In 1850 John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding "federal" laws would be necessary. Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the "concurrent majority"). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms – including the right of secession – existed.
Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter. The biggest special-interest group of all – the federal government itself – has seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land. How did we get to the point where the federal government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?

Liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.
Who woulda thunk that we would see this happen?

Can $100 buy your vote??

As gas prices rose to above $3 a gallon last week, President Bush, his Administration officials, and their Senate allies came out in full force to do damage control. They know their jobs and their far-right agenda are at stake this November. In a hasty attempt to appease voters, Senator Frist proposed a $100 rebate financed by changing an accounting loophole that allows the oil and gas industry to pay lower taxes. His own party members balked at the overt pandering to voters, with Senator Conrad of Montana saying, "there're some dumb ideas in this." [Houston Chronicle, 4/29/06] But it was heavy pressure from Big Oil that ultimately drove Senator Frist to retreat from the plan.
While Washington Republicans flip flop, waste time, and coddle their Big Oil friends, Senate Democrats are fighting for direct and immediate relief to working families. Last week, Senator Menendez proposed an amendment that would eliminate the federal gas tax for 60 days, providing $6 billion in direct relief to consumers.
Senator Frist's latest move shows that once again, every time Washington Republicans claim to be taking action on gas prices, they are really taking action to protect oil industry profits. Election Day is just six months away and the Republicans are counting on their old oil industry friends to raise money for their candidates and keep their control over the Washington agenda -- an agenda that has taken power away from the people, made America less secure, and driven up profits for Big Oil at the expense of middle class families.

IRRESPONSIBLE President...

Let the next White House worry.
On May 1st, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual depressing report. On Tuesday, congressional negotiators handed President Bush a "victory" -- his assessment -- in agreeing to extend his capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Mr. Bush and his fellow tax-cuts-above-all proponents would like you to believe that the two events are unrelated. But taken together they underscore the terrible fiscal predicament that Mr. Bush has chosen to bequeath to his successor.According to the new estimates, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, one year closer than last year's projection, while Medicare's will run out in 2018 -- two years sooner than last year's projection and 12 years earlier than estimated when Mr. Bush took office. These dates may still sound remote, but the problem is more imminent than the customary focus on insolvency suggests. Far earlier than the insolvency date, the programs will be spending more than they take in, in payroll taxes in the case of Social Security, in payroll taxes and premiums in the case of some parts of Medicare. Because of higher-than-anticipated hospital costs, the price of Medicare hospital benefits will exceed tax collections and other dedicated revenue this year -- a situation that will persist and worsen rapidly after 2010. And every year of procrastination makes the eventual solution more painful.But the best Mr. Bush can come up with is a bipartisan commission -- yes, another one -- to study the problem. And even that seems to be only make-believe. He mentioned a commission in his State of the Union address but hasn't bothered to appoint members. He proposed minimal Medicare cuts in his latest budget and then emitted nary a peep of protest when Congress proceeded to ignore him.When it comes to ensuring the permanence of his tax cuts, though, Mr. Bush is a lot more energetic. Last After he summoned Republican leaders to the White House, they agreed to extend Mr. Bush's cuts on capital gains and dividends, now set to expire in 2008, through the end of 2010. This means that all the tax cuts Mr. Bush has presided over are now set to expire on the same date, Jan. 1, 2011 -- draining the treasury of needed revenue until then and setting the stage for a difficult decision at that time. Allowing all the tax cuts to expire simultaneously is politically unthinkable and economically unwise. Yet this is also the time when strains on the budget from the retirement of the baby boomers will begin their unsustainable upward path.

The breathtaking irresponsibility of this won't become totally clear until Mr. Bush is back on the ranch. But history's verdict is predictable: bad enough to squander a chance to improve the nation's health while there was still time; unforgivable to make it so much worse.

The Oil Crunch & Iraq??

Jim Krane of the Associated Press quotes analysts who seem to blame the high price of petroleum on the shambles in Iraq. Iraq could be exporting nearly 3 million barrels a day (bbd) if the guerrilla war was not resulting in massive sabotage. In 2005, Iraq did only 1.4 million bbd on average, down from 2.8 mn. bbd before the war. Not only is Iraqi production way off but Iraq actually imports over $4 billion a year in petroleum products taking them off the market for other consumers.I can't imagine that Iraq really is much of a factor here. The world petroleum production is on the order of 86 million barrels a day so the lost 1.4 million bbd of Iraq is about 1.6% of the total. Even if you factor in Iraq's imports (and remember it doesn't have much of an economy at the moment), I can't imagine that Iraq production issues account for very much of the current price spike. Some economists argue that there is a lot of speculation, including a security premium, built into the current price, because you have war and rumors of war going on in the Gulf. A ten percent security premium is the difference between paying $3.00 a gallon for gas and $2.70.The main problem in supply isn't raw petroleum production but a shortfall in world refining capacity. The rise in demand is partially seasonal with Americans hitting the road in the summer.Some economists seem to be arguing that over five to ten years, Iraq could have had an impact, if there hadn't been all that sabotage and if $30 bn. had been invested in the industry. The fact is that if Americans did some serious conservation they could reduce consumption by 1/3. Since they use about 20 million barrels a day of petroleum, they could replace the production of both Iraq and Iran all by themselves.But the last politician who dared tell you that was Jimmy Carter and no one will ever go on television and talk that way again who wants to hold public office.
__________________

