Thieves in the Temple.

no compromise! no sell out!

UFE reports that, as I suspected, Bill Frist will bring up Estate Tax repeal for a full vote in the Senate as early as May 8.  Last time he wanted to bring it up, a Category 5 hurricane had just destroyed a major American port city, and he almost brought it up anyway; I guess promises made to fat and lazy rich folk must be kept, no matter the cost to the rest of us.  If the Republican leadership fails to push through repeal, they'll push a "compromise" plan, crafted by Senator Kyl, which will raise the exemption and lower the tax rate such that it might as well be repeal anyway.  Many of your not-terribly-stalwart Democratic Senators will be tempted to accept such "compromise," but if they do, they have no right to call themselves United States Senators.  We should carpet-bomb our Senators with phone calls admonishing them for even thinking about repealing the Estate Tax today and every day for the next month-plus that we still have an Estate Tax.  Let the fools know where their duty lies.  And, good voters of Arizona, could you do America a favor and depose Jon Kyl this November?  Send a Libertarian to the Senate if you have to.

Despite your comments to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the NHTSA announced a paltry change in fuel economy standards, because nobody in Tha Bush Mobb really meant it when they bemoaned America's "addiction to oil."  They did what they always do:  give lip service to what Americans really want and then do whatever big corporations tell them to do, because this "moral values" crowd isn't about meaning what you say and saying what you mean so much as it's about hating women and gays.  Congress, however, might prove a little more pliable if you urge them to act on fuel economy since the Administration won't.

Did you know that the Clean Air Act of 1963 mandated the EPA to keep a list of major sources of hazardous air pollutants?  And did you know that the EPA removed power plants from this list -- including coal and oil-direct plants?  So much for putting an EPA lifer (versus a Bush Mobb crony) in charge of the EPA -- Tha Bush Mobb truly has the Midas touch.  Rep. Meehan and 31 co-sponsors have passed a resolution disapproving of the EPA's absurd decision; it won't overturn it, but it might embarrass them, and I won't pass up an opportunity to embarrass someone who deserves it.  You may want to call your House Rep and encourage them to co-sponsor it.  I can't do that for once, because my Rep is already a co-sponsor.

three more good fights.

Word on the street is that the House budget (which committee members have been crafting this week) is going to be closer to Mr. Bush's rotten egg-bomb of a budget than the Senate's less-stinky rotten-egg bomb of a budget, which at least doesn't slash through social spending or make Mr. Bush's nefarious tax cuts permanent. In a way, this is a good thing: it guarantees another year of budget stalemate between two Republican-held Houses on a budget proposed by the Republican-held executive branch, and the Republican-held House looks bad every time it holds a vote open until it gets the result the leadership wants. Still, your phone calls to your Representatives this week will help remind them of the popular will in this matter; you may use this handy tool to find your Representative's phone number or call this toll-free line at 1.800.459.1887. And remember, gang: stay on message! What's the message? That we don't want a budget that robs from the poor and gives to the rich.

On the fair trade front, McDonald's has thus far refused to work with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers to establish fair wages and working conditions for the farmworkers who pick its tomatoes. But working with labor groups to improve working conditions for such workers is not unprecedented: a year ago, Taco Bell's parent company, Yum Brands, made an agreement with the CIW which included, among other provisions, an increase of one penny per pound in the price it pays for the tomatoes it buys from Florida growers (even an increase of that size could double the workers' an increase that could nearly double workers' sub-poverty wages after you add up the poundage) and to establish an enforceable Code of Conduct for US agricultural suppliers. McDonald's has thus far refused to follow suit, but I don't think they're especially bad listeners, and perhaps by being pleasantly persistent we might get them to change their mind.

Mr. Bush has apparently attached yet another signing statement to a bill -- this one to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill that was far too close to what he wanted anyway. That was just in case you needed yet another reminder to tell your Senators to support Russ Feingold's censure resolution, which the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up tomorrow. Toll free numbers for your Senators include 1.888.355.3588 and 1.800.828.0498; you may also find your Senator's phone number here. I'm not terribly hopeful, even though there are 8 Democrats (out of 18) and at least three Republicans on that committee have been sharply critical of Mr. Bush's conduct in the recent past. But we don't fight because we know we'll win. We fight because we know it's right to fight.

return of the real.

With the Dubai port controversy and the immigration reform controversy, Congress probably hopes you'll just forget about ethics reform. Of course, you won't, and you'll tell Congress as much. You may want to remind them that publicly-financed campaigns -- which, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, would not be a prohibitive burden upon the taxpayer -- will solve many of Congress's ethics problems; just ask Maine's Assemblyfolk, who sound like the happiest people on the planet regardless of their party affiliation. And don't worry about putting too much on Congress's plate. It's their job, and if they were doing their job better, they wouldn't have so much on their plate to begin with.

Also, icount! still intends to push for passage of Rep. Holt's vote-verification bill, H.R. 550, in early April; if Congress waits too long after that, it'll likely be too late to help the 2006 elections, though 27 states have passed laws similar to Mr. Holt's. Go here if you can lobby Congressfolk in Washington, D.C. on April 6 and 7; go here if you can lobby in your home district; and go here if you haven't already signed Velvet Revolution's petition to pass H.R. 550 as written.

Common Cause has produced a report called "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing," which describes how big telecoms create fake "grassroots" groups (a.k.a. "Astroturf" groups) to "lobby" Congress about the importance of legislative ideas with no actual grassroots support, like "tiered" internet service. My guess is that the Congressfolk who have already decided to do the big telecoms' bidding know these are fake groups, and are just looking for some cover. Still, with one phone call to your Representative or your Senator, you may be able to blow their cover, and shame them into doing the right thing. What else is worth working for?

errata.

