two major provisions:
1) Higher CAFE (mandated fuel economy) standards for autos and trucks.
2) A national renewable energy portfolio standard for utilities.

Full coverage, including links to the bills and info on amendments are over at The OilDrum. I'll be weighing in later as the actual provisions become clear.

Update, 3:30, Aug. 2: The national renewable energy portfolio bill is H.R. 969 sponsored by Rep. Tom Udall (D NM-3). Not sure of its particular status. Comments on TOD say it has been pulled, but Grist Magazine says it is scheduled for a vote on Friday. Also on deck is the larger energy and tax bill, H.R. 2776 from Rep. Charlie Rangel (D NY-15).

Open Congress will have your legislators' contact information (as if you didn't already know it).

----------------
Now playing: Dappled Cities - "Fire Fire Fire"
via WOXY

Clinton, Obama and Fear.

It isn't that I would be dead-set against a Hillary Clinton presidency. I will gladly work hard for whoever gets the nomination. We are blessed with a great group of candidates. Presidential timbre abounds all the way down the ballot. (Well, I suppose if some absurd twist of fate rendered unto us Kucinich or Gravel, I might have second thoughts.)

However, there is something to be said for going with your gut and backing those you believe in. It would be nice to have a candidate who one can wholeheartedly support as opposed to, "(s)he's better than the alternative," which is what it has boiled down to in three of the five presidential elections for which I have been voting age. Andrew Sullivan nails pretty well my thinking on the Clinton vs. Obama.
Clinton, Obama and Fear:

One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars. Here's a simple current example: her position on needle exchanges to reduce HIV transmission among IV drug users. Ben Smith recounts the tale here. The last Clinton administration refused to prevent HIV transmission this way, regardless of the science and epidemiology, because they were terrified of being labeled "liberal" by the GOP machine. Clinton still hasn't out-grown that (which is why I confidently predict that if she becomes president, progress toward gay equality will slow, because a leading Democrat will impede it in a long slog of triangulation and risk-aversion). Her classic formulation today is what it was before:

"We'll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances."

Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.

The Case for Impeachment, Part I: The Conservative Case.

Note: Since I started composing this during the Forth of July weekend a lot more has happened. All of it has only furthered my opinion that this administration must be slapped down, hard, for the sake of our future as a republic.

My thinking has progressed in the last couple of months. I used to be among those who held one of two opinions regarding impeachment. One, that impeachment would be a distraction, a partisan political circus that would get the Republicans backs up and in the end probably not accomplish much except to drag all involved even further down the abyss of cynicism and politics-as-usual. Two, that from a Progressive perspective, letting the current administration continue along its criminal, bumbling, traitorous course all the way through to November 2006 -- and making the GOP presidential candidates either defend it or walk away -- was the best strategy towards making a Democratic president in January, 2009 a foregone conclusion.

My attitude was a combination of the two. But in the last six weeks or so there has just been a torrent of insanity emanating from the general direction of The White House and One Observatory Circle that has forced me to rethink my position. From the Gonzalez mess, to the Libby commutation, to the cynical farce (QT video) regarding the status of the Office of the Vice President, I've finally seen enough.

My attitude now is that this gang has gone so far beyond the pale, so far outside even the very generous boundaries of our corrupt political culture that they are now a threat to the future of the Republic. My logic is simply thus: if the Bush Gang are able get away with all that they have done and if their only penalty is to simply slouch out of office in January, 2009 as public failures, their fortunes and reputations among their peers intact, their futures secure; then what chance do we have of ever getting a decent, honest and open government ever again?

In this first part of a two-part screed. I am going to lay out the rationale why the Republican Party itself should be supporting impeachment. Although, I do not make a habit of following the rantings of the 26% rump of the nation which continues to support Bush, I do pay attention to a number of conservative thinkers; Andrew Sullivan, Washington Post, Commissioner of Baseball, George Will, and the venerable, William F. Buckley, Jr..

Sullivan, arguably representative of the future of the GOP has long since abandoned the Bush Administration. Will, beltway-bound charter member of the Washington Establishment has not, but he grumbles , ominously. Buckley, representative of the Old Guard of the party has bailed on Bush as well and worries with good reason, that he may drag the party down with him. It is useful to note that the president's increasingly desperate defenders have begun to attack the conservative movement's eminence Gris, as "a coward."

