JUDGE'S WORD ISN'T LAW

JUDGE TRASHES THE 1st AMENDMENT

Boston police raided the Occupy site (Dec. 10) after Judge Frances McIntyre ruled that “occupying” constituted “seizing” public property. She made that ruling while occupying a chair owned by the state, while occupying the position of judge, after having occupied a hotel room on occasion, occupying a seat on an airplane, and maybe even flicking the Occupied sign on a toilet door. How that beyond-stupid-woman could have so totally screwed up is hard to fathom. But in doing so she blithely ignored the 1^st Amendment of our constitution which guarantees the people's right to assemble peacefully to seek “redress of grievances.” And the Constitution does not limit that right to assemble where, when, or for only as long as the local authority approves.

I suggest that before the Occupy folks go to court to get her witless ruling overturned they buy her a copy of the Oxford Dictionary of the English language. To justify her bizarre ruling she may want to seize on the Latin root of the English word which combines ob – to move toward, and capere - to seize, but, as noted above, no English speaker (except foolish Ms. McIntyre) uses the word to mean “to steal,” “to take permanent possession of another's property,” or “to lay claim to.”

The dotty Ms. McIntyre is not, tragically, the only one who has ignored the Constitution to shoo Occupiers out of public parks and off campus. Multibillionaire Mayor Bloomberg did it, so did suck-up-to-the-banks Oakland Mayor Quan, and semi-English speaking Chancellor of the Davis campus of the University of California. Linda Katehi. (For whom our Constitution may be “all Greek to her.”)
The Occupy movement began as an effort to call attention to Wall Street's usurpation of power and the tragic effects of the wealth gap in the U.S. But now, due to the violent acts of police and the venality of local governments, it has became a true civil rights movement. Imagine what things would have been like had the McIntyre view prevailed when people marched to Selma. They could have been routed for “seizing” a public bridge, and poor old Glenn Beck's crowd would have been ordered to vacate the Washington mall or face pepper spraying. .

BRAIN DRAIN

YOUR BRAIN ON POLITICS

Remember the old anti-drug ad that said your brain on drugs is fried? Something like that seems to be true of some people's brains on politics. Republicans who were running against the Washington establishment now support Mister Insider, Newt Gingrich. Evangelicals who were running against “immoral” Democrats now support Mister Infidelity, Newt Gingrich. Conservatives who oppose Freddie Mac now back it's former lobbyist, Mister Insincere, Newt Gingrich.

As I tried to make sense of that I turned to psychology and brain science blogs and found a couple of clues. First, people are very good at deceiving themselves. Those who believe adultery is a sin switch from morality to electability as the basis for their decision to back Gingrich. Those who despise Washington insiders switch to hatred of Obama as their reason for supporting him. And “everybody has to make a living” is reason enough to overlook Gingrich's career as a lobbyist.

The other insight came from a study of “group think.” This is the “to get along, go along” attitude which explains why honest men and women working on Wall Street engaged in flagrantly dishonest practices. And it may also explain why perfectly rational men and women are backing a man who was fined $300,000 for engaging in corrupt activities while serving as Speaker; number three in line to serve as President.

Between now and election day the airwaves, and on-line social media, will be awash in ads which remind voters of Gingrich's past. (Assuming he's the nominee.) But those ads won't change minds unless they directly address the self-deception and group thinking. I suggest using a grandmotherly woman in an ad in which she says, “You may want to forget his repeated adultery, but I can't and you ought to be ashamed of yourself if you do.” And one that features a man in jail who says, '”I broke the law when I was on Wall Street and am paying the price. Are you going to let Gingrich get away with his crimes and serve his time in the White House? (Head down) It's just not fair.”

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE JAIL HOUSE?

The President and Attorney General Holder are probably meeting in a closed door session today to discuss whether a Federal indictment should be brought against Newt Gingrich. It seems patently clear that he has violated Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 29, Section 599 of the U. S. Code which prohibits a presidential candidate from naming his (or her) cabinet picks, which Gingrich did. Today's Washington Times reported in detail Gingrich's speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition meeting in Arlington, Virginia during which he promised to name former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as his Secretary of State. That clearly violated the law, and if found guilty Gingrich faces a year in jail. Of course, if charges are filed Obama will be accused of using the law to help his campaign, and if they aren't he will be slammed for putting political expediency above enforcing the law.

There is an out, however. U.S. Attorneys don't have to check with the AG before acting to enforce Federal law, so Neil MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (an Obama appointee who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate) is free to act. Meanwhile ultra-right winger John Bolton has declined to say whether he'd take the job, but that should not stop MacBride from bringing charges.

The dilemma Obama faces is bound to spoil his sleep tonight. (And maybe make him wish he hadn't quit smoking.) What would help would be pressure from Congress to act to enforce the law. So Obama might want to make a late night call to Michigan Congressman John Conyers, Jr, the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee. “Hey, John, do me a favor. Call Neil MacBride and get him to arrest Newt.'” The next day the President can meet with the press to lament the tragedy and point out he had no control over the action MacBride took. That ought to help him sleep better.

THE COMEDY SEASON

IT'S HARD NOT TO LAUGH

Donald Trump is going to moderate a GOP political debate. That's not a joke from the Colbert Report, funny as it seems. What's going to be tough for The Donald is to make this episode of the seemingly endless string of debates more bizarre than the others. They could all have been written by Jon Stewart's team on The Daily Show, and I'm sure that has not been lost on Obama's team, which may be tempted to run a Comedy Central campaign.

