American Doll Posse

"American Doll Posse... is it good?"

Been wanting to answer this every time I'm in the car, then the engine stops, the music stops, and it's back to everyday life.

Here's my take.

=============================

Tori's last two, Beekeeper and Scarlet's Walk, were rather mellow.

The Beekeeper in particular, let's admit it, had many of us worried that Tori was going the way of Sarah McLachlan. Very adult contemporary. Not that it was all bad - most of my favorites (Orange Knickers, Jamaica Inn, Ribbons Undone, Cars and Guitars, Ireland, Martha's, Pisces) on it were of that ilk . It's just that the stuff that tried to be 'funky' or whatever had the same mellow grove, which made it all very awkward.

Hadn't been a huge fan of Scarlet's Walk either. There were some lovely moments on it (Sorta Fairytale and Taxi Ride were tight, Wednesday fun, ... okay now that I look at it a lot of it was excellent ... Gold Dust and Your Cloud just beautiful). But again, mostly in a smooth sonic groove. No Crucify, no Cornflake/God, no Lite Sneeze, no Spark, no Bonnie and Clyde, no Bliss (though to be honest I felt this trend started on Venus and Back).

So where does American Doll Posse stand? It has some rock back, and feels mostly like Scarlet's Walk + Strange Little Girls with a bit of Choirgirl in there.

Here's the track breakdown. The "Musically" is just sonic style, what album/songs it recalls to me. Nothing to do with lyrics or quality (except "Like?").


American Doll Posse.........Musically.....................Like?
-------------------.........---------.....................------------
01. Yo George...............(throwaway)...................Nope
02. Big Wheel...............Rockabilly Talula.............Yes
03. Bouncing Off Clouds.....Glory of the 80s..............Yep
04. Teenage Hustling........Strange Little Girl...........Oh yeah
05. Digital Ghost...........Northern Lad..................Nice
06. You Can Bring Your Dog..Funky Rattlesnakes............So-so
07. Mr. Bad Man.............Ireland.......................Cutesy/fun
08. Fat Slut................40 secs of Heart of Gold......Ugh
09. Girl Disappearing.......Strange.......................Yes, if monotone
10. Secret Spell............? Taxi Ride via Beekeeper.....OK
11. Devils and Gods.........Agent Orange w/ Irish guitar..Nice, short
12. Body and Soul...........Spark via Strange Lil Girls...Yeah
13. Father's Son............Marianne......................Yes, again monotone
14. Programmable Soda.......Mr Zebra......................Much fun
15. Code Red................Sugar/Honey with groove.......Very much so
16. Roosterspur Bridge......Virginia......................Yeah, not listened to much
17. Beauty of Speed.........Amber Waves...................OK, rhythmic variety
18. Almost Rosey............Jackie's Strength.............Yes, melodic
19. Velvet Revolution.......Purple People.................Love it, too short
20. Dark Side of the Sun....Choirgirl-ish Not Red Baron...Yes
21. Posse Bonus.............Groovy Take to the Sky........Yeah, head-bouncy
22. Smokey Joe..............Beauty Queen/Gold Dust........Great
23. Dragon..................Pretty Good Year..............Very good



So overall? I'd go UtP > LE > Choirgirl > Pele > ADPosse > Venus > Scarlet > Strange > Beekeeper. But ADPosse, Pele and Choirgirl are all close, and ADPosse may improve on more listening. I've read some say if Tori trimmed this to 12 tracks it would be among her very best; I'd say that's true... its upside is kinda Choirgirl plus all B-sides.

Note iTunes has booklet and 2 videos in price, 1st blah, 2nd good.

Definitely worth getting, and I'll probably go see her perform this.

Nothing much to say, but I suppose that is something to say.

Last several weeks tough, ever since A. went back to her degree. Have chunks of things to write in my mind, but as a rule I only do stream of consciousness on comments, not posts.

So posts require stepping outside and getting perspective, and saying something from that perspective.

And like the White House not wanting status reports on Iraq, I'm not itching to do my own status reports.

When I was in school once I hid my report card so I'd have a chance to get some good grades in the bad class before my Mom and Dad asked about it.

I'm torn over whether it is a "good" or "bad" thing to be so tapped into the world/politics thing to let it get to you emotionally. Ideally, I want to be tapped in, do something, and still stay "clean". Right now, I'm tapped in, very burdened with it, but doing something. The alternative is backing out, doing nothing, to recover and get some clarity.