Hieroglyphic Stairway

it’s 3:23 in the morningand I’m awakebecause my great great grandchildrenwon’t let me sleepmy great great grandchildrenask me in dreamswhat did you do while the planet was plundered?what did you do when the earth was unraveling?surely you did somethingwhen the seasons started failing?as the mammals, reptiles, and birds were all dying?did you fill the streets with protestwhen democracy was stolen?what did you doonce you knew?I’m riding home on the Colma trainI’ve got the voice of the milky way in my dreamsI have teams of scientistsfeeding me data dailyand pleading I immediatelyturn it into poetryI want just this consciousness reachedby people in range of secret frequenciescontained in my speechI am the desirous earthequidistant to the underworldand the flesh of the starsI am everything already lostthe moment the universe turns transparentand all the light shoots through the cosmosI use words to instigate silenceI’m a hieroglyphic stairwayin a buried Mayan citysuddenly exposed by a hurricanea satellite circling earthfinding dinosaur bonesin the Gobi desertI am telescopes that see back in timeI am the precession of the equinoxes,the magnetism of the spiraling seaI’m riding home on the Colma trainwith the voice of the milky way in my dreamsI am myths where violets blossom from bloodlike dying and rising godsI’m the boundary of timesoul encountering souland tongues of fireit’s 3:23 in the morningand I can’t sleepbecause my great great grandchildrenask me in dreamswhat did you do while the earth was unraveling?I want just this consciousness reachedby people in range of secret frequenciescontained in my speech

drew dellinger©2003

Hypothetical President

This is of course an entirely hypothetical question, but what would happen if, in some future administration, a President of the United States lost his marbles?
Charles Manson could look Presidential, if you sprang him from prison, bought him a nice suit, gave him a shave, and taught him to smile for the cameras. A President is human like anyone else, so in theory, any President could go over the edge.
What if the power of the Presidency went to a hypothetical President's head, and he became psychotic or otherwise mentally unstable? If a hypothetical President went bananas, but maintained the ability to smile smoothly for the cameras, and spoke in a soft tone of voice whenever he was in public, how would we know he was nuts?
What if, in the privacy of the Oval Office, The President ordered his political opponents spied upon, swore vengeance on imagined enemies, and commanded attacks on nations that posed no threat to America?
What if the people who surrounded this madman wanted to keep his craziness a secret? What if his political cronies decided -- perhaps in good conscience, or perhaps for nefarious purpose -- to simply cut the deranged president "out of the loop," make decisions without him, and use him only as a camera-friendly figurehead?
These are tough questions, and aren't you glad they're only hypothetical? It would be a real dilemma if it ever really happened, because no matter how stale a fruitcake in the White House became, he would still be The President.
It would make no difference whether he was a Democrat, a Republican, or a Whig. Whatever his politics, the people in his own party would naturally want to overlook his shortcomings, and any outspoken opposition from another party would be portrayed as shrill politics from hypothetical-President-haters.
Why, even if The President sent hundreds of thousands of American troops into wars against a nation or two which presented no danger at all to America, he would still be The President. Even if his needless wars killed thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, The President could just shrug and claim that anyone who wanted to end the wars didn't "support the troops."
And even if his wars without reason left hundreds of thousands of foreigners dead, still, if The President rattled sabers and threatened war against a third nation that couldn't harm America, or maybe even a fourth nation, many Americans would stand behind him.
After all, they would say, we're at war. We have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps this imaginary, unhinged President would try to keep more and more of his policies and actions secret, and refuse to allow serious investigations into any aspect of his administration. Perhaps he would sidestep any question by simply saying "national security" is at stake, and refusing to answer.
And many Americans would say, we're at war. We have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps this un-named, completely hypothetical but completely insane President would make chilling speeches, explaining that public debate remains acceptable, but harsh criticism is now over the line. It's treasonous to disagree, he could say -- it's aiding and abetting the enemy, and it's lowering the morale of US troops.
And many Americans would agree, enthusiastically. We're at war, they would echo, so we have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps a President, hypothetically out of his hypothetical mind, might ignore the Constitution, break laws left and right, and openly claim the power to rewrite or ignore any law. It might be worrisome to imagine it, but hypothetically, a bonkers administration might seize and hold thousands of people in secret prisons, without ever charging them with a crime. The President could even make torture an official US policy, while unblinkingly telling Americans that our nation would never torture.
No matter what an administration of maniacs might do, millions of Americans would still say it's downright un-American to speak against The President while we're at multiple wars. And so the wars would keep coming, wars without any sane purpose, but wars without end.
That's one hell of a catch, that Catch 22. The President gains special powers while we're at war, and it's un-American to question the validity of any war underway, and it's unpatriotic to criticize The President while we're at war ... but the wars never end.
In such a speculative setting, where would you stand? Could you see past your own politics, and recognize a madman when he gives the State of the Union address? Would you remain loyal to your political party's man no matter what -- or would you be loyal to your nation, its laws, its Constitution, its troops, and the freedoms they fought to establish and defend?

