HOW ABOUT THAT NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL?

New Mexico attorney general not hot on looking for missing Texas legislators

AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, May 12, 2003

The attorney general in New Mexico says Texas law enforcement officials probably can't go into that state to arrest missing state lawmakers -- and she made clear she's not hot on looking for them.

Attorney General Patricia Madrid said if Texas issues arrest warrants for the officials, then New Mexico officials may act on them and extradition proceedings would have to be held.

Her comments came after Gov. Rick Perry's office asked New Mexico whether it would allow Texas officials to make arrests in that state. Madrid said the question is being researched. But she wasn't taking it all serious.

"Some are speculating this request from the Texas Governor's office concerns an effort to locate missing Texas House Democrats," Madrid wrote. "If so, Texas should understand that since ski season is over, the Santa Fe Opera has not begun and President Bush was just in town, I don't think they are in Santa Fe now. Nevertheless, I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the look out for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy."

She also wrote that normal arrest procedures should be followed and "this is an internal political matter to be handled by Texas government officials."

SIGNS OF LIFE FROM TEXAS DEMOCRATS

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R - Houston) had proposed a bill that would redistrict Travis County, the county in which Austin, the state capitol, is located. The Republican majority in the Texas House was pushing a scheme to carve up this district and effectively deny Austin representation in Washington. See the article in The Austin Chronicle.

Dems in GOP-dominated Texas House stage mass absence to break quorum
Police may round up missing Democrats

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Almost all of the Democratic members of the state House failed to show up Monday morning, preventing the GOP-dominated body from convening because of a lack of a quorum. In the first quorum-breaking in the state in more than 20 years, letters from 53 of the House's 62 Democrats informed the leadership they would be absent.

The walkout coincided with the scheduled debate for a congressional redistricting bill. Because of a deadline looming later this week, it also threatens pending major legislation backed by Republicans, who are in control for the first time since Reconstruction. Partisan tension has been building all legislative session. Republicans and Democrats have clashed over a no-new-taxes budget, sweeping lawsuit limitation legislation and a push by the GOP leadership to redraw congressional voting lines to favor Republicans.

The Texas House cannot convene without at least 100 of the 150 members present. The body has 88 Republicans and 62 Democrats. The plan, if successful, would derail and likely kill major pending bills that have been termed a priority by Republicans, who took control of the House last November for the first time since Reconstruction.

Twenty-four years ago this month, a group of 12 Texas state senators defied then-Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby by refusing to show up at the Capitol. The "Killer Bees," as they came to be known, hid out in an Austin apartment while state troopers, Texas Rangers and legislative sergeants-at-arms unsuccessfully combed the state for them. Carlos Truan, one of the original Senate "Killer Bees," said such drastic tactics aren't for the faint of heart. "They'd better be prepared to pay the political consequences for their actions, because there will be a hell of a price to pay," said Truan, who no longer serves in the Senate. "Breaking a quorum is a very, very major thing."

There was a call this morning to send State Troopers out to find them, but it is reported that some or all of them have left the state to avoid arrest.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE FCC?

THE ISSUE: The Federal Communications Commission will vote June 2 on "overhauling rules that govern ownership of newspapers and television and radio stations. "

Current ownership rules prevent mergers between major television networks and limit the number of TV and radio stations a company can own in a market. The rules also prohibit any single company from owning TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. households or owning a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same city.

KEY PLAYERS:

• FCC Chairman Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell.
  
• FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, one of two FCC Democrats, who is touring the country to educate people on this issue.
  
• FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, FCC Democrat, who is traveling with Copps.
  
• Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, who has encouraged Powell to ignore requests to delay the vote or make any details of proposed changes public in advance.
  

WHAT IS AT STAKE: Noam Chomsky, Ted Turner and Sens. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have all warned against easing media ownership restrictions, potentially putting control of television, newspapers and radios in the hands of just a few giant media companies.

"The country is really standing on a cliff when it comes to media concentration," Wyden said. "When you go over that cliff you are going to be fundamentally changing what this country is about, and not for the better."

"Most people in this country have no idea what's about to happen to them even though their very democracy is at stake," Adelstein said.

Media companies, and FCC Chairman Michael Powell, contend that the current rules are outdated and hurt business.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

• Call FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps at 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) or send him an email telling him that you share his concerns and support his efforts to protect our democracy from the threats posed by media consolidation.
  