Sometimes when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered... okay, always when I'm not fed and watered I get short-tempered and want to fix everything in the world, because every problem is intolerable.

I'm there now, pretty much. The way you feel with low blood sugar, no meal in 2 days except cotton candy. Except I am fed and watered. I've learned good coping methods living w/ A, so I know to relax, separate my emotional reaction from my analytical one, make time to relax etc.

So it's all difficult right now, and I'm not sure why. I have sensible theories, but none really testable. And the bottom line of all of them seems to be, get used to it and hope it goes away.

I get to spend time with T, KP and A in the next 2 months. Next year A and I expect to be together again. Plus there will be a new election. Reason for some hope all around.

But now. Now is hard. Let's hope it is a growth hard, and not a damage hard.

Two more

letters. Electronic. Same idea as before, but angrier.

I want to write about something else. I can't get past my anger over this topic, though. The Justice Department.

I am stunned at the moral blindness and unpatriotism of most of the Republicans in Congress. I'm not saying the Democrats are better, I don't know that. But I thought the Republicans were much, much better. They swore to their God that they would?

a) Fight for Republican dominance of government
b) Reduce taxes
c) Tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
d) Defend the constitution

It's D folks. We can disagree about taxes and abortion and health care and Iraq. The deal is we put our collective heads together and come up with the best compromise for us all. I don't always like the compromise, but it is better than all known alternatives.

But stocking the government's Department of We'll Decide Whose Rights to Protect and Who to Throw in Jail with only people who share your politics... hell not just your politics, people who are in your gang... pushing out others, pressuring prosecutors, etc. That's not a government, that's a mafia. That's Stalinism (minus the omnipresent government spies and the gulag...).

I expect the party in power to take my money. I know no political system that doesn't enrich the leaders. But my liberty, my rights to get a fair shot at a public service job regardless of whether I went to a historically black school or interned for the EPA... My right to have a fair election as defined by neutral referees and not one team. I do not expect the government to infringe on that. In fact, it's the reason I justify all the guns in America... because people fear the alternative is repressive government.

Anyway, all the shouting in the world isn't helping. I think I understand how people felt when they volunteered for the military after 9/11. I want to do something. If the enemy was in a foreign country, I could go fight. But I don't want to fight, and the enemy is here. I want my representatives to protect the relatively free country we have. I want to do my part to make it as free a country for my kids as it was for me.

Caring is hard. I'm shouting while I can, for as long as I can. I hope it is, in the scheme of things, enough.

Citizen Democracy

Prescription for what ails ya... one a day , repeat as necessary.

================================

Dear Senator/Congress(wo)man _________,

My name is _____________, and I live in Houston, TX. I'm a 34 years old political moderate who has been actively involved in politics since age 16. I have voted, worked and campaigned for, and donated to candidates of both the Democratic and Republican party. I sympathize with liberal concerns about the condition of those less well off, and share conservative skepticism about where government involvement can have a positive effect.

No action of the US government has troubled me more than those of the White House and the Attorney General's office to politicize the Department of Justice.

I remember the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, just after Easter 1995. That was my first exposure to Americans who thought their own government was their enemy. After September 11, 2001, I heard more people claim government conspiracies to seize greater power. They said the government could not be trusted. I now watch with great sadness how our attempts to build a legitimate government in Iraq have been undermined, perhaps fatally, by the deep lack of trust and civility between Iraqi citizens of different factions. It occurs to me that while we as Americans often disagree with our government, we still fundamentally believe in it and consider ourselves Americans first.

I understand that at some level, politics is a game. There is a certain amount of holding on the offensive line, hand-checking in the paint, that goes on. One campaign steals the others' signs. It's not pretty but it doesn't fundamentally hurt anything. The referees aren't going to call every foul. And when you are the away team, you usually have to play with the home team's refs. And sure, the home refs may have a little bias, even if they try to be fair.

And when I first heard of the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys, I assumed this was the equivalent of one team whining about a questionable call. When you are the away team, you have to expect some questionable calls to go against you. But as details of the activities of the Attorney General's office and the White House have come out, this doesn't look like a case of a bad call or two, or even a biased ref.

This looks like one team pressuring the refs, threatening them, and replacing them based on how they call the game. It also looks like the neutral referees, the civil service, were being selected based on their loyalty to one team.