Yesterday I said the Chicago rally at which Gov. Blagojevich, Mayor Daley, and Rep. Gutierrez spoke occurred over the weekend; it actually occurred on March 10, as did the others to which I referred.  Luckily, the argument I made survives my incompetence:  just this past Saturday, at least a half million demonstrators protested anti-immigrant policies in Los Angeles, and the media has been a bit slow to give even that rally the attention it deserves.  But the L.A. rally does appear to have put the scare into the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, by a lopsided and obviously bipartisan 12-6 margin, advanced an immigration bill with a guest worker program, an improvement over H.R. 4437, the PATRIOT Act of immigration "reform."  Bill Frist, meanwhile, has fashioned a bill that focuses mainly on punishing businesses that bring in illegal immigrants; though it seems to me less cruel to target employers versus immigrants, his bill sounds too narrow to support.  Plus, needless to say, he's grandstanding about it.

Still, despite these few advances, there's a chance that the bill that eventually comes out of conference will still include most of the nefarious abuses of power currently in H.R. 4437 -- allowing deportation of "suspicious" individuals found within a hundred miles of the border; making it a felony to help undocumented immigrants (which has been struck from the Judiciary bill); increasing the detainment of undocumented immigrants; and strangling judiciary review at almost every step of the process.  I would suggest calling your Senators and telling them that putting a humane guest worker program in the immigration reform bill is only a start; the nefarious PATRIOT Act-style powers in H.R. 4437 are intolerable in a free society -- and we are still a free society, aren't we?  You might want to add that even an ideal bill culled from the least offensive parts of both bills wouldn't be a long-term solution.  The long-term solution to the undocumented immigrant "problem" such-as-it-is is the same as the solution to most other problems:  regulate corporations, tax the rich, build infrastructure, and support unions.

where did all these protests come from?

Tens of thousands of citizens marched against the government's proposed anti-immigrant policies this weekend -- but the "liberal" media hardly covered it, though the Chicago protest drew at least 75,000 protestors and featured Chicago's Mayor, Illinois's Governor, and at least one U.S. Representative among its speakers. To be fair, the liberal media also did note that at many of the nationwide anti-immigration rallies a few months back, anti-immigrant ralliers were actually outnumbered by counterprotestors calling them racists. In general, though, covering the Minutemen seems much sexier to the media. No matter. The Senate and House are back today (please take a moment to boo), and the Senate will take up the nefarious H.R. 4437, James Sensenbrenner's "PATRIOT Act for undocumented immigrants," which I also discussed here. The People's Email Network has another action page for you, if you missed the last one.

Katherine Harris, come on down! You're the next contestant on "American Theocracy!"

I'd really hoped to wait a few more years before saying, "wow!  That idiot makes Rick Santorum look positively erudite!"  But, alas, I don't get this wish, not after House Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), during a fluff piece on ABC's Nightline, started testifying about her pledge to use all of her assets to win a Senate seat:  "I am willing to take this widow's mite, this pearl of great price, and put everything on the line...No matter how much you have, are you willing to take what you have and sell it all for a great price?"  What unearned self-regard -- why should folks care that she's willing to "put everything on the line" when she's never articulated a reason for her to put everything on the line besides "I want to be a U.S. Senator"?  And as for her "widow's mite," and her "pearl of great price," no Christian should tolerate such a hysterical desecration of holy text.

Let's take the wayback machine to the time of the Gospels, shall we?

In Mark 12.41-43, Jesus observes a slew of rich folks donating "much" to the church's treasury, and then observes a widow giving "two mites."  Jesus instructs his apostles that the poor widow "hath cast more in" because she gave "all that she had."  Harris misses at least half of the wisdom of Jesus's parable:  the widow is more devout, not just because she's given everything, but because she has less to give to begin with -- and whereas Ms. Harris won't have any problems making another pile of unearned money even after she exhausts her ten million-dollar "widow's mite," the widow in Mark 12.41-43 who gives her all has also given away her very life.  What else does Jesus mean by "all her living"?  He means the widow is going to die after giving her two mites.  Katherine Harris, on the other hand, is going to remain quite comfortable after Bill Nelson vanquishes her at the polls in November.

As if to add insult to Katherine Harris's injury, I must note also that Mark 12.38-40, directly preceeding the tale of the "widow's mite," says the following (I use the King James Bible unless otherwise noted):

"And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
"And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
"Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation."

In other words:  the "scribes" and those in "the chief seats" and "the uppermost rooms," who will be making the largest donations in 41-43, are suspect not merely because they give only a portion of their riches, but also because they're vain and pretentious and because they, can you believe it, "devour widows' houses," not unlike that of the widow in line 42 who shows the rich people up by giving her all.  Would it be piling on to add that no destitute "widow" was ever married to a living real estate magnate and that buying yourself a Senate seat is rather little like donating your treasure to the commonwealth for the good of all?

Of course, it gets worse -- Ms. Harris not only contorts the parable in Mark so that it excuses her wealth rather than condemns it, she also follows "this widow's mite" with "this pearl of great price."  The parallel structure leads you to believe that "this widow's mite" and "this pearl of great price" are the same thing, that when she gives up her fortune, she will be giving up "a pearl of great price."  However, a perusal of the relevant text, from from Matthew 13:45-46, reveals that she's completely butchered the meaning of the epithet:

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
"Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it."

Since "the kingdom of heaven" is like "a merchant man" giving up everything to buy a "pearl of great price," the "pearl of great price" is in no way like a "widow's mite" -- it isn't what you give up to get heaven, it is heaven, it's what you get when you give up all you have.  In other words, in the analogy relevant to Ms. Harris's life, the "pearl of great price" isn't the ten million bucks she's planning to spend, it's the Senate seat she's hoping to win.  Seems a bit shallow put like that, doesn't it?  I mean, I'd never think to compare winning a seat in the U.S. Senate to winning a place in kingdom of heaven.