• Call FCC Chairman Michael Powell at 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) or send him an email telling him he should delay the media ownership vote or make public in advance details of proposed changes.
  
• Contact your elected officials and tell them to put public pressure on Michael Powell to do what is right for the country, and not just for big business.
  
• Write a letter to your local newspaper, expressing your views on this issue.
  

In the words of FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein:

It's critical for us to hear from the public before we act. But to comment on these vital issues, the American public and its representatives in Congress need more information. Did you know this was happening? Have you heard about it on national or local news? Time is short. Don't let the national dialogue fall short. The FCC needs to hear your voice as it reshapes the future of American media.

George Bush Proclaims May 1 is Loyalty Day

Obviously I was late in receiving the memo. I commented on May 2 that May 1 was just another Thursday in America. The US does not recognize May 1 as "May Day," the international workers' rights holiday which originated "in response to the judicial murder of several anarchists after the Haymarket [Chicago] affair of May 1886, in a campaign of international solidarity with U.S. workers struggling for an eight-hour day. " (Chomsky)

In 1984, Ronald Reagan proclaimed May 1 to be "Law Day," the day after he chose to:

disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice that later condemned the U.S. government for its "unlawful use of force" and violation of treaties in its attack against Nicaragua.

I guess "Law Day" never caught on, so Bush is trying to succeed where Reagan failed, by creating yet another day to disguise the true meaning of May 1 - "Loyalty Day". Here is the bulk of Bush's proclamation:

To be an American is not a matter of blood or birth. Our citizens are bound by ideals that represent the hope of all mankind: that all men are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On Loyalty Day, we reaffirm our allegiance to our country and resolve to uphold the vision of our Forefathers.

Our founding principles have endured, guiding our Nation toward progress and prosperity and allowing the United States to be a leader among nations of the world. Throughout our history, honorable men and women have demonstrated their loyalty to America by making remarkable sacrifices to preserve and protect these values.

Today, America's men and women in uniform are protecting our Nation, defending the peace of the world, and advancing the cause of liberty. The world has seen again the fine character of our Nation through our military as they fought to protect the innocent and liberate the oppressed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We are honored by the service of foreign nationals in our Armed Services whose willingness to risk their lives for a country they cannot yet call their own is proof of the loyalty this country inspires. Their service and sacrifice are a testament to their love for America, and our soldiers' honor on and off the battlefield reaffirms our Nation's most deeply held beliefs: that every life counts, and that all humans have an unalienable right to live as free people.

These values must be imparted to each new generation. Our children need to know that our Nation is a force for good in the world, extending hope and freedom to others. By learning about America's history, achievements, ideas, and heroes, our young citizens will come to understand even more why freedom is worth protecting.

Last September, I announced several initiatives that will help improve students' knowledge of American history, increase their civic involvement, and deepen their love for our great country. The We the People initiative will encourage the teaching of American history and civic education by providing grants for curriculum development and training seminars. The Our Documents initiative will use the Internet to bring infor-mation about and the text of 100 of America's most important documents from the National Archives to classrooms and com-munities across the country. These initiatives are important, for it is only when our children have an understanding of our past that they will be able to lead the future.

Is It Time for the Democrats to Concede?

Just 18 months until the 2004 Presidential Election, and the Democrats are running an underdog campaign, I guess. The Republicans have out fundraised Democrats 2-to-1. Their President is enjoying peak popularity and approval ratings fresh off the heels of two cynically-motivated wars. The Democrats are barely resisting Bush while he ramrods his tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republicans control all three branches of government and yet the Democrats behave as if they have something to lose.

Eighteen months before the November 2000 election, Bush had already been anointed as his party's candidate. He held a commanding lead in raising campaign funds. Thanks to a campaign run by a dream team of men from the White Houses of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Dad, he looked impossible to beat. Bush raised so much money, he was audacious enough to forego federal matching funds, so he wouldn't be limited by any semblance of ethics, and would be free to spend as much as he cared to, whatever it took to win.