The reason we play this game of politics is that in the competition of ideas, the best ideas win and the country wins with them. I root like hell for my team, and I usually disagree with close calls that go against them. But if my team tried to fix the game, it would be game over for them and rightly so. The problem here is there are only two teams, so if one cheats, it's not just them that loses, it's the whole sport. American democracy.

The sports metaphor seems apt but it understates the seriousness of the situation we're in. We have soldiers dying every day in Iraq, willing to give their lives to help build a government that represents all Iraqi citizens, out of a society that doesn't trust its government or other factions. Meanwhile, we have an administration that seems bent not on winning a battle of ideas, but in sacrificing Americans' trust in their government in order to increase the power of its own political faction. The irony is heartbreaking.

If Americans cannot trust the impartiality of the government officials who have the responsibility to protect their rights and the power to imprison them, I fear for the health of our country. I fear more conspiracy theorists. I fear greater polarization. I fear more Oklahoma City bombings.

My hope in writing you is to challenge you to take risks, just like our soldiers do, to help ensure that our government, especially the Department of Justice, re-establishes the trust of the American people. Conservatives fought the cold war to defeat an ideology of government political intrusion into every aspect of citizen's lives. We can't tolerate politicization of our legal system. Please help the Republican party prove itself worthy of being trusted with power, ensuring the continuing dialog of ideas our country depends on to prosper.

Thank you for spending time with me in reading this. God bless you, and give you strength, courage and wisdom for our country and our children.

All the Best Regards,
___________

Coup d'America

Okay, this isn't funny anymore.

It was amusing at first to see Alberto Gonzales getting grilled. The White House seemed to get caught with their pants down, trying to put some Republican-friendly lawyers in as federal prosecutors. People defending the administration said, "hey these are political appointments, Bush can pick whoever he wants."

I thought they had a point. I thought Bush and co. were trying to cover up something the public wouldn't like - political patronage - and were dirtying up some good attorneys in the process. But it didn't seem like anything dangerous... I assume that there is a little bit of politics in all these appointments, and the White House just got caught lying about it.

Inside-the-beltway kind of stuff.

But I've been keeping an eye on this, and the more information comes out, the scarier this gets. By which I mean, to me this is worse than the Iraq war, and believe me I don't say this lightly. And what worries me is that the press isn't putting the big picture together for the public. They need to. I'll do my little bit here.

None of this is proven, but this is what the evidence suggests to me so far. And I'm being as honest as I can, imagining this was some other administration that I loved and whose policy goals I approved of.

There was a concerted effort to infiltrate the Department of Justice and turn it into a political weapon to ensure Republican political dominance. Let me repeat that for clarity. The part of our executive that can put people in jail, that we depend on to enforce our laws fairly, to ensure that all Americans are treated equally... there was a concerted, well thought-out, intentional plan to put political pressure on public servants to prosecute Democratic political candidates, and to stop investigations of Republican political candidates. This occurred at multiple levels. It's not just phone calls, people were relocated to close districts and given prosecutions to pursue and voters to purge, against the recommendations of the civil service staff. This was in violation of clear policies banning this kind of activity in an election year.

And it's not just the 8 attorneys. Previous attorneys were removed (albeit more quietly... pressured to resign etc) and replaced by people with strong partisan backgrounds who immediately proceeded to initiate political prosecutions. Remember Jack Abramoff, the guy who bought off Bob Ney and was chummy with lots of Republican congressmen? He went to jail and the Republicans lost the election. Then the prosecutor who won the case was fired for performance reasons.

What about the whole "the President can appoint whomever he wants" part? Well, until a measure was snuck into the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization, the President couldn't really pick anyone he wanted, he had to have approval. The part snuck in said that if Bush timed it right, he didn't need any approvals. Not even the Republican congressmen claim to have known the provision was in there, and it has now been abused and repealed.

And besides, it wasn't just these appointments that were being used as partisan weapons. The Department of Justice let a White House representative screen new civil servants so that only good Republicans could get jobs. That's right, federal law enforcement is now dependent on political beliefs. This needs to be on the cover of Time Magazine. The Department of Justice was *illegally* blocking Democrats and Independents from civil service jobs.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Remember that other Texas Republican, Tom Delay, who was pushing the "Permanent Republican Majority"? Who had a K Street Project to force lobbying firms to fire Democrats else they couldn't get a fair hearing? Not to mention the unprecedented midcycle Texas redistricting to create a bunch of new Republican seats in the Congress?

