The Flow of Consciousness

Ohio democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced yesterday 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush.

Please read these and call your representative. It is imperative that you call and not email.

These are presented herein with references to further examination by ImpeachBush.tv.

Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power.

1. Article I – Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
2. Article II – Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
3. Article III – Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
4. Article IV – Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
5. Article V – Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
6. Article VI – Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
7. Article VII – Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
8. Article VIII – Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
9. Article IX – Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
10. Article X – Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
11. Article XI – Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
12. Article XII – Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources
13. Article XIII – Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
14. Article XIV – Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
15. Article XV – Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
16. Article XVI – Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
17. Article XVII – Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
18. Article XVIII – Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
19. Article XIX – Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to ‘Black Sites’ Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
20. Article XX – Imprisoning Children
21. Article XXI – Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
22. Article XXII – Creating Secret Laws
23. Article XXIII – Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
24. Article XXIV – Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
25. Article XXV – Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
26. Article XXVI – Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
27. Article XXVII – Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
28. Article XXVIII – Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
29. Article XXIX – Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
30. Article XXX – Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
31. Article XXXI – Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
32. Article XXXII – Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
33. Article XXXIII – Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
34. Article XXXIV – Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
35. Article XXXV – Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Are these articles of impeachment likely to succeed? No, but at least those who vote in favor of it can say they tried, just as Rep. McKinney tried to impeach Bush in January 2007.

Congratulations on your victory, Senator Obama.

Now, agree to abolish the IRS, sever the ties with the Federal Reserve, and end our overseas empire, among other things, and you could have my vote.

According to Reuters, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008 passed the House 324-84 today. The GovTrack status page for the act has yet to be updated, though—it is usually updated a day or two after action is published on THOMAS.

I commented in my previous entry, regarding overreaching and unenforceable foreign policy bills in the House.

Read this quote from the article a few times and really think about it.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

How is the US going to enforce this? The US has no legal authority or ability force its laws upon other countries, other than by gunpoint diplomacy, a policy which has already harmed the US enough.

The Bush Administration, in a rare bout of intelligence, said that the bill “would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners.” This would obviously increase the price, not reduce it at all.

Fortunately, the bill still has to go through the House, where it will hopefully fail with not more than 10 minutes of debate. Clearly 324 Congresspeople are delusional and think that they can exercise their petty will against other countries’ governments.

A while ago, I started using GovTrack.us to watch actions on bills in the house and senate. I did so because I am interested to see how Ron Paul votes and how my Congressman, Jason Altmire, votes. I know that Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, Jr. generally are not going to vote as I would, but it’s nice to see if I’m right whenever there’s some senate action on GovTrack.

Today, when looking through the GovTrack feed, I found three recently-introduced House Resolutions that stuck out to me. I detail them and give my comments herein. I must remind the reader that I am a just little more than a beginner level interpreter of Congressional bills, so if I have incorrectly analyzed or have mistaken a meaning, please supply constructive criticism with links to references in a comment.

H.R. 6074 Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008 was introduced by Wisconsin Democrat Steve Kagen. Section 101, the “No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2008″ (NOPEC, how quaint) amends the Sherman Act, the country’s antitrust statutes, to prohibit any foreign state or agent thereof from working with another foreign state or agent thereof to limit the production of, set prices for, or otherwise restrain trade of oil, natural gas and petroleum products.

What right does the US have to extend our antitrust laws to foreign nations? This act is obviously targeted at OPEC, given its text and its apropos acronym, NOPEC. Now, I see the application of this to oil-related companies in the US which are owned by foreign governments or companies. However, if one of these companies were to be sued under antitrust laws, wouldn’t that suit give them justification to raise the prices in order afford the expensive legal process in the US?

It seems that Congress would be better off spending its time telling Japan to stop having a monopoly on Pocky or telling OPEC non-member Norway to stop being the #3 producer of oil in the world.

H.R. 6079. California Democrat Adam Schiff’s text for H.R. 6079 has not been released yet, but the description says it all:

To direct the Secretary of State to submit a report outlining the steps taken and plans made by the United States to end Turkey’s blockade of Armenia, and for other purposes.

What constitutional business has the US in meddling with arguments between Turkey and Armenia? The US is once again trying to be the bully settling the quarrel between two people it doesn’t usually pick on, thus trying to make itself feel better and look better even though it continues to illogically blockade allies of those two countries, plus many more!