So, the Conservative Case for Impeachment.

1. Domestic Spying: The Bush program of warrantless, mass domestic eavesdropping violates one of the sacred of conservative ideals -- or of small-d democratic ideals for that matter -- of freedom from constant surveillance by the government, the right to be left alone.
   
   Recent Revelations during el escándalo de Gonzales have shown that such loony left oddballs as former Attorney General, John Ashcroft, had strong reservations about the legality of the Administration's domestic spying program. Ashcroft resisted it from his sickbed. Not just Ashcroft, but also career Justice Department officials who apparently take seriously their oath to, "protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
   
   For those of a more Machiavellian outlook who might justify this program for it's (purported) necessity to give us the ability to track down (potential) terrorists, foreign and domestic. I will simply ask this question: if it remains legal and unpunished, how would you feel about it if it were under the control of the Hillary Clinton White House?
   
   This program is by all appearances an unconstitutional threat to the values and principles of the United States. It is in opposition to good conservative values and the administration's failure to justify its necessity or to testify to its breadth and extent certainly qualifies as a potential high crime or misdemeanor.



2. War on False Pretenses and War Crimes: The modern conservative movement has always had a bit of a isolationist streak. But practically speaking it has been (generally) practiced along lines of competence, think Howard Baker, Colin Powell. The greatest victory of a conservative president came through his canny ability to outflank and outlast its main rival, the Soviet Union, without resort to war.
   
   During the Revolutionary War, Thomas Paine wrote a number of pamphlets, mostly addressed as open letters to British military and government persons, called The American Crisis. In The American Crisis V, addressed to General William Howe, Paine wrote:
   

   
   "If there is a sin superior to every other, it is that of willful and offensive war. Most other sins are circumscribed within narrow limits, that is, the power of one man cannot give them a very general extension, and many kinds of sins have only a mental existence from which no infection arises; but he who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death."
   

   
   
   The invasion of Iraq, based on lies is bad enough. But multiple war crimes have been committed there, from Abu Ghraib to many instances of willful civilian murders. Open source records, especially those from General Taguba, indicate that these violations of both federal, military and international laws took place with the sure knowledge and probable approval of the highest levels of the Administration.
   
   The invasion itself, in both its motives and its execution was clearly in opposition to conservative values. The behavior of the U.S. in Iraq and our crimes there have severely eroded our international standing, but more than that, have put all American soldiers, sailors and airmen at risk. Just ask the families of the two poor troopers who were captured in battle last month.
   


3. Suspension of Habeus Corpus & Extra-Judicial Detentions: "The Great Writ," habeus corpus, which is latin for, "produce the body," simply states that the government cannot imprison a person without having to bring the suspect before a judge in open court and justify the charges against him/her. It is one of the fundamental building blocks not only of the American justice system, but that of most civilized nations.
   
   The idea that a government can simply pick a person up off the street and throw them into jail indefinitely with no need to give justification to anyone outside the government is simply abhorrent to the civilized mind. Whether that person is a citizen of the country in question or not is irrelevant. If the United States wishes to have decent relations with its neighbors in the world it must abide by the rules of global society, which say that only dictatorships and barbarian states do such things.
   
   No law or policy put forward by this administration has withstood judicial scrutiny with regards to the one American citizen thus treated, or to those in Guantanamo. The status of those who have disappeared into the national security apparatus cannot even be discussed because it is so top secret.
   
   Again, for those who might justify this on its purported necessity, one simply has to ask the question, how will you feel about it when these powers are in the hands of those whose political aims you oppose? For example, what if, under some future liberal administration the scope of "potential terrorist" is expanded to include those who possess automatic weapons?
   
   No, these violations of our constitution are too egregious to permit any administration to continue to wield them.
   

That is merely the reading of the high crimes and misdemeanors. From open source materials alone, there is ample substance there for the average American to conclude that George Bush and Dick Cheney are answerable for serious offences against the American people and their Constitution. It would be up to the Senate to determine guilt or innocence of course.

Crude political logic seems to me to indicate that if the conservative movement wishes to remain relevant in American politics they should lead or at least be vocal from the rear in forcing this Administration to defend itself against high crimes and misdemeanors.