Despite Bush's tactical advantages, the 2002 election still seemed to be Gore's to lose. As the Democrats (and Ralph Nader) picked away at Vice President Al Gore's commanding lead in the polls, the Republican candidates jockeyed for position and laid a foundation for a cabinet or corporate position, or a 2008 run themselves. Well before the election, Bush's dream team was already preparing for the presidency, getting their ducks in a row: war in the Middle East, the complete overhaul of progressive taxation, the rollback of environmental protection, etc. If it hadn't been for John McCain, Bush would have essentially ran unopposed. And when it came time to debate, the "smarter" Democrat managed to lose twice to the "dumb" Republican.

History is looking to repeat itself, only this time there won't be a close call in Florida. Maybe it's not too late for the Democrats to simply concede the White House for four more years, save themselves the time, hassle and expense (not to mention humiliation) of financing another losing presidential campaign, and start concentrating on political offices they have a chance of winning, on any level: Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, School Board Member, Justice of the Peace.

If any candidate does has a chance of winning, he will have to exhibit honor, courage and integrity - three qualities any one of which is rare in modern politics, in either party. If anyone is capable of running an honest campaign and inspiring American voters to exercise their right to demand a better republic and a more judicious democracy, it is Howard Dean. Newsweek's Howard Fineman seems to agree:

"Democratic insiders (and their media cousins) may think that Dean's a non-starter in the race for their party's 2004 presidential nomination. I don't agree. In fact, the former governor of Vermont is still a man to watch, if not the man to beat.

"Howard Dean, at least as a candidate, is a shark in Land's End clothing. He is always moving forward and always on the attack. Most of his rivals genuinely loathe him at this point, but Dean doesn't seem to care. He's looking to inspire voters, and thinks his combative style is what they want. He thinks that Democrats want some anger in their candidate to confront Bush's Red State triumphalism. Dean appears to draw inspiration from the cutthroat side of the Kennedy legacy, Bobby and Jack in particular. Their rhetoric soared and their ideals were noble, but their tactics were tough."

But enough with the hype - what exactly does Howard Dean stand for? Stay tuned - the Howard Dean campaign will not be televised.

Canadians on to Bush Doctrine

I saw something yesterday on Global Sunday - Canada's version of Meet the Press - that you would never see in the United States. "Resistance is Futile!: Who's Behind the Bush Doctrine," opened with scenes of Bush making his made-for-tv landing last week on the USS Abraham Lincoln, to the sounds of Bobby McFerrin's 1988 hit, "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The irony wasn't lost on me. That song was a big hit for McFerrin the same year that George Bush took over where Ronald Reagan had left off as President. Fifteen years later, Baby Bush is positively glowing from victory in a war against the same opponent whom his father fought, but with a decidedly different outcome.

Maybe Bush's father made the mistake of fighting a war which ended. Bush's War on Terrorism is open-ended, and other opponents are already teed up: Syria, North Korea, Iran, and who knows, maybe France someday. Are these people just more comfortable ruling under a siege mentality? They're always "defending" themselves against some elusive and often ambiguous enemy, like Hitler and the Anarchists, or Reagan and the Communists in Russia and Central America, and now Bush and terrorists in the Middle East.

Global Sunday's host Danielle Smith answered the question, "Who's Behind the Bush Doctrine," by interviewing Richard Perle to begin the segment. That's right, the same Richard Perle who has continued to profit from war by playing both sides, advising the President to spend money on the military while getting consulting fees from military contractors. Perle was arrogant, patronizing, condescending and disrespectful, as always. He could barely contain his smug laughter as he dodged Smith's honest questions:

Smith: We hear about the Bush doctrine, can you explain to us what are the elements of the Bush doctrine?

Perle: I think it's very simple and straightforward and really just common sense. In a world in which there are threats and dangers we have to be prepared to forestall those threats if we possibly can. This has lead to ideas about pre-emptive attack. But pre-emptive attack is little more than intervening before you can be struck. No-one would quarrel I assume that with the idea that if we saw a missile on a launch pad about to be fired at us, we could take it out first if we were capable of doing that. There's a lot of controversy about how much evidence you need and how imminent the attack is. But the notion of self-defence without waiting to be struck is certainly a widely accepted idea, but somehow when it's part of the Bush doctrine it comes in for a lot of criticism.

Smith: Critics say that pre-emptive attacks may violate international law, is that not the case?

Perle: Well I think that international law has always recognized the right of countries to defend themselves. It's enshrined in the United Nations charter, in article 51. There will always be controversy about the facts. But about the principle that a country about to come under attack can forestall that attack, on that principle international law is very clear.