H. Res. 1205: Noting that the Government of Iraq will likely enjoy $32 billion in surplus oil revenues in 2008…. Massachusetts’ Democrat William Delahunt’s H.R. 1205 recognizes that Iraq will bring in $32 billion in oil surplus this year and directs asks the government of Iraq to give $1 billion of that to refugees and displaced persons and that the Iraqi government give that money to other countries to help those countries afford the refugees. There are many clauses in the resolution, but a few are particularly outstanding:

Whereas the United States has a moral responsibility to assist those affected by the violence pervasive in Iraq since the United States invasion and should generously support the efforts of international and nongovernmental organizations to ease the human suffering of the displaced;

Mr. Delahunt, you may see a “moral responsibility” to assist, but I see a legal responsibility for the US to let the government of Iraq do what it deems right. We’ve already screwed up that country enough by meddling in its affairs and invading it without a constitutionally-required Congressional declaration of war. Money to help refugees wouldn’t be necessary if we’d have stopped military action when the “mission” was “accomplished.”

What do all of these bills have in common? They meddle in affairs of other nations and seek to impose our will and our laws in ways which are unconstitutional and illogical. No country has to listen to what another country’s politicians have to say.

If OPEC doesn’t play nice, what is the US going to do? Bomb them? Hardly, even that seems to be the most common answer to non-compliance with the wishes of Washington. If Turkey continues to blockade Armenia, what is the US going to do? Alienate our relations with Turkey in order to help out Armenia? Or are we just going to give guns to the Armenians and money to the Turks, like we did in the middle east with several nations there?

If Iraq won’t give $1 billion to its refugees, what is the US going to do? Will Bush or his successor promise to keep troops in Iraq or continue bombing, thus forcing even more Iraqis out of their homes?

The US has no ground on which it can stand in regard to these bills. It’s empty posturing by delusional politicians who think that they can exercise their will on anyone they choose.

Congressman Altmire,

I write to urge you to argue and vote against H.R. 5990, the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act” recently introduced by Rep. Jim Matheson [D-UT]. This legislation unfairly targets video games without citing a reason for the ban on sales to minors, and fails to acknowledge the similarly violent, sexual, and other objectionable content of equivalently-rated television and film.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board is merely a self-regulatory body established by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). The review process for video games is based on developer submission of pre-recorded content to the Board, not the Board or its agents actually playing through the video game. This can result in omissions causing a lighter rating or misjudgments causing unfair, heavier ratings.

In fact, two major video game publishers/distributors–Activision and Vivendi Universal–recently left the ESA. A third and one of the largest of its kind in the world, Electronic Arts, is rumored to be considering leaving, as well. They disagree with the ESA’s policies; that is their reason for leaving, as far as I know.

Also, there is no constitutional grounds for this prohibition. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution makes no mention of entertainment media, and more than likely citizens’ rights groups will cry foul that this legislation violates the First Amendment. The interstate commerce clause would allow the Federal government to prohibit sales to minors or mandate rating across state lines as partially stated in Section 2(a) of H.R. 5990, but not within the states–that’s a states’ rights issue supported by the Tenth Amendment.

Moreover, the legislation will do almost nothing to prevent video games with content not meant for minors. Parents will purchase games for their children irresponsibly and without regard for content. If the federal government should do anything in regards to video games with objectionable content, it should urge the ESA and ESRB to educate parents about the rating system and perhaps ask the ESA to mandate that all retailers adhere to guidelines and face penalties or ejection from the ESA if a retailer is caught selling high-rated video games to minors.

If such legislation passes and withstands a constitutionality trial, then a dangerous precedent will be set by which other entertainment media (books, film, television) could, or even /should/ be equally regulated/prohibited.

H.R. 5512, the Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2008, passed the house yesterday. In addition to changing the composition of penny to a copper-painted steel and the nickel of nickel-coated steel, the Act also repeals current weight requirements for coinage and mandates that all U.S. coinage be minted in the United States, and a few other things.

Why? From the bill text:

(5) The United States Mint gained further experience changing the metal content of pennies in 1982, when it began producing copper-coated zinc pennies as a result of rising copper prices.
…
(7) Given the current cost to make a penny and volume of pennies minted, by simply reducing penny production costs to face value, the United States will save more than $500,000,000 in the next 10 years alone.