The longer the conservative mainstream and the Republican Party continues to support Bush and more relevantly -- those like Guliani and Romney who wish to replace his person but not his policies -- the less likely they are to ever hold power again in this country (by any legitimate means) for the foreseeable future.

But a movement to impeach, abetted and supported by leading conservatives would send a strong signal to the nation that the movement and the party has had enough and absolutely rejects the methods, policies and criminality of the Bush Gang and their brand of "conservatism." The "conservatism" of George Bush and Dick Cheney bears no resemblance to the conservatism of Goldwater, Buckley or even Bush The Elder. It resembles Franco much more so than Regan. Its continued existence should be considered a threat to all people who value individual liberty, economic liberty and the American experiment.

It being the 4th of July and all, let's close with another example of prose from that great Patriot, Thomas Paine, from the The American Crisis: I, which he wrote supporting the Revolution:

"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America."

Felony > High Crimes & Misdemeanors

Just so we're all clear on this, actively preventing someone from obeying a Congressional subpoena is a felony under U.S. Code.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress-

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty clear-cut bit of statute right there. Of course, the Solicitor General will be able to run this through the court system until the clock runs out on the administration.

One of the little known things about Congressional power is that congressional committees work almost exactly like courts and judges with regards to their ability to summon people to testify.

Such that when Congress subpoenas a person, they have to show up. They can plea the Fifth or waive their letter of executive privilege or whatever, or just clam up and risk contempt charges but they have to show up. You can't just blow off a subpoena. It is one of the basic little building blocks of our system of democracy. If summoned you are obligated to appear. If you don't appear, or if you prevent someone from appearing it is a felony.

Young People: "Liberal" or just Reasonable

You might have heard about the NYT/CBS/MTV (?!) poll that declares the young are becoming more left-leaning.

More than half of Americans ages 17 to 29 — 54 percent — say they intend to vote for a Democrat for president in 2008. They share with the public at large a negative view of President Bush, who has a 28 percent approval rating with this group, and of the Republican Party. They hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans.

It might be more accurate to say that the attitudes of young people are therefore, identical to other age groups. The Times, CBS and MTV paid good money for this poll, so is suppose they had to have something good to lead with in the paper. Kids' Attitudes the Same as Rest of Country" doesn't exactly jump off the page at you; doesn't really sell newspapers. So, one has to take some minor differences and blow them way up.

Forty-four percent said they believed that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married, compared with 28 percent of the public at large. They are more likely than their elders to support the legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The findings on gay marriage were reminiscent of an exit poll on Election Day 2004: 41 percent of 18-to-29-year-old voters said gay couples should be permitted to legally marry, according to the exit poll.

In the current poll, 62 percent said they would support a universal, government-sponsored national health care insurance program; 47 percent of the general public holds that view. And 30 percent said that “Americans should always welcome new immigrants,” while 24 percent of the general public holds that view.

Their views on abortion mirror those of the public at large: 24 percent said it should not be permitted at all, while 38 percent said it should be made available but with greater restrictions. Thirty-seven percent said it should be generally available.

It isn't so much the approval of national health care and the general sympathy for the democrats at this point in time, that is striking. In those regards the 18-29 year-olds are just echoing the fatigue of the rest of the country. No, what strikes me more and more as I talk with young people is the reasonableness and ability to make distinctions. Andrew Sullivan summed it up yesterday.

What strikes me most about the latest poll of the next generation is the distinctions they make. Instead of seeing "drugs" as an amorphous category, they distinguish between largely harmless marijuana and an addictive upper like cocaine. Instead of conflating all the moral issues, they have no problem with gay dignity and equality, but retain many of the moral conflicts of their parents with respect to the far more troubling issue of abortion. This doesn't strike me less as a sign of their liberalism than of their intelligence and experience. You simply cannot persuade most sane people who have smoked pot, or know people who do, that it is even a minor threat to social order or civilization. And you cannot tell people who know and have grown up around gay people that we are the threat to the family that the Christianists claim. All of which should make us more optimistic about the future, because it suggests that, in the long run, reason and experience actually do work to make the world a marginally less stupid and cruel place.

That pretty much sums up my child rearing goals right there. Survey: Young Wise Beyond Their Years, now, there is a lede.