Another name you need to know. James Comey is a senior VP of Lockheed Martin. He worked his way up through the US attorney's office ranks from 1987 to 2002 when he became Bush's Deputy Attorney General. He was the #2 in the Department of Justice until 2005. In this administration. He knows the attorneys who were fired.

This lifelong Republican sat before Congress and defended the fired attorneys as 1st rate. He said that juries have to know that the prosecutors bringing charges against people are 100% clean, that they are the good guys and can be trusted. He said that the damage that has been done to the Department of Justice may be irreparable.

I'd argue the same is being done to the government as a whole. I'm a Democrat by political allegiance but if the Democrats ever tried to take over the civil functions of the government for political purposes I'd vote straight ticket Republican. Our country cannot function if people fundamentally distrust the motives of the government. It's bad enough when, like Watergate, one party breaks the law to beat the other party. A healthy Democracy depends on parties battling over ideas, and absolute power corrupts any party. But it's a whole other Kafkaesque level when one party attempts to turn the government against non-politicians who don't pledge political loyalty.

And who does it look like was behind this? Karl Rove (who I have nothing whatsoever personal against, he's a political strategist, it's his job to be Machiavelli) and Harriet Miers. Let's pause here. George Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. If it were not for the fact that she was not conservative enough for her own party, we might have had a sitting Supreme Court Justice who was behind an illegal and fundamentally anti-constitutional partisan takeover of the one part of the executive branch (save the military) that desperately needs to be nonpartisan. Nothing is sacred.

============

I'm generally charitable about people's motives, but for this I'll make an exception. This is rotten as Hell. This is supposedly why we fought a cold war, to protect America and people around the world from corrupt governments that seek to control people's live through enforced political loyalty. This is why true conservatives distrust government, because of the corrupting influence that centralized power brings. At least with Iraq, one can charitably say that this administration was trying to replace something dictatorial with something democratic, and naively underestimated the obstacles.

I cannot believe it is possible to look impartially at the facts coming out every day and conclude anything other than that the administration and its allies were trying to stage a coup of sorts, increasing political power by taking over non-political parts of the government.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is killing our soldiers overseas every day. Americans ask why we should sacrifice lives to support Iraqi leaders who won't find a way to set aside political differences and to build a functioning government that fairly represents and works for all Iraqis. Yet while Maliki and co talk unity, behind the scenes they work to consolidate power just like Putin in Russia.

The White House and its allies are trying to set aside a functioning government that represents all Americans and replace it with one that furthers their political aims. This makes me deeply sympathetic to those I know who want guns to protect themselves not from criminals but from our own government. Our country depends on trusting each other and the government we elect. We see every day from Iraq how hard it is to rebuild trust and civility once it is destroyed. To sacrifice the bipartisan trust that keeps America together, for partisan power... is fundamentally unpatriotic and un-American.

The Department of Justice is not the only thing that this administration has irreparably damaged. And I for one am going to add my voice to the noise about it.

If you'll excuse me, I have to start writing letters to my representatives.

Fear Factor

Grades for the California Republican Debate:

Mitt Romney
Slogan: "I'm not a charming actor, but I play one on TV"
Fear Factor: The evil stepdad in the Lifetime Weekend Movie

Rudy Giuliani
Slogan: "If you let me in your club I promise to blow something up"
Fear Factor: J.D. in Heathers

John McCain
Slogan: "Sorry I get a bit unhinged when the meds wear off. Heh heh. Zzzz"
Fear Factor: Dr. Frank-N-Furter, Rocky Horror Picture Show

Sam Brownback
Slogan: "I love life, I eat it every day"
Fear Factor: Zombie Ned Flanders

Tommy Thompson
Slogan: "Yes, I'm a proud conservative. No, I wasn't in Law & Order"
Fear Factor: stumbling high-heeled beauty queen in any slasher pic

Jim Gilmore
Slogan: "I'm a proud conservative, too, AND I got a 9/11 plane!"
Fear Factor: driver who stops at the old house/farm/hotel for the night

Duncan Hunter
Slogan: "No, that's not a porn name"
Fear Factor: Zed from Pulp Fiction

Tom Tancredo
Slogan: "How can we talk about taxes & wars with all these Mexicans everywhere?"
Fear Factor: Prince Prospero, Poe's Mask of the Red Death

Mike Huckabee
Slogan: "Would you mind if I asked your sister out?"
Fear Factor: cuddly puppy

Ron Paul
Slogan: "Corrupt, incompetent Republicans just prove government doesn't work!"
Fear Factor: Scientist who decides to study the alien rather than kill it

Blogging the Republican debate

Crap, I thought it started at 8pm! dang!

