Taxcut Reality
In todays paper there was a blurb about the Bush logic behind the taxcuts. Essentially the taxcuts spur people to work harder to get more money, therefore increasing the tax revenues by such an amount to offset the cut and to reduce the deficit. That's the logic and, of course, it's flawed both logically and as proven by reality.

In America we have essentially two types of workers - Exempt whom are salaried and don't get paid overtime for hours beyond 40, and Non-exempt whom are by the hour and get overtime. If you're Exempt a tax cut means - yay! - more money in your pocket without having to work harder, plain and simple. You get paid a certain amount of money and taxes determine how much is left for you so a tax cut is a good thing. For Non-exempt workers a tax cut means you may have to work less hard to bring home the same amount of money, or work the same amount of time and take in more money. A tax cut means, if anything, either the same amount of work or less.

In either case it should be obvious that the tax revenues will decrease, period, and that is what happens in reality. Clinton raised taxes for the rich and revenues increased so much that we ended up with a surplus. Bush cut taxes, revenues plummeted fueling a deficit further into debt.

So for Bush to crow that further tax cuts are necessary to reduce the deficits means (1) that he's living in a fantasy and (2) that many Government programs, like Education, Health, etc. are going to be severely slashed (except for the Military and pet projects). Or for all the talk the deficit will just continue to grow and Bush and cronies watch with wide-eyed wonder.

This is the phrase that could destroy America. Seriously.

"Washington, DC, Dec. 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday police may make an arrest without a warrant if, given the known facts, there is probable cause of a crime."

I see a tremendous potential for abuse beyond the occassional lone wolf officer running amok. This ruling could easily be used by politicos to justify citizen harrassment such as detaining someone because they look like a wanted criminal (that is, black or hispanic, or a white troublemaker) or they swerved slightly in traffic (must be drugs). The burden lies on the victim to prove their innocence all while under the eyes of the police.

Worse is that those who are innocent usually protest loudly as such, which - gosh golly - can turn into "resisting arrest" and turn a mistake into an innocent crime.

At what point does the Police who job it is "To Protect and Serve" the public become accountable to the very people they supposedly protect and serve? I fear that the Supreme Court has jumped on the "Security uber alles" bandwagon, neglecting our civil liberties (such as the right to sue). As we become more and more like the dreaded USSR of old, I remember an old ad that ran during the Reagan presidency warning of a bear in the woods and that we should be wary of the bear. The bear is out of the woods and in Washington.

"Better dead than red" takes on multiple meanings now, doesn't it?

But then my train of thought shifted to California and how we're portrayed as a Blue State. But, in reality, not really. Kerry won the state with something like 55% - not an overwhelming victory. Plus we have the annoying habit of electing Republican Governors (Good boy - I did'nt say "incompetent") such as Arnie. Where the hell is Arnie? What is he doing for California? Can anyone tell me?

And then my train of thought shifted again...to Arnie's wife, Maria Shriver and how she looks like a freaking anorexic skeleton kind of like Karen Carpenter. PBS just had a special on Karen Carpenter - what a talent; such a loss. During the special I mentioned to the wife that Richard Carpenter looked like Richard Chamberlain. Lo and behold, during the special they mentioned that the Carpenters recorded a song originally recorded (poorly) by Chamberlain. RIchard's great role (for me) was Blackthorne in Shogun.

With that I went to try out "Shogun: Total War" which the wife had found for a buck at a garage sale. Interesting game but not my style. It satisfied my curiosity about the game and quelled a minor thirst for things Nippon, though I never did get my edamames for lunch.

Anyway. It's "Hell Monday" and as most Mondays I had massive trouble sleeping. Nothing like a forty-minute commute while semi-conscious to make one ponder mortality and the meaning of life.

(*sigh*) And if this giant of a show survives another 2 years or so you know they'll have a competition between the past winners. Reality TV like ordinary TV gets a bit predictable, just like in real life. Maybe that's why it's called Reality TV. Except many of them are scripted and, of course, edited for maximum effect. What that effect is supposed to be - I dunno.

News Notes
"Canadian high court says Government can redefine marriage to include same-sex possibilities." - Those hell-bound Canucks!! What next? Redefine marriage again to include animals?!? THis is an utter travesty and a complete mockery of the sanctity of marriage. I urge every Red-Blooded American to write Bush and call for a complete invasion of Canada!!! [This is sarcasm, folks]

"Bush pushes for Iraqi eletions in January" - of course he does. Safety, legitimacy, and accuracy be damned. Bush wants the sound bite, the opportunity to crow about elections happening on time despite the insurgents. Remember when it comes to Iraq, it's not about them, it's about us. That's why Bush took us there. And to think, for a few million, we could have hired a hit team to knock out Hussein and Sons. That would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. But Halliburton stockholders would've suffered and we can't have that now, can we?

"Ohio vote validation continues" - I'm curious, what if a couple of states did a complete recount and discovered that Kerry did, in fact, win the states, the electoral votes, and the Presidency - would Bush step aside come January? Or, would he claim, that since Kerry conceded he essentially removed himself from running leaving Bush as the unanimous winner?