Tough Love

Let's say that you live in a small, prosperous Midwestern town, a real old-fashioned place right out of Leave It To Beaver or Mayberry, RFD. You have two teen-aged boys. The first, let's call him Bill, is whip-smart, ambitious but a bit reckless, prone to run-ins with the law and goes through cheerleaders like most boys go through a pack of M&M's. The second, his name is George, is not too bright, a "C" student but he's a real straight arrow, dates a frumpy National Merit Scholar and always comes home by curfew.

So, let's say and why not, that one night the cops pull Bill over in his '68 Camaro SS -- after a high speed chase -- only to find the kid reclined in the front seat swilling Coors Light while getting a hummer from the Prom Queen.

Chaos ensues. It is a major community crisis. Your family, model citizens in the town is publicly shamed. After several tormented months, an unconscionable amount of money spent on expensive lawyers to maneuver Bill out of a felony charge things finally settle back down. Bill is bundled off to Harvard, his scholarships still in place. The family takes a deep breath of relief.

Then a year later in George's junior year over the course of a few months it begins to become apparent that George isn't at all what he seems. Teetotaling, not too bright, good-egg George, has been running a protection racket around town. He and his buddy, Dick are at the center of a very tightly organized and quite sordid little tale of beatings, rapes, numbers and extortion. No, one can pin anything on them definitively but the circumstantial evidence is so extensive it is impossible to ignore it any longer. Both the family and the local Sheriff are exhausted after the last family episode and are reluctant to open up what could be a can of worms several orders of magnitude larger.

What do you do? The nice boy two doors down the street -- geeky Chess Club memeber, liked George's girlfriend, maybe too much -- flat-out disappeared a couple of weeks ago. His parents are beside themselves. You get dirty looks down at the grocery store and at the auto dealership. The family has a pew to itself at the normally packed Sunday services. Even the guys at the Country Club and down at the bank where you work are becoming a bit standoffish. Your last neighborhood barbeque only attracted your Pastor, the family of the bank's loan officer -- your immediate subordinate -- and the Sheriff.

Do you do what is right for your family, your community and your neighbors? Do you straighten your tie and go down to the Sheriff and give him your full backing to put your son and that asshole Dick away for a long, long time? Or do you say to yourself, "We've been through enough. He'll be off to college in two years. It will be all over then, and we'll all get back to normal. It will be just like it was."

You're kidding yourself, Jack. It will never be what it was. George and Dick have poisoned the well. There are a couple of dozen underclassmen running around town kicking dogs, rolling the town drunk and putting the squeeze on the Grocery Store Manager. Your town is sliding down into the abyss but you are too weak to do what needs to be done, to put yourself through another agonizing...

Impeachment?

Democrats: Stop Playing At Being "Good Christians"

Like any true-blue American, I don't really concern myself with religion much -- literally, but that's another post -- until it starts insinuating itself into politics and public policy. That's when I start to get downright obstinate and feisty. One thing I have observed over the years: being a Christianist zealot politician is like having jazz chops. You either have it or you don't. Someone needs to tell Nancy Pelosi that she don't got it.

“Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, arguing for the bill’s passage. “And that is the embryonic stem cell research.”

Personally, I'd rather see my Democratic leaders putting forward this theme:



But seriously, when Pelosi and other democrats try to ape the religious right in order to "triangulate" with the vast middle, they just make themselves look like insincere whores. And besides, I think that -- as ususal -- most of the strategists who are urging their candidates to do this vastly underestimate the level of the backlash going on against the Christianist right, even among non-secularists. Everyone is tired of these hand-clapping, if-you-beleive-hard-enough-it-will-be-true idiots. Message to strategists: Doing what makes the other side successful is NOT automatically the right thing. Sometimes you have to do the OPPOSITE really well.

Obama Health Care Plan

Sen. Barack Obama spelled out his plan to provide all Americans with health insurance at the U of I Hospitals and Clinics (the largest teaching hospital in the Western Hemiphere! -- John Deeth)this week. Plan is here:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanOverview.pdf
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf

I've got and looked at John Edwards' DVD. (What, you didn't get one? You're the only Iowan who didn't.) It's okay. In a perfect world where scrapping the current private system and starting from scratch would be politically possible short of bloody revolution, I'd be all for it.

