Psychopolitik 2.0

Shorter Supreme Court: “Y’know, B, that military tribunal thing doesn’t sound right to us either”…

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case, called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself [having participated in the appeals court ruling concerning the case prior to reaching the Supreme Court].

I could care less about the “international law” part, but the general tone being set makes sense.  Since the Court doesn’t have the authority to strike down the entire thing, they struck down the keystone to it, the rest will fall on its own.

The military tribunals bit always sounded to me like an inbetween measure, a result of the make-it-up-as-we-go tactics of the “war on terror” — “they deserve trials, but not fair ones because we think they’re guilty”.  That there’s even the wiggle room for some form of court proceedings during hostilities rather than afterwards shows why it is inaccurate to call this whole mess a war in the first place.

During a column on Joe Lieberman & his impending eviction from the Senate, Dick Morris (unintentionally) gets to the main reason him losing would be a good thing for not just Dems but everybody:

…in an August Democratic primary, with its low turnout and ideologically skewed voters, he faces decapitation. As surely as an American soldier on patrol in Iraq, his very presence in the Democratic primary provides a tempting target for those who want to vent their frustration at American foreign policy. (emphasis mine)

Exactly! Don’t like current US foreign policy, then vote for someone that agrees with you! Electing people with the intent that they’ll represent your views, what a novel concept!

Honestly, how the hell did someone as vapid as Dick Morris get a position of political influence, even for so much as a second?

If Yogi Berra made comments on serious matters, he’d probably say to this “when you politicize everything, everything is politics”:

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a case that will determine whether the Bush administration must regulate greenhouse gases, which could have broad consequences for California’s landmark law reining in vehicle emissions to fight global warming.

The case, brought by California, 11 other states and by environmental groups, is being heralded by legal experts as one of the most important environmental issues to be heard by the high court in years. The justices’ decision could touch virtually every U.S. industry, from automobile makers and oil companies to airlines and electricity producers.

“This could give us the answer to how the justices feel about one of the most important environmental issues of the future,” said Robert Percival, director of the University of Maryland environmental law program. (emphasis mine)

Eh, at least they admit that this’ll be decided not on such apparently decrepit questions such as “is the authority sought by the complainants compatible with the powers laid out in the Constitution” but on whether or not at least five of the justices think global warming is a myth made up by america-hating hippies. Sad, because that’s not the issue at all. Assuming for sake of arguement that this type of issue belongs within their domain (which I obviously disagree with), one could just as easily feel that global warming is fact & the feds don’t have this authority as they could think they have that authority desite them personally finding it still an open question.
So, what result would I be rooting for? To be honest, I dismiss the entire concept being discussed (expansion of government authority) on either end, so put me down as “rationally uncaring”. Arbitrary rules about X amount of this or Y of that don’t actually do anything about the environment, because it’s an issue of externalities. The problem isn’t one where over a certain amount is unambiguously bad & under is unambiguously fine, it’s about making the cost/benefit equation reflect the costs being imposed on people other than the ones creating the pollution.

That said, California’s claim in this baffles me: if they already have tighter controls, then what exactly do they want the federal government to do? “States rights”, go google it Cali…

-Jim Henley suspects that the group of hardened islamic jihadis “Moorish” goofballs caught in Miami really just wanted all that weaponry & equipment so they could sell it, trying to pull a fast one on that al-qaeda operative federal informant.

-Cunning Realist notes quite possibly the dumbest proposal yet made about the Iraq occupation.

-The Hammer of Truth guys find out that 1) apparently the UN doesn’t believe in freedom of speech & 2) they can temporarily void a nation’s sovereignty during meetings.

-Kevin Drum finds out via Newsweek that the Iraqi PM wants a timetable for withdrawal.  [hawk whining]Why does Nouri al-Maliki hate the troops?[/hawk whining]

-John Cole, the disgruntled conservative half of Balloon Juice, finds out that the new definition of “liberal” is “one who dares question Bush in any way whatsoever”.