I can already hear (in that part of my head that still listens to right-wingers who'll say anything to keep an argument going) that Ms. Harris means simply to invoke the difficulty of her task.  But I don't care what people mean so much as what they say and do.  It doesn't matter that getting into heaven is a difficult task and so is running against a well-funded opponent; it matters that winning a U.S. Senate seat is not a guarantee of wisdom or intelligence or utility.  It doesn't matter that a "widow's mite" and "a pearl of great price" are both phrases from the Bible -- it matters that these phrases function as part of a story that leads us to a greater wisdom about the world.  But you won't see that wisdom if you never think of anyone but yourself, if you believe that Jesus blesses the rich and powerful more than the smart and happy, and if you think "morality" is whatever gets the most knuckle-draggers to the polls.  I still worry that plenty of benighted souls are impressed with Ms. Harris's "courage" because they think the Bible is made up of magic spells that help you get rich or avoid pain.  So I'm going to match Katherine Harris's pledge with my own pledge:  I'll campaign for the ejection of Florida from the union if its citizens are stupid enough to elect her to the Senate.  Wealth without wisdom, religion without compassion, ambition without utility -- how did everything wrong with Republicans become incarnate in one human being?

penny rants for the day of March 25, 2006.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State suggests that a relatively new group called Pennsylvania Pastors Network may be little more than a dummy group helping Rick Santorum. The Rev. Barry Lynn also says that "churches who get involved are putting their tax-exempt status at risk." And they might be -- the IRS will undoubtedly be under some pressure this year to prove that it doesn't go only after liberal churches -- but I don't see the smoking gun just yet. Of course, if you're a Pennsylvania churchgoer and you see the smoking gun, there's nothing preventing you from contacting the IRS or the Campaign to Defend the Constitution.

The AP does some reporting on Mr. Bush's use of straw men in arguments, which is good, but it only scratches the surface -- Mr. Bush has thousands of surrogates in his Administration and in the punditry who also use straw men in their arguments. Will the AP investigate Dick Cheney's use of straw men? Scott McClellan's? Bill O'Reilly's? Sean Hannity's? Ann Coulter's? It would be an Augean task, but the main reason it would be an Augean task is because the media have been so loathe to do it thus far. You might say it's piled up.

"the more you tighten your grip," et cetera.

Senator Kennedy has introduced the Federal Minimum Wage Act, which would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in three increments.  American Rights at Work offers an opportunity for you to be a "citizen co-sponsor" of this bill -- or you can contact your Senators and Representatives when they get back from our well-deserved vacation from them.  Frankly, I'd advocate for a Federal Living Wage Act.  A living wage would be around $11 or $12 an hour.  It would still be difficult to raise children or save money on a living wage, of course (I make more than a living wage now, thank God, but I've crunched the numbers enough times to know that).

And when our Congressfolk get back from our well-deserved vacation from them, they'll be acting on "enforcement-only" immigration bills.  The bill that passed the House in December is essentially a PATRIOT Act for immigration law:  among other things, it gives immigration officers the right to deport anyone they deem suspicious within 100 miles of the border, without having to make their case before a judge, and it allows the government to indefinitely detain undocumented immigrants who can't return to their countries of origin (because the U.S. doesn't have relations with said countries, for example, or said countries won't take them back).  Anyone sense a pattern?  It's another Republican law that hates the law, hates people with dark skin, and doesn't address the fact that there would be no illegal immigrants in the United States if corporations didn't want them here.  Corporations want them here because it's easier to pay illegal immigrants in dung pellets than it is to pay American workers (including legal immigrants) real money and real benefits -- and, of course, illegal immigrants most likely won't be able to unionize and win better working conditions.  I know already, though, that politicians and pundits who grandstand about illegal immigration don't give a damn about restraining corporate power, so why listen to them?  You may be able to re-focus the Senate's attention here.

special programming note!

We're almost halfway through Our Vacation From Congress -- they'll be off until March 27. So enjoy it while you can.

Yes, I'm aware that Mr. Bush has been getting some tough questions on his little PR tour. But, as I've suggested before, I wouldn't put it past Tha Bush Mobb to have planted those, too.

there is no harm in trying.

As you may have heard, the IRS plans to allow tax preparers to sell your tax return information to private companies -- which may or may not in turn sell this information to other companies, and which may or may not protect said information from identity thieves. Does any part of that sound like a good idea to you? Proponents of the plan remind us that tax preparers can't sell this information unless you sign a form giving them permission. And if that tax preparer misrepresents the nature of form to you, or sticks it in a pile of other forms for you to sign, I guess that's just "the free market" at work. No, a real conservative would not open just any old avenue for any old company to make money. A real conservative would decry the potential for abuse in a plan such as this. And if you really knew which forms you had to sign and which forms you didn't, you wouldn't need a tax preparer in the first place, would you? Though I suspect he couldn't care less about your silly little problems when there's a buck to be made, you may want to send a letter to Mr. Bush asking that he direct the IRS to abandon their plans and keep tax return information private.

amendment madness!

I'm not sure why Bill Frist is telegraphing so many of his moves, but I'm grateful. First, he wants to bring the "Protecting Marriage from Those People Act" or whatever up for a vote; administer a beatdown here. Second, he wants to bring the "Protect the Flag from Protestors who Only Threaten Weaklings and Crybabies" or whatever up for a vote; here's where to spank that one into oblivion. Finally, he's said he wants to bring Estate Tax repeal up for a vote in May. He may have learned that making Estate Tax repeal his first order of business right after a Category 5 hurricane destroys a a major American port city was a bit of a faux pas, but he's hasn't learned not to give American treasure away to his rich friends, so contact your Senators and let them know how you feel. And, as always, be sure to visit Bill Frist's Presidential campaign website at nochance2008.org.

Mr. Bush's latest off-budget Iraq spending bill passed the House, but (in no small part thanks to you) Reps. Lee, Allen, Hinchey, and Schakowsky were able to attach an amendment declaring that none of the funds in the bill would be used toward building permanent military bases in Iraq. Now is the time to tell the Senate to do the same.

penny rants for the day of March 19, 2006.