The thing that strikes me about Obama's plan is that it seems doable, politically and economically. A reform here, a new program there and pretty soon you are looking at universal coverage. And that has to be the first goal of health care reform, to get everyone insurance. That one step will reduce everyone's costs substantially (even those who remain in private plans) because it will take billions of dollars of costs in uncompensated care for the uninsured off the backs of everyone else.

Once we get that stabilized a bit, then we can tackle the really thorny issues of allocation of resources, who gets what level of care, and how soon, etc. But Job One has to be getting everyone covered in a meaningful way.

The Undoing of American Conservatism.

The operation of the Bush administration and its executive branch appointees is now presenting the Republican party with an existential threat. Conservatism is largely about maximizing liberty through the idea that government should remain small and as far removed from people's daily lives as possible.

Yet their "unitary executive" theory and their electoral and governing policies of promoting fear of -- and attacking both real and imaginary -- threats while striving to push a moral agenda have given the ruling class of the Republicans one thing no one ever could have imagined of the party of Lincoln: The cloak of authoritarianism. This stands in utter opposition to everything conservatism stands for.

And the people the party is offering us as replacements to Bush show no signs of bringing the party back to its real conservative roots. Example one could be Mitt Romney's chest-pounding offer to "double the size of Guantanimo," at the last debate. I'm sorry, double how? Start rounding people up? Disappearing undesirables off the streets?

It says a lot about the current state of the Republican party as it is in power that John Ashcroft... yes, John Ashcroft looms as a paragon of both small "r" and big "R" republican ideals: maintaining from his sickbed his opposition to the administration's attempt to extend the illegal spying activities.

I've said it before, the real political struggle of the 21st Century is as old as time itself. It has nothing to do with right versus left -- that poor distinction which is a relic of the French Revolution. No, the struggle for the future of humanity is stark and simple, the struggle between those who treasure and work towards maximizing human freedom and those who would bind us in chains of authoritarianism. And beware, the strongest chains are those we forge ourselves out of fear.

Al Gore Has Big Plans

I haven't had time to read the entire thing yet but, the NY Times has a big article today on Al Gore and the future of his global warming bandwagon. Al Gore Has Big Plans.

But the core of everything is the three-year program of mass persuasion to be conducted under the aegis of the Alliance for Climate Protection. The alliance will not lobby or even propose specific solutions to global warming; rather, it will seek to break the climate crisis out of the crunchy confines of environmentalism. Global warming is going to have a giant product rollout. Gore talks constantly about the need to move public opinion; he is convinced that what now seem like forbidding political and technical obstacles to drastically reducing carbon emissions will give way once we marshal the will to act. And Gore says he believes that once people understand the science, they’ll share his sense of urgency. Thanks to Hurricane Katrina, and balmy winters, and animals evacuating their habitats, and all those terrifying pictures of melting glaciers, that sense may already be taking hold. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 78 percent of Americans believe that global warming requires action “right away.

I've said it before, love him or hate him "Ozone Al" is still going to be a major player on the world's stage.

The Bush Doctrine, Explained.

Via Andrew Sullivan, my favorite cross-party intellectual, comes this example that explains at the level of even the meanest understanding why the policies of the Bush Administration, if not utterly repudiated in January, 2009 will result in disaster for the United States. The Logic of Cheney:

Reading the transcript from Limbaugh's show, one realizes what Cheney's vision of the future is: a Middle East permanently occupied by American forces, because any withdrawal anywhere means a victory for the terrorists everywhere. Money quote:

[The Democrats] seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it. They ignore the lessons of the past. Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

So what would be the feasible conditions for withdrawal? I see none. Even if we were to "win," as in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Cheney sees that as a reason to stay. If there is any chance of "losing," we also have to stay. The same logic applies to Pakistan were Musharraf to fall. And Saudi Arabia if that autocracy were to collapse. If the criterion is now space for Islamist terrorists to return, then we don;t so much have mission creep as mission explosion. We're talking empire here - for ever. At least that's the logical conclusion of Cheney's control-fixation. And, of course, as these occupations create more terrorists, Cheney uses that as more reason to keep fighting. There is no end to this strategy - just permanent war, occupation and terror.

Andrew Sullivan, you understand is a conservative, in the traditional sense of the word, not a raving lunatic as in the modern usage.