Light Blogging
Blogging has become more of a chore instead of a catharsis. I'm still wiped from the election and a great part of me just doesn't want to deal with four more years of chronicling the inevitable Bush idiocies. If his incompetence isn't that completely obvious then perhaps something is wrong with America beyond simple ignorance. I dunno and for now don't really care. Bush has won in more ways than one.

For decades the Democrats and Republicans have played the system - fixed the rules - to make our choices essentially boil down to one or the other party. Yes, there are other parties - Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, and so on - but the cost, Media, and bureaucracy heavily favors the Big Two. Our mind set is one or the other. And both parties were likely sharing a chuckle as they imposed further rules to discourage an attack by a third party.

The Democrats saw themselves as equal to the Republicans and are now more the foolish. With the Republicans virtually in control of our Government they're changing the rules to favor themselves. Check out the DeLay business for an example. Expect to see more of this in Bush's second term. The Republicans will not give up control easily. If, come 2008, the Democrats win the Presidency expect there to be in place a rule that says the new President can't take Office until the results are verified and valid. Then look for a massive nationwide handcount, fraud law suits, and other manipulations. Or a terrorist attack just in time.

So, instead of retooling the Democrats, the effort ought to be retooling the entire political system to give opportunity for other parties, to give more voices to the common and uncommon people. We need to strengthen our Election processes and remove loopholes and remove opportunities for fraud. We need to see other colors than just Blue and Red.

Let's face it. You hear the word Republican and you don't picture a happy healthy America. I don't. I picture war, Nixon, crosses, and money streaming upwards. What do you see?

U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government says.

Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday.

Some of the prisoners have filed lawsuits challenging their detention without charges for up to three years so far. At the hearing, Boyle urged District Judge Richard J. Leon to throw their cases out.

Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."

Leon asked whether a detention based solely on evidence gathered by torture would be illegal, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."

Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."

Leon asked whether there were any restrictions on using torture-induced evidence.

Boyle replied that the United States never would adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.

Several arguments underlie the U.S. court ban on products of torture.

"About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview. Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."

Leon asked whether U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."

The combatant status review tribunals comprise three colonels and lieutenant colonels. They were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. The panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners so far but have released only one.

The military also set up an annual administrative review which considers whether the detainee still presents a danger to the United States but doesn't review enemy combatant status. Administrative reviews have been completed for 161.

Boyle argued these procedures are sufficient to satisfy the high court.

Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, detainee attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the (proceedings) to rebut the government's claims."

Leon suggested that if federal judges start reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees there could be "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war."

And he suggested an earlier Supreme Court ruling might limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and review panels were legally established.

Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held a similar hearing Wednesday, said they would try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees may proceed with their lawsuits.

US watching Russian arms sales to Venezuela

Tue Nov 30, 7:21 PM ET

OTTAWA (AFP) - The United States is watching possible Venezuelan purchases of MiG fighter jets from Russia but doubts that such sales would destabilize Latin America, a senior US administration official said.

"Let me put it this way: We shoot down MiGs," the official, who spoke to reporters at a White House-organized briefing on condition he not be named, replied when asked whether Washington was worried about such sales.

"It should be an issue of concern to the Venezuelan people. Millions of dollars are going to be spent on Russian weapons for ill-defined purposes," the official said.

Prodded on the purpose of such purchase, the official replied: "My understanding is that they're looking to upgrade their fighter fleet, and they've decided that MiGs might be the fighter to purchase."

White House national security spokesman Sean McCormack said Russian fighter jet sales to Russia "would be an issue we would monitor closely."

Asked about the anonymous official's "shoot down" comment, McCormack winced and said "I would leave that part out."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez confirmed Friday, after a two-day visit to Russia, that Caracas would buy 40 military helicopters and an unspecified quantity of automatic weapons from Moscow.

The Financial Times reported Monday that this was expected to be followed by Venezuela's acquisition of a fleet of the most advanced model of the MiG-29 fighter jet.

One message is one of confidence that our fighter jocks can outgun any other country's fighter jocks, so if you buy MiGs and go against us you'll lose.

One message is that our fighter plane technology is superior to that of Russia, so if you buy MiGs and go against us you'll lose.

One message is that you should buy American...or else if you buy MiGs and go against us you'll lose.

One message is that the U.S. still considers Russia an enemy or, at least, a lesser ally - one that will take such an insult without complaint...or else.

But the most blatant message is that you will do as we say...or else. Such a nice message to help bring about Peace on Earth. Or maybe it's a clever way to keep our Defense industry and our economy a-float. But I've yet to find a reason to use "Bush" and "clever" in the same sentence, except now.

Oh! - you say - but Bush didn't say we shoot down MiGs, so why blame him. It's the mentality - the "US (U.S.) against the World and we're Right because of our superior weapons" mentality. Don't be fooled. Bush is not a man of peace. We have four more years of war, if not in Iraq then somewhere else. And when Bush pisses off China...