Wasn't I just saying that the so-called "liberal" media were going to help Bush get his popularity back up during his ongoing PR tour touting alleged successes in Iraq? Why, yes, I believe I was. And here comes an NBC reporter to prove me right -- discussing Bush "townhall" events in relation to his sagging poll numbers, she notes that "the applause is usually quite warm" at these events and "[p]ublic feedback is only sometimes pointed," forgetting to mention (because why on earth would it be relevant?) that Bush events only allow Republican partisans and pre-screened questions. I'd go further and say that the "sometimes pointed" public feedback is scripted as well -- I mean, if everyone acted like a damn Stepford resident at a Bush event, then the world would see it for the unbridled propaganda it is. Right, Roger Ailes? Anyway, I bet L. Brent Bozell III, he who comes from a long line of L. Brent Bozells, doesn't note the "benefit of the doubt" the media gives Mr. Bush in this instance.

On the March 13 Scarborough Country, Tony Perkins called Senator Feingold's censure resolution "borderline treasonous behavior." (Mr. Scarborough immediately asked Perkins if he thought another guest who supported the Feingold resolution was also guilty of treason, but allowed Perkins to evade the question.) Anyway, it's now almost a week later, and I haven't heard a word of Senator Feingold's arrest or questioning by the FBI. With apologies to Bill Maher, I think we ought to make two new rules: one, don't call any treasonous behavior "borderline" or "almost" or "nearly" or any other species of cowardice; something either is treason or it's not, and the Founders were very clear about that. Two, if you think someone is committing treason, just call the FBI. Don't grandstand about it on national TV. In my ideal world, these useful idiots for al-Qaeda who grandstand about "treason" would be forced to live on government cheese.

practice makes perfect.

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, in unsuccessfully opposing federal assistance on home heating bills, stated that "there is very limited authorization in the Constitution for us to be paying the heating bills of people in this country."

Er, Tom? I think Constitutional authorization for Congress to permit oil companies to gouge American citizens is even more limited.

the S.S. Stay-on-Message takes in more water.

Mr. Bush embarks on yet another public relations tour, speaking to large audiences of Republicans who've likely signed loyalty oaths, and after another week of AP headlines like yesterday's "Bush Says Republicans Don't Fear Future," I'm sure he'll have gained six or seven points in the polls (which might put him back at 40) and the mainstream media will declare victory for his "doctrine" of pre-emption. We can help put a stop to all of that, of course, by using MoveOn's handy letter-to-the-editor tool and telling your local media outlet how well this "bold" and "brilliant" and "outside the box" concept of pre-emptive war is working over in Iraq. I understand that even Dr. Francis Fukuyama, a founding member of the Project for a New American Century, has told the New York Times that's he's bailing on pre-emption and neoconservatism. But I bet those guys over at Tha Projekkkt just made racist remarks behind Dr. Fukuyama's back anyway.

The larger cars and SUVs get, the larger their blind spots get, such that now the "blind spot" of an SUV might be "the entire area behind the car." These days an average of two children a week get killed in backover accidents, usually by members of their own families, and another 50 children get seriously injured, all because drivers can't see behind them. Automakers have the technology to reduce these incidents, but only offer it as a pricey option on high-end cars. It's high time we asked that they offer said technology on all cars. The above link also covers power-window accidents, which Congress has moved on somewhat in the recent past. Personally I'd rather just shame people who buy tanks (remember that joke about the mouse and the elephant and the Corvette?), but people are going to buy them, so we might as well protect ourselves from them.

Finally, PennPIRG is conducting a survey of Pennsylvania homeowners with property insurance, trying to find out (among other things) whether Pennsylvania homeowners face the same problem many other American homeowners face: rising premiums or canceled policies immediately after filing a claim, or even inquiring about filing claims. Take the survey here.

there is no vacation from being a good citizen.

Plenty of reminder alerts today: from the People's Email Network and the League of Conservation Voters, both opposing Arctic National Wildlife Reserve drilling, and from the Union of Concerned Scientists opposing the federal gutting of tough state food safety laws, which bill did pass the House a few days back, though with more difficulty than they thought. If you haven't spoken out against these items in a while, now would be a good time to do so again.

I apologize if I'm late on this particular item, but an amendment to a House bill would permanently cut off funding for fourteen permanent military bases in Iraq. Support this amendment here, even if it's already passed or failed; it's good to remind your Representatives that the American people do not want a permanent presence in Iraq.

mmmm...bile sandwich!

Mr. Bush embarks upon a tour, once again on the taxpayer's dime, to "explain" his Iraq policy -- and the House plans to vote this week (possibly even today) on another off-budget $75 billion expenditure to gild the pipes of Mr. Bush's crony corporations, although the phrase they use is "to fight the war in Iraq."  You may voice your opposition to such irresponsible spending if you like.

Speaking of irresponsible spending, the Senate defeated an amendment to a budget resolution which would have required spending increases to major federal programs (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid) to be offset elsewhere in the budget.  Sounds pretty fiscally responsible, right?  Must have been Republicans who dreamed that amendment up, right?  Well, not exactly -- it's true that five Republicans did vote for it, but the other 45 Senators who voted to restrain federal spending in the same manner Newt Gingrich's House did in the 1990s were either a) Democrats or b) Jim Jeffords.  Republicans essentially suggested that fiscal responsibility would doom Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the rich.  You'd almost think that was the idea!  How many more times must I suffer Lindsey Graham complaining that Republicans aren't fiscally responsible enough and then proposing only to cut more social programs?

But all is not gloom and doom here at "Thieves in the Temple" -- we note with glee that Congress will be unable to hurt America between March 17 and March 27, because they will be recessing for the St. Patrick's Day holiday.  As if we needed another reason to love the Irish!

money. does. not. equal. speech.