This is going too fast, and I missed most of it.

But seeing a show of hands of who doesn't believe in evolution,

well, that's just grand.

And Sam Brownback saying that he has a compassionate and aggressive foreign policy.

Mike Huckabee says that if Republicans let big business move jobs overseas, dump pensions and then take multimillion dollar bonuses, then the Republicans don't deserve to win the White House.

So not all Republicans are in the pocket of Wall Street. Cool.

Ron Paul, meet Mike Gravel, Mike meet Ron.

Terry Schiavo... McCain is not impressing me. Of course, I'm not the target audience. Too wishy washy.

Now it's time for Clinton-bashing... yadda yadda

Damn, this is why I hate Republicans (I hate Democrats, too, sometimes). The laughing at trashing people. Just a little too much like the way folks laugh about the blacks/gays/immigrants/etc. Very clubby. Waaaaaaay too clubby. A lack of seriousness.

McCain I'll give credit here. At least he's not being insulting. I do sympathize with the Republicans who are turned off by Bush-bashing. This is the same thing in reverse.

Is it just me or does every question start with Romney?

They are having to raise their hands to get to speak. Matthews isn't doing as well as Williams, but I think it is more the willingness of the candidates to go over.

Sam Brownback supports the Biden approach to Iraq.

Thompson fumbles his words too much. Stage left, Governor.

Giuliani and Romney come off best, though Huckabee and Gilmore are good.

That's it, at least they are rebroadcasting this one at 10pm CDT.


==================

Recap from the top.


Brownback. Scary scary. Seems almost orgasmic when he says confrontation and aggressive. Like the kid who sketches guns and skulls on his notebook cover.

Huckabee. I like him. Don't know his politics exactly, but seems to be thoughtful and not afraid to speak hard truths. Said we needed 300k troops and didn't listen to the generals, but doesn't pile on. He's positive.

Ron Paul. Non-interventionist.

McCain on Iran. (Earlier he talked about winners and losers... comes across as more interested in "winning" than in soldiers... like someone who wouldn't stop arguing until he 'won'... a little scary). Dances around. Basically says war with Iran if they get a nuke and .... and.... if intelligence indicates they ... well...

Who's this guy? He stutters. He says a threat to the existence of Israel is a threat to the existence of the United States.

Giuliani. Much more polished. Invoked Reagan... again

Gilmore on bin Laden. Seems thoughtful as well. Understands diplomacy (or at least talks the talk) .. invokes moral high ground... he's actually very good on this... needing to win hearts and minds. He doesn't scare me.

Romney says bin Laden will pay, will die. Eh. Seems like a pressed suit. Too rehearsed, get no sense of his thought process. Like an actor.

McCain is funny on whether to put Tancredo (Mr. Anti-immigration) head of immigration.. "In a word 'No'"

Huckabee Yes on immigrants for president after his 8 years. Everyone else is No. McCain and Giuliani both dodge the question. Kudos to Romney for the guts to at least answer the question.

Romney asked what he dislikes about America, and ... he loves it, the mountains, god-loving people, now Reagan, ... (ugh) you could make a pull-string doll with that recording.

Huckabee on climate change... boy scout... leave the campsite in better shape... says science is for scientists. Wow, another really attractive answer. I'm ... impressed.

Mr Stutter on curing diseases, stem cells, cloning people...

Duncan Hunter on compassionate conservative. Says Yes, then immediate pivots to threatening Iran. Isn't compassion touching? Doesn't want to wait until Iran has the bomb, implies he wants to bomb now.

Ron Paul on the IRS... wants to eliminate it. Says we shouldn't police the world and take care cradle to grave, can do without IRS if change role of government.

Roe v Wade... everyone says great except Giuliani.. he says he'll take it either way, that precedent counts for something.

Subtlety. Gilmore says exceptions for abortion okay, touts his credentials. Thompson says leave it to the states, though pro-life.