(8) Reducing the cost to produce a nickel to face value will save the United States an additional $60,000,000 per year.

It makes sense to save money, since the penny’s copper-zinc weight is worth almost two, and the nickel is worth approximately seven cents, if I recall a recent news report correctly. However, do you think this change is worth devaluing the few ties American money still has to (somewhat) precious metals?

Warning: this article gets a little ranty, but please, bear with me and help improve my thoughts by commenting.

Doc Searls of Linux Journal linked recently in his article Is government open source code we can patch? to an article by Britt Blasser entitled “Oh, if only government went in for an open source make-over…”. The article indirectly cites through a reference to Phil Hughes’ own Our Internet article two articles, FCC: Moving Beyond Network Neutrality and Our Internet!, by Bob Frankston, who Doc Searls recently interviewed for Linux Journal in Beyond Telecom (non-free registration required, subscribers can get it free).

In his article, Searls says:

Democracy is by nature “our government”. The open source twist on that we put it together and can hack improvements to it. Think of elected officials as committers and maintainers and you start go get the idea.

The analogy isn’t perfect, because by nature open source code is purely practical: it has to work. While government often does not. All government is buggy. In the worst cases it crashes outright and is replaced or supplemented by corrupt alternatives.

This analogy is fairly strong. However, commenter Frymaster supplies an addendum which strengthens it:

The US Constitution itself is open source, if you will, and editable. “The Framers” intended that Americans would change it to meet changing times, hence the series of amendments covering key rights like voting, and, most importantly, consuming alcohol. But they set the bar high, requiring super-majorities in both houses of Congress PLUS each of the states.

The Constitution certainly is open source. We’re free to change it, and other countries, fledgling or long-established, are welcome to take our code—our elemental specification of government—and adapt, implement, and utilize it. We’d like to receive contributions back, because they might be worthwhile enough to include in the trunk code. Even if these modifications aren’t strong enough for trunk, they might be strong enough for that government to maintain as a branch.

The Constitution is inherently good. Some might argue that it is outdated, but these folks are in error and their sentiments should be dismissed if they believe that it is irrelevant and should not be followed. The Constitution establishes a rule of law, wherein all citizens of the land give rights to a union of states, called the United States of America. It establishes procedures for updating it through amendments, which require a majority vote not only by two small bodies of people, but a majority vote of the several states, as Frymaster reminds us. This amendment process keeps those two smaller bodies of 535 people from legislating away the rights of their constituents.

I digress.

A government can never truly be open source, at least realistically. There will always be secrets; unpublished code, per say. These secrets are matters of national defense: military operations during a time of declared war, location of the president and vice president so the two are rarely together (for obvious reasons).

However, most of the goings-on of the government should be open. Obama pushes for “open government.” Ron Paul pushes for less government and, presumably, open government, since there would be far less government to hide!

However, open source projects thrive on the involvement of the people. Our current election system does not encourage responsible voting. Take, for example, Pennsylvania’s primary election results. 90,836 PA Republicans voted for Mike Huckabee, who dropped out of the race March 4, 49 days prior to the election. This is like allowing all of the Linux users in PA, regardless of technical knowledge, vote on the addition of one of three kernel features, and giving them only the name of the feature—no description, background, author, codebase, language, performance evaluation, or source! Even more appropriate would be that the developer of the feature conceded that one of the other two features is more efficient and worthwhile than his own!

I’m not saying that only those in-the-know should be allowed the vote. Mistaking my words for that would be fallacious. I believe that every person deserves the right to vote. I believe that every person has the right to have evidence of their vote. I believe that every person has the right to request vote totals for every level of complexity in the elections system: precinct, county, congressional district, state, and federal.

As versatile and open as the Constitution may be—and yes, I believe that it may need some updating to reinforce personal liberty and states’ rights—the government and governance which exists now cannot be patched.

When working on a project, a developer comes to a point where he or she realizes that there is a major defect in the software. He or she (for sake of my fingers, I’m going to use he henceforth, pardon my faux pas) has two options: patch or rewrite. He knows there are serious bugs, bugs which are inherent in the design of the code, as it has been patched since it was written. These most of these patches were good things, but some introduced more bugs which have yet to be fixed.

Should the developer continue to patch the code? Or should he rewrite it, integrating the features of the old version with more manageable code and lessons learned since it was first written?