Those incorrigible Republicans are at it again -- well, some of them, at least. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) has sponsored HR 1606, which would essentially gut McCain-Feingold (imperfect though it may be) and clear the way for big donors, like corporations, to pay for internet ads they couldn't legally buy on radio or TV. However, another Republican, Charlie Bass of New Hampshire, has joined with Tom Allen of Maine to introduce HR 4900, which would protect the free speech rights of bloggers while preserving the soft-money ban in McCain-Feingold. I think you know where your duties lie, citizen. Recall that right-wingers (and, unfortunately, many actual conservatives) claim that the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances covers campaign contributions. Trouble with that is, campaign contributions aren't free speech. Free speech is free speech. Campaign contributions are, at best, guarantees of access that other citizens won't have -- and, at worst, they're just bribes.

Today and tomorrow are also, per New Jersey Citizen Action, "National Call-in Days for a Moral Budget," i.e. a budget that doesn't slash social services so the rich can have more tax cuts. Use my tools in the upper left-hand corner to locate your Congressfolk or call the toll-free Capitol line at 1.800.459.1887 and ask for your Representative. Also, for you excellent New Jersey-types, Tha Straight Shoota himself, Mr. Cheney, will headline a fundraising event in Newark on March 20 (that's this coming Monday), while NJCA will hold a "Protect America's Priorities Rally" at the IDT building on 520 Broad Street. If you intend to go, be there promptly at 3.00pm, as security will be tight. No word, however, on whether anyone will be wearing bright orange, just to see what happens.

nothing ever ends.

Senator Feingold wants the Senate to censure Mr. Bush for conducting warrantless and therefore illegal wiretapping on innocent Americans.  Censure doesn't actually obligate the Senate to undertake legal action, but I'm going to guess that the Senate is not terribly inclined to follow Feingold's lead.  The Senate Intelligence Committee wasn't even terribly inclined to investigate Mr. Bush's wiretapping program a few days ago, settling for toothless oversight legislation instead.  But predictions of Senate behavior have nothing to do with our duty as citizens.  Support Senator Feingold's call here.  And don't believe the hype that Feingold does things like these to position himself for a 2008 run.  He's been piling up such acts of courage for many, many years.  And bucking Bush -- or, more precisely, appearing to buck Bush before giving in or settling -- is definitely a winning strategy for John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel, but not for Russ Feingold, whom the punditry can and will dismiss as "partisan."

Also, the Electronic Freedom Foundation now has a page whereby you may register your opposition to Rep. Ferguson's anti-digital radio innovation bill, H.R. 4861, which I discussed in this space a few days ago.  EFF had a page to oppose the Senate version of said bill, but not the actual House version.  Now you have both -- and you can use both links without muddying the data, since by writing to Representatives and Senators you're writing to different Congressfolk.

current songs for the day of March 13, 2006.

I'd like to be a bigger fan of Sparks's new song, "Perfume," in which our hero lists all the perfumes worn by all the girls he knows and then declares his undying love for his girl, who doesn't wear any.  But the bridge is weak -- instead of the tongue-in-cheek lecture about the relationship between olfactory senses and memory, I was hoping our hero would wax rhapsodic about what his girl smells like.  As in, she smells like nobody else, and she smells like the places they always go and the things they love to do, etc. -- which, in turn, could have incorporated the satirical lecture about the relationship between olfactory senses and memory.  So call me a sentimentalist.

Also, Pearl Jam's new album, heavy with political subject matter they say, comes out on May 2.  I heard a song from the new album today; it's called "Worldwide Suicide."  I didn't learn exactly what they were singing about and maybe I don't need to -- I know their lyrical vision is going to be a little limited even at their most sincere (cf. "Better Man").  But I'm starting to think this band might have a little staying power.  Perhaps Bill O'Reilly will give them a hand by picking on them -- look what his everlasting enmity did for George Clooney.

the phantom menace.

We support bills that make large corporations pay into state health insurance rolls if a significant portion of their workers are on Medicaid, right? Apparently, Andrew Cassel doesn't. I say "apparently" because, although bills like the one that passed in Maryland and like the ones being debated in New Jersey and Pennsylvania apparently inspired him to write his editorial, he spends all his time arguing against bashing on Wal-Mart, when bashing on Wal-Mart is only one tool in our moral toolbox. And, perhaps since he doesn't deal with the bills head-on, his argument indulges mainly in subtle ad hominem attacks on folks like us. Since leaving full-time workers on the Medicaid rolls was part of the welfare reform package of 1996, he argues, and since "many" progressives supported that, then you and I must not be very progressive if we bash Wal-Mart for leaving many of its workers on Medicaid rolls -- though making corporations pay more of their obligation to their workers' health care seems, well, a lot like "progress" to me. And since all retailers pay low wages, and all retailers have to pay low wages in order to compete with other retailers, then we must not be terribly bright, either, if we bash Wal-Mart for paying low wages -- though we are bright enough, it seems, to tell the size difference between Joe's Pizza and Wal-Mart, and therefore which retailer would be affected by bills like the one that passed in Maryland and which wouldn't.

It's not all fat on these bones, though. Wal-Mart makes "billions" in profits, Cassel concedes, but since Wal-Mart has "millions" of workers, those profits only work out to $6,000 per worker. And just in case you figured out as quickly as I did that Wal-Mart's outrageous executive salaries officially reduce "profits," Cassel is ready: "the money (for better health care) wouldn't come out of the pockets of executives and shareholders," he says, as if that were Newton's Fourth Law (and, not incidentally, as if executives and shareholders were equal partners). CEOs used to make about 25 times the amount of their lowest-paid workers; now they make about 300 times the amount of their lowest-paid workers, and if a measure of justice existed before, surely we can make it exist again. And at the end, Cassel also announces that unions support these bills and unions can't organize at Wal-Mart, as if he were announcing that the killer was Mr. Green with the candlestick in the ballroom. I guess he thinks that union interest must in all cases be complete self-interest -- or complete anti-business interest, at least.