If “The GOP's a joke” becomes their 2012 slogan we're in for a fall season that will have the country in stitches. And each day's news brings more material to the comedy writers who, I'm sure, are not sipping tea as they work. G.W. Bush's press secretary handed over a bunch of new stuff when he urged Republican campaigners to attack Obama as a flip-flopper. To make his point he listed items so obscure that even the party professionals were mystified. I presume most of those present knew that flip-flopping is both Gingrich and Romney's Achilles heel, and using those words only hurts them. And at that same Republican National Committee meeting, to which a Yahoo reporter was inadvertently invited, pollster Nicholas Thompson countered that the party should be wary of attacking Obama because of his “high personal approval rating,” which has risen to 49%.

And they're faced with the new Public Policy Polling's finding that were the election held this week Gingrich would get 42% of the popular vote to Obama's 50%. That does not mean that 2012 is a certain win for Obama, which is why I'm urging them to go for the laughs. So let's dig out our old Mort Saul caps and start writing. How about, “The funniest thing about Obama is his name. The funniest thing about Romney is how many of him there are.” Or, “Gingrich just got a powerful endorsement. Tiffany's is backing him 500,000 percent.”

A WHO DONE IT

THE MYSTERY OF POLITICS

I read a lot of political news and a lot of mystery novels and during the political season the two begin to blend together. With mysteries the question is Who did it and will the good guys nail him, or her? With politics it's Who will do it, and will voters nail him, or her? In both genres the reader expects to encounter a number of suspects, be faced with the author's misdirections, and read of heart pounding threats to the good guys.

The GOP initially offered up a dozen suspects which over time has been reduced to two, Gingrich and Romney. Almost from the beginning of the novel it seemed that the Obama's good guys had their sights set on Mitt as the “who will do it,” then came a puzzling misdirection more confusing than I'd run into in any of the novels I've read. The Obama campaign ran a powerful anti-Mitt ad exposing the two Mitts trapped in one body. I asked myself if they want to run against Romney why run an ad that will hurt him win the GOP nomination? Then came the Ah Ha! moment. Obama wants to run against Gingrich!

At that point I went back to reading political news and discovered that Independents really, really don't like Newt. In California, 60% of them would vote against him and nationally only 31% of GOP voters have a favorable view of him. So things are turning out just the way the Chicago good guys want them to.

Of course before an “arrest” can be made hard evidence has to be gathered which will convince the jury (voters) that Newt should be locked out of the White House. And, as with any good novel, that evidence only comes in the last chapter; DNA turns up, or a camera catches the suspect with his hand in the till. We're going to have to wait a while before the “authors” reveal that evidence, but it is most likely something other than the million he took as a lobbyist for the mortgage giant, his marital infidelity, or his Tiffany bill. I wish I could flip forward to the last chapter but I'll just have to wait until mid-summer of 2012. And then for the November trial when the jury votes. That's the heart pounding element.

CRIME STOPPERS

LAISSEZ FAIRE IS NOT FAIR

It French, laissez faire means “let do” or “let it be,” which has been translated into the mantra of western capitalism: “Keep government's hands off!” The result, as we now see, is that those who plunder win over those who produce, those who cheat beat out those who create, and those who steal do better than those who save. Imagine if laissez faire were imposed more broadly on our society. There would be no traffic lights, no police to arrest bank robbers, no FDA to keep poison out of baby formula, and nothing to prevent counterfeiting. Surely we all now recognize that if government kept its hands off capitalism chaos would follow – as it has.

Government has managed to put a few Bernie Madoffs in prison, but most of the slime bags have been allowed to go free without having to admit their crimes or even say, “Sorry. Won't do it again.” The lackeys of Wall Street even managed to prevent the Consumer Protection Agency from saving us from investment pollution as the FDA protects us from poison in our food.

To save capitalism from today's capitalists we need to invoke a different French word: Arrêt! - Stop! And our only hope of doing that is to keep today's Republican party from gaining even greater control of our government. To achieve that, the Democratic party has no choice but to campaign against Wall Street. Harry S Truman defeated Thomas Dewey by running not against him but against a “Do nothing” Congress when Dewey led in all the polls. Obama can defeat the GOP candidate (assuming the eventually settle on one) by labeling him as the “Tool of Wall Street,” which he (or she?) surely will be. And the party must fight to control congress by running Main Street candidates against the Wall Street candidates. The Occupy movement has pointed the way, now it's time for the Democratic party to join the movement.

STREET CRIME

I MISS THE MAFIA

There was a time, not so long ago, when most suburban neighborhoods were safe from the Mafia. Back then, bad guys of one “family” murdered bad guys of other “families,” and if you weren't in “the game” you were pretty safe. Now no one is safe because crime has moved from the streets of Chicago to Wall Street. If you don't believe me, check out Academy Award winner Charles Ferguson's eye opening documentary “Inside Job.”

The “numbers racket” and loan sharking are now exclusively the business of the big banks, “investment” firms, and hedge funds. And they haul in vastly more money than the Mafia dons ever dreamed possible, money that comes out of your pocket and mine. The question is, Where are the G-Men now that we really need them?

The reason most of the crooks of today get away with stealing from us is that Congress has made their crimes “business as usual.” It's perfectly legal to put a bunch of totally bad debts (sub-prime mortgages) into a box and sell the box to somebody for a high price, which they can because they pay the “rating” agencies like Moody's and S&P to swear on a stack of old phone books that the box is really, really valuable. S&P, as you recall, was the agency that was paid to downgrade our country's credit rating because the people who paid them thought it would hurt Obama's chances of getting reelected.

There is today a glimmer of hope. Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley has filed suit against Bank of America, JPMorgan-Chase, and others charging them with real honest to God crimes. She's not a G-Man but she's one ballsy G-Lady!