Smith: What about...is the idea of acting unilaterally also a part of the Bush doctrine?

Perle: Well if we are challenged with a threat to our security and we are the only ones who recognize that threat and take it seriously then we may be in a situation where we alone can act. We certainly cannot fail to defend ourselves because we can't get others to support the idea that we should defend ourselves.

Perle went on to make other dishonest and patently ridiculous claims: that Clinton is to blame for September 11, that Bush is "in charge," that this "war" was unplanned, is open-ended and will continue to be fought on foreign soil:

Smith: Is it fair to say that this type of foreign policy is the policy that you've wanted to see in place for some time?

Perle: It certainly is the policy that I've wanted to see and I think we suffered by having a less than robust policy in the past. September 11th was in part the product the failure to deal with past terrorist episodes in which we were attacked principally overseas, our ships, our embassies and we did little or nothing to respond to it so the terrorists became bolder and bolder.

Smith: But the water-cooler talk in Canada is that there's this conservative plot to control the White House and you're part of it, how do you respond to that?

Perle: Well, anyone who's met this president will understand that he decides these questions in policy for himself and he's been faced with a situation that is called for new policies and he is settled on policies that I think reflect good common sense. I think the people who argue that a small group have taken over the White House are having trouble accepting that these policies are valid. They don't like the policies and therefore they assume that there must be some origin source for these policies other than the president's own good judgement and I think they're looking for conspiracies when in fact common sense is the answer.

Smith: But how long range is this plan?

Perle: There's no plan as such. There's simply an approach to dealing with threats to our security and I'm afraid that until we can pronounce that we are no longer vulnerable to terrorist action, we're going to have to continue to pursue terrorists where we find them and sometime that will be outside the United States.

Notes from Vancouver

We're in Vancouver for this weekend's marathon. We received a common question from a Canadian customs official: "How long is it?" My wife answered politely, "26.2 miles - the distance of a marathon." I guess people think that a marathon just means any long race, and not a standard distance!

Every Canadian I've met has been friendly, courteous and polite. This has always been my experience with Canadians I've met everywhere, on every continent. I'm beginning to understand why they're so polite, and why Americans are not by comparison - Canadians aren't afraid that the world is full of thieves and thugs. We've been taught to be distrusting, to lock our doors, to not give our neighbors the benefit of the doubt. These messages are conveyed to us from the top down: by a President who attacks a country before it threatens us, by CEOs who lie, cheat and steal and get away with it, and by a media that glamorizes violence.

I've seen many people in Vancouver wearing surgical masks, most of them of Asian descent. Its funny, but I suspect that most of them do so out of a superstitious belief that a cotton mask will somehow protect them from contracting SARS. Actually, they're protecting us, now that their mouths are covered when they sneeze, cough and burp.

Tax Cuts for the Rich are Still a Bad Idea

As President Bush continues to lobby for his tax cuts, more and more conservatives are making their opinions known. The Senate has offered to cut Bush's $760 billion tax cut proposal in half to $350 billion, while House Republicans have approved a $550 billion cut that would benefit the wealthy even more disproportionately than Bush's plan. Bush had this to say in defense of his proposed amount:

"Some in Congress say the plan is too big. Well, it seems like to me they might have some explaining to do. If they agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why are they for a little bitty tax relief package?"

Bush raises a good question. If "they" - meaning House and Senate Republicans who support a tax cut but differ on the amount - agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why wouldn't they support a larger tax cut? The answer is simple: they know better. These tax cuts aren't designed to stimulate the economy, but rather to get more money into the hands of the people who helped put Bush in the White House.

Let's not forget that the federal income tax system was created to get Americans back to work and lift the nation out of the Great Depression. The system was designed to be progressive, i.e the more you make, the more you pay. This may sound unfair, but what it does is put a premium on earnings, so that those individuals who gain the most from the system, which we're all a part of, also contribute the most. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that millionaires and billionaires owe a lot to the government, the political system and the American people for their wealth. (Dick Cheney and George Bush certainly do.)

Tax cuts for the wealthy, which are what have been proposed, won't create jobs. This explains why Bush proposed cuts when the government had a $5.6 trillion surplus and didn't need to create jobs, and now proposes cuts when the deficit is projected to be over $500 billion and he is compelled to at least talk about jobs. Tax cuts have nothing to do with economic stimulus, at least not as the Republicans have presented them. If the cuts targeted middle- and lower-income taxpayers, they would help. The rich won't spend their checks, they'll just pocket them.