Romney ... always for life or pro-choice. Personally pro-life, but protects the law which was pro-choice. Notes Reagan, Bush, Hyde were pro-choice once. Says he changed because of cloning etc was Brave New World and changed his mind.

Brownback says he could support pro-choice because big tent is important, 80% agreement is still good. Darn, both scary and smart.

Giuliani is caught trying to dodge abortion issue. Says he hates abortion but supported abortion funding in New York. Problem is he tried to dodge it 3 times before saying "Yes".

McCain... "good and evil" ... doing the "My friends"... presidential bit. Sounds okay. Talks about Powerful nation. Eh. Now everyone else is crowing about defense backgrounds and growing threats.

Huckabee again. He talks softly and optimistically. Culture of life... islmaic fascists .. eh. Clearly I'm not that target audience.

Ron Paul... back to the role of government... not policing the world. Overdoing military aggressiveness weakens us.

Private employer firing gay workers. Tommy Thompson would leave it up to business (hence okay).

Romney on Roman Catholic bishops denying communion. Clever answer, government shouldn't tell churches what they can do. Smart, well prepared.

Huckabee says his faith explains his decision process. Getting grilled about criticizing Romney, rather unfairly.

Romney getting a lot of airtime. Blather.

Brownback we're a nation of faith. Invokes Lieberman. We need to embrace it, not running it out of public square.

Hunter on border fence. Double fence. Reduced crime etc.

Gilmore. Knows Karl Rove, should keep him? Dodge first try. Dodge second time, more elegantly, talks about more important things.

Tancredo... that's the stutterer. Rove is out, especially because of immigration.

Giuliani on Christian Conservatism. Lots of anyone in the party is good. Says no party has monopoly on virtue. And he can get Democrats to

Thompson is conservative in a blue state, popular, and started welfare reform, will reform Washington. Reagan Reagan Reagan. Did we mention Reagan.

Brownback on corruption in Republican Party. Says they go to jail, but what about stronger families (huh?). Keeps talking about backing up, kids born out of wedlock. Kids hearing nappy headed hos. (What this has to do with corrupt politicians... ?)

Tancredo on corruption... failure of individuals. Centrist needed to win? No Reagan was not a centrist, he followed his belief. What matters is believing what you say.

McCain on special interests (passing a chance to shoot at Giuliani, bit classy and well handled). Spending is to blame for loss. Good line about drunken sailors, but fumbles it by saying he has more time.

/// now we're at start again///

McCain is weird when he acts tough then, ending his answer, suddenly does this awkward smile.

Romney takes an invited shot at Giuliani about taking actions to limit abortions.

Giuliani says he doesn't like abortion but ultimately respects a woman's right to make a different moral decision. Credit for the toughest answer of the night.

Thompson on racism, you can try to rally against it setting a good precedent.

Tancredo says if they talked straight about immigration, he would get the nomination.

McCain says enforcement plus dealing with 12 million people.

Inconvenient Truth? Didn't watch it, says Duncan Hunter, but no taxes on alternative energy, wants to invest in private industry for this.

Ron Paul on crisis decisions. He was a doctor I guess, can't think of a critical decision, urged to not go to war.

Gilmore, women in prison, nonviolent first time offenders. Must insist upon obedience to the law. Notes he was also prosecutor and governor during 9/11.

Stem cell. Romney has sick wife but will not farm embryos, will allow private funding. Brownback, adult stem cells will work. Everyone concurs, Thompson says you can't answer but then clearly says it isn't necessary. McCain says we need to support federal funding. Ron Paul says government should say out.

Romney on health care. Not ashamed of it, invokes Heritage Foundation, market market, private sector, joke about Ted Kennedy. Market.

McCain on tax cuts. He was being a budget hawk, good pivot to invoke anger at spending.

Everyone talks about tax cuts. No capital gains tax, alternative flat tax, AMT, flat tax, no IRS, consumption tax instead, manufacturing tax, line item veto, tax credits for health care. Ron Paul no income tax and reduce government spending. Death tax, marginal rates.

Law & Order

I just realized this post needs some context. A recent discussion over at TinyCatPants got me thinking about how lots of folks talk about the importance of law and order in immigration, and conflate the illegality of immigration with terrorism and public safety. It occurred to me that every day most Americans ignore laws that aren't consistently enforced, with far greater public safety impact.