BACK PAGE HERO

Honors for My Lai Hero Came Much Too Late
by Mike Boehm

Lost among the headlines about Iraq and secret detentions was the story of the death last week of a hero and a patriot: Hugh Thompson.
In 1998, Thompson was awarded the Soldier's Medal, for heroism not involving conflict with an enemy, for his actions to save civilians in My Lai, Vietnam, on March 16, 1968. Thompson died of cancer Friday morning in Alexandria, La., at the age of 62.
Reading the press coverage of the presentation of the Soldier's Medal to Army pilot Thompson and his two helicopter crewmen, Larry Colburn and Glenn Andreotta, could leave the impression that the award was the culmination of a natural and just process.
These three heroes, led by Thompson, rescued 10 Vietnamese villagers who were about to be killed by American soldiers, and they were responsible for stopping the My Lai massacre, led by Lt. William Calley Jr.
It took 30 years for Thompson to receive proper recognition for his actions that day, 30 years before it became safe to honor him for standing up to fellow American soldiers.
Hugh Thompson believed deeply that the military was an honorable profession and that in time of war it was important to behave in an honorable way. He paid a heavy price for his beliefs.
Flying a reconnaissance mission over My Lai that March day, Thompson looked down to see carnage. Bodies of Vietnamese villagers were strewn over the ground, and he could see 10 villagers huddled in a bunker as Calley's soldiers approached them. Thompson landed his helicopter and ordered Colburn, his gunner, to train his machine gun on the American GIs. He told Colburn to "open up" on them if they began firing on the Vietnamese. Then Thompson coaxed out the terrified villagers using hand signals and radioed for another helicopter to come rescue them.
When it became known what Thompson and his crew did to stop the My Lai massacre, his life became a living hell. He was nearly court-martialed for his actions. He was shunned by fellow pilots, dead animals were thrown on his doorstep, and he received death threats.
Contrast this behavior with the treatment of Calley. When he was finally sentenced to life in prison, the outcry by the American people against the sentence persuaded President Nixon eventually to pardon Calley. The lieutenant served only three years under house arrest, with organizations such as the American Legion raising funds for his defense.
Judging by the treatment of these two men, who did the American people really see as a hero?
The betrayal Thompson felt was so profound he never recovered from it and spent the rest of his life committing suicide by alcohol.
This feeling of betrayal is something most veterans have in common. All of us were taught to know right from wrong, to know good from evil. We trusted our institutions our government and our schools. We listened to so many of our churches promoting war and bowed our heads as our chaplains prayed over us to be successful in killing other human beings. We trusted our parents, who told us we were doing the right thing, and then we went to war in Vietnam (and now Iraq) and found we had been duped. We had been tricked into committing evil.
It comes as no surprise, after having the very foundations of life betrayed, that so many veterans have committed suicide. Or that so many veterans end up in jail or homeless or addicted to drugs.
Referring to the men who took part in the massacre at My Lai, Ron Ridenhour wrote in "Four Hours in My Lai": "Only a few people in those circumstances had the presence of mind and the strength of their own character that would see them through. ... Only an extraordinary few could withstand the pressures and maintain their moral beings in that awful place, in those terrible conditions. ... But we shouldn't our society shouldn't be structured ... so that only the extraordinary few can conduct themselves in a moral fashion."
Think about this. We are horrified when we hear about the massacres perpetrated in Vietnam and Iraq, and yet our society created the conditions for these atrocities to happen.
These atrocities will not end until we Americans, all of us, whether we were soldiers or not, recognize our own culpability. Like most Americans, I lived with the myth that as an American I could not possibly commit evil and that those Americans who did were deviants. It took me years to realize that the only difference between me and those who committed the massacre at My Lai (or Auschwitz or Nanking or Rwanda) was that I was lucky; I wasn't there. I had to face the deeper truth that the capacity for evil exists in all of us.
As long as there is war there will be atrocities and the need for the courage of men like Hugh Thompson. Only through the abolition of war will there finally be an end to atrocities.