We excoriate the presence of megacorporate retail workers on the Medicaid rolls for moral reasons. Megacorporations are rich as hell and if they paid their CEOs less they wouldn't have to put anyone on the Medicaid rolls. Furthermore, megacorporations get plenty of money from states and municipalities in tax breaks so they'll build stores there. So megacorporations make a pile of money, get another pile of money from local governments in what are essentially welfare payments -- and can't pay benefits for a sizable number of their own workers? If corporations won't help the commonwealth, it's not our job as citizens to spout off about the laws of corporate "behavior" dictating that if corporations are made to do things they'll retaliate by raising prices. It's our job to make them help the commonwealth -- or decrease our dependence on them.

And yes, Mr. Cassel, the world would be better off without low-cost goods and groceries that have been made by sweatshop workers and low-paid farm workers. It ain't all about low prices for me. The technology exists for all of us to make more of our own goods than ever before, and the technology also exists for all of us to trade goods fairly, and a world in which more of us did all of that would be a much better world than the one with Wal-Mart in it.

penny rants for the day of March 11, 2006: stand up, be counted!

At last: someone (at MSNBC) tells a right-wing blowhard not to call people names on the air. And what was said right-wing blowhard's response? "You're right, of course; normally I understand that name-calling is a poor substitute for good argument"? Not exactly -- it was "he called me a right-winger!" Does David Horowitz really think being called a "right-winger" is equivalent to being called "Communist" and "pro-terrorist" -- not coincidentally, the epithets he levelled at his political opponent? We can be thankful that Horowitz isn't the annoyance he could be -- he made the mistake of choosing a niche cause (fighting leftism on campus) as his bête noire.

In other news, Michael Brown turns out to be a better egg than I thought, and I feel bad about insinuating that he wasn't committed to his work here. But the evidence still suggests Michael Brown was still too inexperienced to be in charge of coping with Katrina. And Tha Bush Mobb doesn't put inexperienced people in high positions because they're bold thinkers. They put inexperienced people in high positions because they don't care about anything but making money.

dead souls.

Most liberal gains over the last year-plus have come at the state and local level, but right-wingers think that two can play at that game:  six states are now contemplating estate tax repeal, possibly as a hand up for a springtime repeal push by the U.S. Senate.  (Remember when the Senate's first order of business after Katrina knocked the crap out of New Orleans was to try to repeal the Estate Tax?  I find it difficult to forgive such abject cruelty.)  If you live in Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma, New York, Maryland, or Connecticut, you ought to contact your local assemblyfolk and let them know how you feel about it.  One way to find your local assemblyfolk is to go to 50states.com, click on your state's folder icon, and follow the links under "representatives"; it may take a few clicks, but you'll get where you need to go shortly.  And if any of your state reps call the estate tax the "death tax," remind them that it's not a "death tax" per se because very few people who die actually pay it.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee canceled a planned February vote on HB 1478, which stood in polar opposition to SB 101 on the matter of payday loans.  But Senate Committee Chairman Gibson Armstrong says he'll bring HB 1478 up again in the middle of this month.  If you're a Pennsylvania resident, here's your chance to contact your state Senator.  If you've already contacted your state Senator, a follow-up call wouldn't be out of line; the aforementioned 50states.com link will help you do that.

men with hats.

Republican Senators plan to drop many of Mr. Bush's pet projects (Medicaid cuts, permanent tax cuts) from that rotten-egg bomb of a budget he submitted last month, but not Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling.  At least the forces of good, after stalling ANWR drilling last year, are going on the offensive this year against the presence of big oil money in political campaigns, by highlighting politicians who are swimming in it.  Click here to find out how much money your Congressfolk take from big oil and send an email telling them how you feel about it.  Could it be that we might make politicians ashamed of taking money from big oil?  A man can dream, can't he?

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution notes that Ralph Reed and James Dobson and the Rev. Louis Sheldon haven't always practiced what they've preached -- despite their stated opposition to gambling, they've taken money from Jack Abramoff to promote Abramoff's gambling interests.  It's not as amusing as watching Bill Bennett, who once wrote an entire book just jam-packed with virtues, blow a huge wad of change in Vegas on gambling and hookers.  But it's probably more damaging to the Republic, since they stand in the way of public campaign financing.  Administer a spanking to these Religious Right hypocrites here.  And speaking of Jack Abramoff, if anyone can come up with a snappy nickname for Tha Jacksta that references that absurd hard-guy hat of his, I'll be pleased to use it here repeatedly -- with attribution, of course.

citizens with mallets!

It's time for a game of legislative whack-a-mole! Here we act again on matters we've already acted upon (unless you've just tuned in).

The Voting Rights Act comes up for renewal soon; Mr. Bush has only recently said he'll sign such a thing, and the forces of evil and indifference want to water down key provisions. Here's where to get started.

Incredibly and happily, the House postponed a vote on the nefarious H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act" -- about which I first posted here -- because they felt the pressure from their constituents. However, they may be voting upon it again today, so a follow-up phone call to your Congressperson would be in order this morning. Toll-free numbers are 888.355.3588, 888.818.6641, and 800.426.8073, or get direct line information here.

"the last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away."

AT&T plans to merge with Bell South, thus just about reconstituting the old Bell. But AT&T doesn't just do phones anymore; it also does internet service, so it'll be a bigger monopoly than it was in 1984. And the bigger the telecom, the less accountable they'll be to the consumer and the more Congressfolk they'll buy to do their bidding. The FCC (headed by Bush Mobber Kevin Martin) and the FTC (headed by Bush Mobber Chris Cox) and the U.S. Congress (headed by Bush Mobbers Denny Hastert and Bill Frist) aren't very sympathetic to the desires of the little guy -- unless enough of us pound them with our calls and emails. Here's a way to do that.