I also cannot resist a link to this Msmooth takedown of the Neocon blogshpere's latest attempts to deny their way away from accountability for Iraq. Do keep in mind, that if you go and look at this, the original Redstate.com post that led to the derision below, that thes exact type of people make up the talent pool of future Republican administrations. These are their up-and-coming political and intellectual foot soldiers.

We seem to have discovered a new stage in the traditional Kübler-Ross process:

1. Denial: “The media doesn’t show the good news in Iraq.”

2. Anger: “The treasonous far-left-liberals and their media lapdogs are making us lose in Iraq.”

3. Bargaining: “If we send x-thousand more troops to Iraq, victory will be ours.”

4. Depression: “Did you catch 300 yet? [munch-munch-burp] God, it made me hate liberals even more. [channels flipping] They wouldn’t last a day in ancient Sparta.”

5. Advanced Literary Theory: “The hegemonic binary of ’success’ and ‘failure’ traumatizes the (re)interpretive possibilities of an ethos of jouissance regarding the War in Iraq.”

Not to be phallogocentric here or anything, but we have to go with the non-fancy everyday definition of ‘mistake,’ meaning when you try to do something, like for instance apply aftershave to your face while your date waits in the hallway, but perform an action which thwarts your desired ends, like for instance mixing up your bottle of aftershave with the bottle of bobcat urine you bought to keep the deer out of the herb garden.

Maybe somebody could be all like, “But nobody knew it was bobcat urine, so how is that a mistake? How was it obvious that there was ever a correct set of decisions to be made, if nobody reasonably considered the chance of covering themselves with bobcat urine?

Dude smells of cat pee. That’s all I’m saying.

Building Code Kerfuffle.

Note: This is an example of the kind of journalistic thing I would simply love to do much more of if time afforded. I've done my best to get the facts correct. Quotes are direct from my transcribed notes of conversations with the person's involved. Please feel free to add anything useful or to point out corrections in the comments.

For many years in Clinton the lack of a municipal building code has been a Gordian Knot that has resisted all efforts to untie it by voters, developers, and local government officials. On March 12, a bill intended to cut the knot unanimously passed the Iowa House and was sent to the Senate. The bill, House File 590, was sponsored by State Representatives, Polly Bukta (D-Clinton) and Geri Huser (D-Altoona). It would require all municipalities under the population of 15,000 that do not have their own building code to adopt the state building code. The number of communities affected by this bill? One. Clinton.

The result was predictable and brought out the best in Clinton politics and public discourse. Elected City officials immediately disclaimed any knowledge or encouragement of Rep. Bukta’s bill. Those local constituencies that have long fought a building code cried “foul!” and many surmised in public that the whole thing is a conspiracy cooked up by organized labor, building contractors from the Quad Cities, and the Democratic Party to cram unwanted regulations down the throats of the good citizens of Clinton. City employees advocated for a building code were compared by a City Council member to Communist Party apparatchiks.

This being 2007, this discussion inevitably spilled over to Internet bulletin boards, chiefly the “Hey Martha!” board run by the Clinton Herald’s parent company, Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. On March 23, David Jindrich, an Iowa Department of Corrections Employee, posted a message that stated in part,

It’s no secret that the City Council feels that they have egg on their frowning faces. First, two City employees [i.e.: Fire Chief & Fire Marshall] with the blessing of the Mayor, take the issue to the State Fire Chiefs (sic.) Association [A professional organization] to lobby the legislature for a change in state law. Then Polly joins ranks and runs the HF through the House with little debate. The Mayor denies any knowledge on behalf of the Council that the Fire Department employees had taken the issue to Des Moines.

Jindrich had also apparently posted the text of an e-mail text of an email sent by Second Ward City Councilman, Mike Kearny to three members of the Senate Local Government Subcommittee that are considering the bill. CNHI moderators deleted this post and then revoked Jindrich’s posting privileges on the Clinton Herald bulletin boards.

Jindrich then posted on the privately run, “Hey Mabel!” boards informing the readers there (many of whom frequent both communities) of his booting from Hey Martha! and reposting the email from Councilman Kearny. The text of this email reads:

>----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Kearney
To: bill.heckroth@legis.state.ia.us ; brian.schoenjahn@legis.state.ia.us
brad.zaun@legis.state.ia.us
Cc: Roger Stewart ; Polly Bukta
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: House File 590


Senator Heckroth, Senator Schoenjahn and Senator Zaun,

I am a City Councilman representing the 2nd Ward of the City of Clinton. I am deeply disturbed by House File 590 because it is my understanding that the legislature was lobbied by employees of the City of Clinton without the prior knowledge or consent of the City Council. I might have expected such behavior in the former Soviet Union or modern day North Korea, but not in the United States where policy matters should be advocated openly by
elected bodies and not employees of the elected body in secret.