If he continues to patch it, he treats the problem, but may not actually fix the problem. The problem might be inherent, or the problem may be caused by a combination of other features.

If he rewrites it, he’ll spend a lot of time redoing work he’s already done, but the result will be a more efficient program with fewer bugs (hopefully) and more manageable, cohesive code base. Of course, this new version will have its bugs, too, but they may be easier to find if the code is more manageable.

What the United States needs is a rewrite. The foundations of our government are solid: the Constitution, capitalism and free market economy, liberty for all. These are like the basic functions that make a program tick, “the algorithm,” per say. There are other parts that work, too. However, the maintainers of our government have diverted our attention from the core of the government, preferring us to view the only the parts it wants us to see, i.e. the bling.

The founders—the original authors of the U.S. base code—have long since gone, and they would be disgusted by the mess that is the program and its code base—the federal government—today. Things aren’t going they way that they would have wanted, and there’s a growing part of the population which seeks to return the these ideas, to a set of ideas not much different in theory from the software philosophy of “do one thing and do it well.” The government is bloated, more bloated than any application to which I might possibly compare it.

The founders outlined in the Constitution—a white paper or base algorithm, if you prefer to keep up the programming analogies—the specific functions of the U.S. government. It outlined a process by which the white paper or algorithm itself could be changed to allow more functions or remove functions which endangered the users and their data. However, rather than use this process, the maintainers simply implement functions or remove functions without regard to the users’ opinions, data, or the fact that the users are supporting the maintainers financially.

A fork is nearly impossible. There is no more undiscovered land on the face of the Earth, and it would be difficult for a state to secede. It would be economically infeasible, as well as diplomatically infeasible. The citizens of the new country would have their rights and their government as the Constitution of the U.S.—and of their new country—defines, but they would not have the resources to be self-sufficient, and things imported would cost more.

Fortunately, our government is not setup like the Linux kernel maintenance group in that The President of the United States is not a benevolent dictator (at least not on paper, haha). There are, however, 50 branches of the U.S. kernel which all have their own quirks and maintainers. Like a few projects, perhaps the Debian project included, the U.S. government does have representatives, people who supposedly represent their constituents in the decision-making process having been chosen by those constituents.

The ears of the maintainer are closed. He doesn’t want hear from the users; the people. However, the representatives’ ears are open, and they must be, by definition. In order to change the course of the program; the United States, we, as users; citizens, must elect representatives who believe as we do and not settle for anyone lesser. These representatives will then make the decisions we would make if we were in their position, leading to a program which is more useful, usable, smaller, and most of all, open.

McCain would rather run against Ron Paul in November, said he on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Wednesday night.

McCain wouldn’t stand a chance if the mainstream media covered Paul like its does Obama and Clinton.

I’m ready. I’m going.

Are you?

www.RevolutionMarch.com

Senator McCain is pushing for a lift on the federal gas tax for the summer, says CNN. It would start on Memorial Day and end on Labor Day, and drop the price of gas by 18.4 cents. According to CNN, the average consumer would save approximately $2.35 per fill-up and approximately $30 during the course of the summer.

Senator Obama argues that that has limited impact on consumers. Drivers would “have a little money left over, maybe to buy a better meal, maybe to buy something for their kids,” McCain argued. Apparently, McCain hasn’t been out to eat in a while. $30 will barely buy a meal for a family of four at McDonalds, let alone a nicer place.

However, the lift on the tax snowballs: a moratorium on the gas tax for that duration would cost the government $10 billion in federal highway maintenance funds.

Personally, I’d save approximately $2.00 per fill-up. However, for 60 days following the receipt of my BP gas card, I’ll be saving 10% when I fuel at BP, and those stations are common in the Pittsburgh area. Plus, BP doesn’t buy middle-eastern oil.

Rather than advocating empty, if not detrimental gestures, McCain should start examining his foreign policy, monetary policy, and basic economic theories.

Additionally, the article reminds readers of McCain’s proposal for a $5,000 tax credit for families to purchase health insurance. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates the cost of such a thing to be $12,000 per year for the Mom, Dad, Sister, and Brother. Again, McCain is not sufficiently taking all things into account. What will replace the $5,000 each family could potentially receive? More business taxes? A higher tax rate for everyone? Couldn’t this technically be considered to be socialized healthcare?

Wow, McCain sounds like is a stereotypical Democrat.