There are of course other ways to press corporations to do better, and one of these is to ask. The Union of Concerned Scientists have prepared a petition encouraging major mutual fund corporations to press the corporations in their portfolios to address global warming. If you invest in mutual funds, you ought to research the corporations in your fund's portfolio -- or look into more socially-responsible mutual funds such as those listed here. But if you only have half a minute, signing the aforementioned petition isn't a bad way to go.

unintelligent design.

Tomorrow the Senate Intelligence Committee plans to vote on whether to investigate Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.  The People's Email Network has a page whereby you may express your support for such a thing.  Bill Frist has apparently vowed to strip the Senate Intelligence Committee of such oversight if it dares to investigate this wiretapping.  But Bill Frist can go to hell and take his nochance2008.org website with him.

Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), hopefully still smarting from his steamrollering by constituents at those little pro-privatization town hall meetings he held early last year, has introduced H.R. 4861, the "Audio Broadcast Flag Licensing Act of 2006," which would require that all future digital radios, both terrestrial and satellite, "include prohibitions on unauthorized copying and redistribution of transmitted content."  Ferguson's bill flies in the face of existing law (including the Audio Home Recording Act and the Copyright Act), allows corporations to break the law by banning "unauthorized" copying instead of "illegal" copying (essentially, they can ban fair use copying merely by calling it "unauthorized"), and by insisting on "consistency" with the "customary use of broadcast content by consumers," which would essentially ban any innovation in "customary use" (think TiVo recording "banned" by such a law being passed in 1995, when TiVo recording didn't exist).  It's nice to know that our lawmakers protect corporations instead of consumers.  Download the House bill as a PDF here, and oppose its companion Senate bill here.

penny rants for the day of March 5, 2006.

Here's the rule as I learned it from my folks:  saving money is good.  Spending more than you have is bad, though in rare and controllable instances it is necessary.  But that wisdom apparently ain't good enough for those who make a living trying to put lipstick on this pig of an economy.  Having noted that American household savings finished 2005 in the negative -- that's right, folks, we as a culture didn't save any damn money last year, and in fact spent more than we earned -- some economists have responded that, well, housing prices have gone way, way up, so the houses we own are worth more, so we in essence "have more savings."  Even setting aside the quite reasonable fear you may have that these way, way high housing prices (rather like those way, way high tech stock prices from the 1990s) have little to do with the actual value of real estate and might soon sink like a stone, this thesis only works if you've already paid off your mortgage, and my guess is most of you haven't yet.  You may "own" a house in the sense that you can borrow against it and thus gain flexibility in paying other bills and making improvements and such, but if in the meantime you get downsized from your job because your employer is trying to boost his stock price and/or his bonus, how long are you going to own the house?  But I'm sure it'll all turn out right, as long as the rich keep buying seven-ply cashmere sweaters.

But that isn't the most offensive thing I read this week:  this is.  It's called "Energy Independence is a Disaster in the Making."  Upon what motherlode of evidence does its author base this extraordinary statement?  Here is a summary of all of it, from paragraphs five and six:  if we put a $250 tariff on each barrel of oil, it would wreck the economy -- though of course "(n)obody's seriously proposing such drastic action."  How exactly does an outlandish proposal "nobody" has made and nobody would make compel us to accept that "energy independence" will lead inexorably to "disaster"?  Can the author describe any attempts at energy independence from anywhere on the planet (like, say, Germany, which spends plenty on solar power) that have had this result?  He cannot.  He can get wonky about gasoline taxes, and he can suggest that we might as well not conserve oil because that'll drive prices down in the short term which will make us more dependent on the Middle East yadda yadda yadda, but he cannot support his thesis -- which, in case you missed it, was "Energy Independence is a Disaster in the Making" -- with even one shred of evidence.  I can't help but think the real message is this:  don't any of you little people who don't have an advanced degree in economics try to be independent -- because that would be a disaster for those who make a living mystifying the populace about how the economy "works."

I think USA Today, in an otherwise excellent editorial, resorts to the slippery-slope argument in suggesting that outlawing abortion could lead to the outlawing of almost any other private sexual act.  It's quite possible that the Supreme Court could allow states to outlaw abortion while leaving "the zone of privacy" intact; put another way, it's the "zone of privacy" that permits legal abortions, not legal abortions that permit a "zone of privacy."  I was always appalled by the slippery-slope argument that legalizing gay sex would automatically lead to the legalization of bestiality, incest, and bigamy -- "privacy" alone would not confer legality on these relationships, since each of them has considerable, and almost certainly prohibitive, consent issues -- so why would I like this?  I don't think it would be untoward, however, to put some vigorous questions to Religious Right bigots as to whether attacking abortion is really the first blow in a war to win "the most draconian rollback of personal liberties in U.S. history," particularly regarding sexuality.  They'll deny it if we're artless about it, but it doesn't take much art to befuddle a bigoted fool.

Speaking of which, the truly amazing L. Brent Bozell III says that the media have been "ignoring" Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism, supposedly described in the Hussein tapes, because the media can't give Mr. Bush "the benefit of the doubt about the Iraqi thug’s connection to terrorism."  As I recall, the media did not "ignore" the nonexistent Hussein/al-Qaeda ties but in fact swallowed Bush Mobb lies about them whole.  But more importantly, the media has no business giving any President, anywhere, at any time, "the benefit of the doubt" about anything -- let alone one of the Big Lies that led us to this awful war.  Can you imagine Peter Zenger or Ben Franklin instructing us from the beyond that the media should just let the President usher us into war because, hey, he knows stuff you don't know and he might just be right?  The media's job is the same as the citizen's job:  to hold the President accountable to the will of the people.  And it's the President's job to prove that he is accountable to the will of the people.  I bet L. Brent Bozell III will sound exactly like me on this matter if Hillary Clinton ever becomes President.  The difference is that when he says it, he'll be a damn hypocrite.

(Hat tip to MediaMatters for the final item -- and you may earn extra super-special double-secret bonus points if you can tell me the rhetorical flaw in paragraph 8, sentence 1 of the Bozell piece, or what friggin' planet he's on in paragraph 11.)

world! in! chaos!