Senator George Voinovich, (R-Ohio), who has been publicly criticized by Bush for supporting the smaller Senate package, put it mildly when he pointed out that someone will have to shoulder the burden of these tax cuts, regardless of their amount:

"Three hundred and fifty billion dollars is a responsible package, and if the president wants to do more than that, and some of my colleagues in Congress, let¡¯s pay for it. Let¡¯s offset it. Let¡¯s not just borrow that money, and put the jacket on the backs of my children and grandchildren and your children and your grandchildren."

In a Friday speech at United Defense, the Santa Clara, California developer of the Bradley fighting vehicle, Bush continued to pitch his cuts and even went so far as to blame the recession on the war:

"We've got a deficit because we went through a recession. . . . We got a recession because we went to war. ... And I said to our troops, if we're going to commit you into harm's way, you deserve the best equipment, the best training, the best possible pay. It doesn't matter what it costs, we're going to pay what it costs in order to win the war. ... As a result of the recession -- which was official in January of 2001 -- we've got a deficit."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-San Francisco), criticized Bush's comments:

"It's really a disservice to the debate to say that we're in a recession because we went to war. We had a recession before we went to war, and the president's remedy -- massive tax cuts for the wealthy -- did not take us out of it then and will not improve the economy now."

Media Consolidation Looming

Judging from Bill Moyers' interview with FCC commissioner Michael Copps, the June 2, 2003 deadline for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) judgment on potential revision of media ownership limits does not look promising.

Like most government commissions, the FCC is led by the party in control of the White House, which holds a 3-2 commissioner majority and the Chairman's position. Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, is the FCC Chairman, and has made his feelings on further media consolidation quite clear. Could this mean that Clear Channel will eventually own every radio station in the country, and the nightly news will be dominated by Fox News wannabes?

May Day is May 1st in the United States

While hundreds of thousands demonstrated peacefully all over the globe for May Day yesterday, there was barely a mention of the international workers' rights holiday in the US media. Media coverage at home and abroad was generally negative:

"May Day Violence Mars Celebrations in Europe"
"Berlin Riots on May Day Leave 175 Police Injured, Cars Burnt"
"May Day crash in S. Africa kills at least 51, more feared dead"
"May Day abandoned in China"

Demonstrators turned out on every continent, marching in the streets of Baghdad, Havana, Berlin, Stockholm, Zurich, Istanbul, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome, Seoul and Manila.

I suspect that many Americans have no idea what May Day signifies, or that its origins are American, not European. Thanks to general apathy and ignorance when it comes to historical perspective, most Americans went about their business on May 1, like it was just another Thursday.

Chris Durant from the Times-Standard in Eureka, California typifies Americans' ignorance:

The exact origins of May Day are debatable, with some websites claiming it was started by laborers in the 1800s in Australia and others pointing to ancient Celtic beginnings.

Most sources agree that it was first celebrated in the United States on May 1, 1886, by striking workers in Chicago.

Noam Chomsky points out that its understandable that we forget our own American history, especially when our government is intent on keeping it a secret:

The effectiveness of the state-corporate propaganda system is illustrated by the fate of May Day, a workers' holiday throughout the world that originated in response to the judicial murder of several anarchists after the Haymarket affair of May 1886, in a campaign of international solidarity with U.S. workers struggling for an eight-hour day.

In the United States, all has been forgotten. May Day has become "Law Day," a jingoist celebration of our "200-year-old partnership between law and liberty" as Ronald Reagan declared while designating May 1 as Law Day 1984, adding that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder."

The day before, he had announced that the United States would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice that later condemned the U.S. government for its "unlawful use of force" and violation of treaties in its attack against Nicaragua.

"Law Day" also served as the occasion for Reagan's declaration of May 1, 1985, announcing an embargo against Nicaragua "in response to the emergency situation created by the Nicaraguan Government's aggressive activities in Central America," actually declaring a "national emergency," since renewed annually, because "the policies and actions of the Government of Nicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States" -- all with the approbation of Congress, the media, and the intellectual community generally; or, in some circles, embarrassed silence. "