Yes, professional nerds have an interest group. Here’s what they’re up to at the moment:

The Programmers Guild, a group representing IT workers, has begun filing what will amount to about 380 legal complaints against U.S. companies advertising that they prefer to hire foreign workers with H-1B visas.

The group has filed about 100 complaints since May and plans to file about 280 more over the next six months, said John Miano, founder of the Guild. The complaints, made to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), accuse several companies of advertising that they specifically want H-1B workers, a violation of U.S. law.

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act requires that U.S. jobs must be available to U.S. workers.

Now, the charge may turn out true, I don’t know enough to be sure. But poke around on the Programmers Guild website & you’ll see this goes further than a mere “hey, waitaminute!” thing. They see their livelihood as being attacked, so their response is to blame it on tech-savvy immigrants. It seems everyone wants to blame immigration for their problems all of a sudden, it’s sad.

Of course, that’s only half of the story. Considering the case at hand I asked myself “hmm, if the charges are correct, then what’s driving them to do it?”, which prompted me to look into this whole “H-1B” mess. Going straight for the horse’s mouth, I find the following:

Who can an H-1B alien work for?

H-1B aliens may only work for the petitioning U.S. employer and only in the H-1B activities described in the petition. The petitioning U.S. employer may place the H-1B worker on the worksite of another employer if all applicable rules (e.g., Department of Labor rules) are followed. H-1B aliens may work for more than one U.S. employer, but must have a Form I-129 petition approved by each employer.

In other words, people who fall under this designation are legally tied to whatever job gets them accepted, barring what’s more than likely such a huge stack of paperwork that most don’t bother. When you’re an H1-B worker, the US government effectively acts as a huge temp agency — if not a pimp. No wonder they don’t want citizens, whether current or prospective, the labor market for H-1Bs is artificially rigged against the workers.

So, one side wants to run the IT departments of the country as serfdoms, while the other looks at tech-savvy immigrants the way Tom Tancredo looks at the guy that does his landscaping. Here’s an idea: abolish H-1B, & all other arbitrary hoops to jump through on immigration. You want to come here, whether permanently as an american or for awhile to run networks, long as you aren’t a known criminal come on in. The Programmers Guild’ll be pissed because of the sudden lack of discrimination, & the employers of tech guys’ll be crying because they can’t screw over Habib & expect him to stay, but fuck em. When advocates of increased government power on both sides lose, that’s a win in my book.

With the TV on as background noise while cooking dinner, I overheard some of CNN’s coverage of the Monty-Pythonesque inept suspected terrorists being caught in Miami. Being too busy with watching a skillet full of chicken wings to change the channel, it segued into Lou “those damn furinners!” Dobbs’ bit on it, w/ his correspondent Susan K saying roughly the following about the men so charged:

“they oppose the war in Iraq, & hate Bush, but they say they have never considered terrorism”

The unspoken assumption here is that thinking the occupation of Iraq is pointless and not being a fan of Bush are mere stepping stones to declaring war on the US from within. Assuming that is not bat-shit insane for a moment, wouldn’t that make the majority of the population potential terror suspects, according to the poll numbers?

Oh, wait, we’re being treated like that already, never mind…

***update: apparently 5 of the 7 are US citizens. How convenient for the continued shredding of the Constitution. “See?!? Your neighbor could be waiting to saw the heads off your children! Shut up and bend over!”

Shorter Radley Balko: “Yeeesh, imagine if these cops were on duty…”

*cues up some NWA*

Noticed something in this article about legislation to increase the minimum wage failing:

[Senator Ted Kennedy’s] proposal would have increased the minimum wage to $5.85 beginning 60 days after the legislation was enacted; to $6.55 one year later; and to $7.25 a year after that. He said inflation has eroded the value of the current $5.15 minimum wage by 20 percent (emphasis mine).