Mr. Bush told us a long time ago that the world was a frightening, dangerous place, and since he told us that, he's been going around stirring up every hornet's nest he can find so the world becomes more frightening and more dangerous, so he can say, "see?  I told you the world was frightening and dangerous!  Now we must invade Iraq/Iran/Freedonia!"  It seems that during his second term he's decided to calm things down a bit ("this is the time for diplomacy" was Condi's phrase, I believe), and perhaps he thinks we'll all be grateful for the relative calm.  But it's not working as well for him as it did for President Reagan -- Mr. Bush has not intimidated the world into playing his way, but has closed off avenues for real change with his arrogance.

Case in point:  India.  It's tempting to say, "good boy, Georgie, signing treaties is how Reagan eventually learned to do it."  It's also tempting to say he did well because he got them to commit to separate their civilian and military nuclear programs (which some Indian scientists have already said they'll try to circumvent) and let international inspectors in.  But in order to get anything done with India, Mr. Bush had to allow them more access to American nuclear technology than they've had since 1974.  What happened in 1974?  They detonated a nuclear bomb using American materials after agreeing to use said materials for peaceful purposes.  India has been a bad egg on nuclear technology in other ways.  They haven't signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (even Iran has signed that!) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, they take no steps toward nuclear disarmament, and they won't accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in their plants.  Needless to say, of course, this is also not a very good way of achieving the goal even Mr. Bush said was paramount during his first debate with Mr. Kerry:  of keeping nuclear power out of the hands of terrorists.  India doesn't appear to have the al-Qaeda ties that Pakistan does, but that doesn't mean that won't change, and if India were trustworthy with nuclear power, they'd have signed the relevant treaties already.

Mr. Bush's attitude is same-as-it-ever-was:  "I'm trying to think differently, not stay stuck in the past" -- because every time someone does something different, it must be right.  There are no instances in recorded history of "trying something different" turning out to be "trying something stupid."  Absolutely none. Ever. Seriously, if a Democratic President did this treaty, George W. Bush and his non-con followers would be hammering it for not doing enough.  In any case, we don't have to trust him:  Congress has to ratify the agreement, and Republican Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan has introduced legislation with Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts that would state that any nuclear deal with India would require India to respect the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  What's that sound?  Is that the voice of John Bolton, the Ambassador of Death, saying "we can't tell India to respect a treaty they won't sign!  A ha!  I made a point!  I'm smarter than those kids who hate my haircut and glasses!"  Yeah, that is him, and he's wrong again -- of course we can tell them to respect a treaty they won't sign, or we won't give them what they want.  Support this call with this tool from Council for a Livable World.

UPDATE. I wasn't sure it was obvious enough that I was being sarcastic in paragraph 3, sentence 2. Now, hopefully, it is. Also, there was an extra space between words in paragraph 3, sentence 5, because my space key sticks a lot. That's gone now, too. Please make a note of it.

"thieves in the temple": a proud member of the bar scene in Star Wars. (I'm the one who looks like an alien.)

Nine Senators joined Russ Feingold in filibustering the latest only-slightly-improved-maybe version of the PATRIOT Act, and they deserve your thanks.  Senator Byrd got some attention this week for siding with the filibuster and expressing his regret for his 2001 vote in favor of the PATRIOT Act, but the most stalwart Senator on Feingold's side during this last-gasp attempt was former Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who's retiring in 2006.

A 50-organization coalition now battles against AOL's plan to offer preferential treatment to spammers who pay them a premium.  AOL's defenders have responded with vigor-but-not-rigor -- one analyst shouts "my server, my rules" (as if "my server" doesn't, you know, by definition and such, serve users more than its owner) and claims that "(t)hose that run e-mail services are perfectly entitled to act on user spam complaints," which, as we know from logic class, does not permit one to undertake just any old "action" on anyone's "behalf."  Some analysts think they've done their job by pointing out that the fee service is "optional" -- right, just like joining a Country Club is "optional," or buying your Congressperson's vote is "optional."  There are all sorts of things that are "optional" in our culture, but if they injure the commonwealth, then they're also "immoral."  AOL's plan injures the commonwealth, by helping to create "classes" of internet users, and the fact that there are already "classes" of users in other areas of the economy is no defense.  You may sign on to the coalition's open letter to AOL here.

Finally, the I Count! coalition is looking for citizens to lobby legislators in Washington, D.C. on April 6 and 7.  Mainly citizens will be advocating for Rep. Rush Holt's voter-verified paper trail bill, H.R. 550, regarded by most voter-verified paper trail activists as the "gold standard" of such legislative efforts.  I Count! sees a window of opportunity in the slight reshuffling of Republican leadership in the House (and probably also, though they don't say it, the growing unpopularity of the Republican agenda).  Here's where to sign up.

common sense.

TrueMajority has an action page calling for a "common sense" budget. The cynical among us will no doubt respond "what does 'common sense' budget mean? Ha ha ha ha!" As if that were some kind of unanswerable question. "Common sense" would mean cutting waste from wasteful programs, instead of just cutting funds from social spending programs and pretending it's "waste." "Common sense" would mean investing wisely in education and health care and renewable energy to increase the freedom of the citizenry -- instread of investing in defense contractor boondoggles and corporate welfare so that only the rich are free. "Common sense" would, at the very least, mean that you stop keeping the cost of your wars off-budget and stop shoving things into the budget that aren't related to the budget (like the Social Security private accounts plan and the ANWR drilling plan) just so they can't be filibustered. And no, "common sense" does not mean "not listening to conservatives." It never has. But it does mean "not listening to Tha Bush Mobb and their enablers in Congress and in the punditry."

And here, at last, courtesy of Consumers Union, an action page in support of a la carte cable packaging! That led me to seek out the Parents Television Council's action page for a la carte cable, which, last I looked a few months ago, joined the a la carte issue with a poison pill issue I couldn't support. Now, however, it doesn't.