You should know that there are many of us both on the Council and other
community leaders who are very concerned about life and safety issues and who have been discussing approaches to deal with them who now feel that the rug has been pulled out from under them by the action which is now before the legislature.

Please call me with any questions. (Phone number redacted, ed.)

Sincerely,

Michael J. Kearney
200 5th Avenue South #304
Clinton, Iowa 52732

Mr. Jindrich stated that he was informed via e-mail that his membership in the CHNI, Hey Martha! boards had been revoked. According to Jindrich the stated reason was simply “violation of terms of service,” and that he received no warning.

Jindrich was contacted on March 23 and agreed to provide the author with a copy of the correspondence from CNHI but as of this writing had not done so.

It should be noted that Mayor Wynn did participate in a press conference on March 20, that generally supported the bill.

When asked if the e-mail message was genuine, Councilman Kearny asserted that it was. He clarified his position by stating, “The City Attorney has made it pretty clear over the last year, that in matters relating to the City the City Council is the decision making body. It is very disturbing that we have city employees who are taking it upon themselves to lobby. I’ve got a problem with that.”

Kearny also felt that Representative Bukta was wrong to introduce the bill without discussing it with City officials. “I am not happy about the fact that what has taken place has taken place without the knowledge of the council. You’d think she’d have the courtesy to inform the City Council,” Kearny explained.

The City of Clinton has steadfastly refused to adopt a building code. Starting in the 1940’s (time line here) the City Council has taken up the matter no less than five times. Voters defeated the previous two attempts by the City Council to adopt a building code in 1995 and in 2003. The 1995 referendum lead to the adoption of a fire code.

A recent example of the confusion that can be caused by a fire code that is dependent upon the subjective rulings of individual enforcement officers is the case of the restoration of the Armstrong Building on South 2nd Street. In 2005 plans were submitted for the adaptive reuse of the building using historical preservation tax credits. The Chamber of Commerce and Regional Development Corporation would occupy the ground floor while affordable housing apartments would be constructed by Spirit Lake-based, Community Housing Initiatives.

The Armstrong Building had an existing sprinkler system and the plans called for maintaining and upgrading that system. For both aesthetic, cost, and historical preservation reasons the plan was to keep the old wooden floor joists exposed.

The building permit was issued before construction began. However in April, 2005 while construction was nearly halfway completed, the Clinton Fire Marshall, Mike Brown told the joint developers that the fire code required that the ceilings be enclosed in drywall.

Community Housing Initiatives wished to appeal the decision. The City found it difficult to assemble the Appeals Board. It turns out this body had never been convened. The City had difficulty locating one member at all and several members were out of town for extended periods. It took seven weeks to bring the board together. The appeal was rejected and total cost to CHI was $38,000.

This was CHI’s third project in Clinton. The company also was the lead developer for the adaptive reuse of the Howes and the Van Allen Buildings. CHI Manager of Development, Sam Erickson said they would work with the city again, but, “If you want to continue to develop and forward your community, you are going to have to make things easier for developers and. You are going to turn people away.”

Ms. Erickson cited Dubuque as a stellar example of a medium-sized city that has balanced the need for historic preservation and redevelopment of a decaying downtown with modern building practices and codes. Without a code and enforcement personnel, “You are threatening all the good work that is being done to revitalize the downtown. You are doing everything else right. The rest of the country is able to find ways to do this,” Erickson concluded.

HF 590, if passed would give Clinton a one-year window in which to develop its own building code, suited to its own needs. Surely, after all these long years, with the examples of thousands of successful towns and cities to emulate – one of the best examples a mere hour’s drive north – Clinton can finally do what it has failed to do since 1941, adopt a modern building code.

Reps Bukta and Huser have done Clinton a favor by forcing the City to do the right thing. Few will thank them for it. That is what makes what they have done all the more courageous. That is what real leaders do.