I wondered how the law and order crowd would feel if the whole "no amnesty, send them home" argument was applied to them.

============================================

Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, May 2, 20xx 7:45pm

The administration today announced the results of a major new security initiative. The President addressed reporters in a conference at the White House briefing room just before 11am.

“Good morning.

Just over a year ago, on May 1, the federal government -- working with the governors of over 30 states -- completed the installation of an extensive network of high-resolution satellite cameras along America’s national borders, highways and rural roads. Using the data from this network – called SAFENet -- government analysts at the Department of Homeland Security have spent the last 12 months identifying lawbreakers who have put this country and its citizens at risk. The identity and location of these individuals has been passed to local law enforcement in all 50 states.

I’d like to address some comments to the good law-abiding citizens of the America, and also to those who will be contacted by the police over the coming weeks. Then I’ll take your questions.

On September 11, 2001, our nation was attacked by terrorists. In addition to military, diplomatic and intelligence responses, our government combined the expertise of the FBI, the Transportation and Security Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and others organizations to form the Department of Homeland Security. DHS’s mission was and is to “lead the unified national effort to secure America … prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation … ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.”

This administration understands that you want to be able to live and bring up your children in communities that are free from fear and insecurity. You teach your children to play by the rules, and you want them to be able to get ahead. You want them to be safe in a dangerous world.

Your government has worked to achieve all these things. But until now we have failed you in one important respect. Though we have laws controlling the flow of people into, out of, and across the country, we’ve had neither the technology nor the will to enforce them.

Now that we’ve developed the technology, we intend to demonstrate the will to protect the American people.

Ineffective border enforcement contributed to the nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11 and contributes to about 5,000 deaths due to illegal drug overdoses every year. Within our borders, ineffective traffic enforcement contributes to the death of over 10,000 fellow Americans every year.

Immigration laws exist to promote economic and social stability, and to prevent the flow of drugs and other dangers into this country from those who would wish us harm. Speed limits promote fuel efficiency, protecting our lungs and the air we breathe, and lessening the flow of funds out of this country to people who would wish us harm.

Speed limits and other traffic laws can save lives. The lives of children playing in their front yard, the lives of parents walking to church, the lives of families cycling on a Sunday afternoon. Speed limits and other traffic regulation can also save the lives of thousands of drivers themselves.

This is not only about security.

Many Americans feel like they are always falling behind. They wait patiently in line, abide by the law, and watch as others illegally pass them by. It does not matter that those cutting in line -- whether undocumented Mexicans or BMW-driving businessmen -- may think they are “bending” our laws to meet family obligations. These are our laws. We chose them democratically. They exist to protect us and our freedoms, and nobody is above them. Nobody can choose which laws he wants to follow and which he does not.

Some argue that it is our laws that should change, that if the laws were different then people would obey them. We can debate changes democratically. Perhaps We the People will decide to raise the limits on speed and immigration. But the American people will not support any such changes to the law as long as they believe violations of the law will continue to be ignored. Americans have seen that words are cheap; it is easy for the government to relax limits and promise future enforcement. Americans want to see enforcement first.

We hear you.

Starting immediately and using the data gathered by SAFENet over the past 12 months, local and state police and the FBI will be enforcing the existing penalties on the books for all detected violations of the law. These will mainly fall into two categories. Anyone seen entering or remaining in the country illegally will be deported to their country of entry or origin. Anyone seen repeatedly violating speed limits or other traffic safety laws will have their driver’s license revoked. These folks can apply again for a visa or license after paying all fines and observing waiting periods of 1-3 years, consistent with existing state and federal laws. These folks will then start at the back of the line.

To those who will be contacted by the police: we recognize that this enforcement action will bring hardship to many families. We remind everyone that the government is merely punishing violations of existing law, under current statutes of limitation. The government does not force anyone to break the law. The fact that everyone else does it, or you think you can get away with it, is not an excuse. All who would seek to live and travel in America have a responsibility to do so lawfully. The only way to make our roads and our country safe is to ensure that there is no room for those who have repeatedly demonstrated their disrespect for the law.

We do not seek to demonize or discriminate against anyone. The economy of America depends on cars, trucks and immigration. The vast majority of immigrants and drivers are good people. But just because you are a good driver or worker, this does not entitle you to ignore the rules. It’s not personal, we’re not saying we don’t like you. But it’s time for you to go home and stay there.

And now I'll take any questions.”