This reminded me of a thought I’d had awhile back about the idea of a wage floor, figure I’d share it with you:

Out of curiousity, & with the knowledge that the dollar isn’t worth what it used to be, I consulted an inflation calculator — specifically the one on the Bureau of Labor Statistics site. Took the current minimum wage & put it in the top box w/ the current year, set the bottom year to 1956 — figured 50 years would be a nice round figure — and hit “calculate”. Turns out, that current $5.15 only has the buying power of 69 cents in ‘56 bills. Ironically, the actual minimum wage in that year was a dollar…

When advocates of the minimum wage mention inflation, they have a point. They also whistle past a huge loophole in their arguement: that pesky wage floor doesn’t seem to want to stay still. Because of central bank manipulation (when we do what they do it’s called “counterfeiting”) & the adjustments the private sector has to make to keep up (what keynesians mistakenly call “cost-push inflation”), you almost don’t have the chance to spend that increase before it becomes irrelevant. For that reason, IMO, regardless of whatever one may think of a minimum wage in and of itself (I personally find its relevance overstated, & I will never forgive it for being the excuse used for white employers to pass over & fire blacks in the FDR era), it is self-defeating to have one under a fiat currency.

Any “progressives” out there, if you’re going to defend a wage floor then at least make sure it’s a floor & not quicksand.

In that sideshow act going on in Baghdad, a pattern has developed:

Gunmen kidnapped and killed the No. 2 lawyer on Saddam Hussein’s defense team, making him the third attorney for Iraq’s former president to be murdered during the crimes against humanity trial.

The body of Khamis al-Obaidi was found shot dead Wednesday on a Baghdad street near a shopping center in the Ur neighborhood, said Gen. Mohammed al-Dulaimi of the Interior Ministry. He said Obaidi was kidnapped in the city’s upscale Mansur neighborhood before the killing.

Hussein’s chief defense attorney, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said by phone from his home in Amman, Jordan, that he believes Shiite Muslim militiamen were responsible for the killing (emphasis mine).

Far as I’m concerned, if that’s how they want to deal with things, let ‘em.  Skip this show-trial, drop off Saddam in a shiite neighborhood, hand out tools to the mob that shows up, & watch what happens.

While doing my usual news-surfing I came across this headline: “U.S. Lawmakers Push Sugar As Fuel Source“:

With the market for corn-based ethanol booming, lawmakers from sugar-producing U.S. states are hoping that beet and cane growers can soon jump onto the renewable fuel bandwagon.

They cite the model of Brazil, which produces ethanol made from sugar cane. But critics, pointing out that sugar is much cheaper in Brazil than in the United States, question whether the economics of sugar-based ethanol would work in America.

Seems reasonable enough, right? Here comes the catch…

“It would be absurd in 10 years if we’re doing 60 billion gallons of ethanol, and the only crop in America that’s not participating is sugar,” said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican and one of Congress’ leading champions of sugar-based ethanol.

Coleman is backing legislation that would encourage the use of renewable fuels, including the 100 million-gallon mandate for sugar-based ethanol.

Minnesota happens to lead the nation in beet sugar production, & when you hear a congressman say “encourage”, they mean “subsidize”.

Jack Roney, an economist with the American Sugar Alliance, agreed that the government would need to step in to stimulate a sugar-to-ethanol industry.

LOL. Might as well ask a mugger what he thinks about disarming his victims a.k.a. “gun control”.

“It would take a combination of consumption mandates to ensure that the demand would be there, and conceivably some production incentives to use sugar ethanol,” he said (all emphasis mine).

“Consumption mandates” & “production incentives”. In other words, supply and demand are to both be artificially propped up by the government. Figures…

This is how government works, folks. Narrow interests say “jump”, & politicians not only ask “how high?”, but ask for permission before coming down. No matter what the issue is, you can bet there’ll be a corporatist angle. I’m all for getting off of oil, particularly because of who stands to gain from a continuation of the status quo, but we have to make damn sure that we’re not just trading one group of bagmen of the State for another.