Another backdoor law

Damn, they're doing it again. First they snuck in the Patriot Act without any review or debate, now they're sneaking in another doozy, aimed at giving the head of Homeland Security eminent domain powers and then some:

"SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS. Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows: (c) Waiver- (1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. (2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction-- (A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or (B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'."

Closely read, it prevents judicial review or action, effectively making the HS director a kind of mini dictator, and worse. It also includes a rider mandating proof of immigration status before obtaining a driver's license! This by-passes your local DMV, and the Department of Transportation rules and regulations. And as for your California pelican:

“(c) Waiver.—The provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.] and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] are waived to the extent the Attorney General determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section [amending this section].”

Remind me to stay away from Tijuana.

Seriously, folks, you might want to drop your Senator an eMail loudly protesting this little bit of lesse' majeste'. As of this writing, this neat item has already passed the House and is on its merry way to the Senate, where it will no doubt not be read unless you make some noise about it. Again, notify your Senator. Hell, write a letter to the editor. Write several. I know I will.

Excuse me, I have to eMail some people.

Elections a joke

The word is in on the Iraqi elections and it’s not good. Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan and he has some thoughts on the subject. In fact, he’s appalled. Well, aren’t we all? Anyway, his take:

I'm just appalled by the cheerleading tone of US news coverage of the so-called elections in Iraq on Sunday. I said on television last week that this event is a "political earthquake" and "a historical first step" for Iraq. It is an event of the utmost importance, for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. All the boosterism has a kernel of truth to it, of course. Iraqis hadn't been able to choose their leaders at all in recent decades, even by some strange process where they chose unknown leaders. But this process is not a model for anything, and would not willingly be imitated by anyone else in the region. The 1997 elections in Iran were much more democratic, as were the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan.

Notice that he doesn’t mention the 2004 US elections.

Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Cole notes that campaigning was carried on in secret, and most folks didn’t have a clue as to who they were voting for, with the results:

This thing was more like a referendum than an election. It was a referendum on which major party list associated with which major leader would lead parliament.

And here I thought everything was just peachy. Oh, well.

Your basic update, Russian style

Former Soviet big noise and head dude, Mikhail Gorbachev has called the elections in Iraq "fake."

Think about it: here's a guy who is no doubt an expert on fake elections, so if he says the Iraqi elections were fake, I for one believe it.

You're a cynic, Mr. Bush

Recent comments by some pundits have caused me to consider that Bush might be even more of a low-life than I had thought.

When asked about how wingnut religos were to be paid back for their support in the last election, Doyle McManus on Washington Week In Review (01/28/05 PBS) said that Bush had no plans. McManus explained that the Shrub still supports an amendment banning same-sex marriages, but has no plans (read ‘intentions’) to alter the status quo in re Roe vs. Wade, stem cell research and the like, thus, not to pay them back at all.

So, while the Shrub will take help from the wingnuts, he is cynical about it, even to the point of leaving his supporters in the lurch.

Payback is a bitch, heh?

Voting in Iraq

It seems that most of the voting begin done by Iragis is going off fairly well, with only 40 or so voters (or potential voters) killed so far. American-based Iraqis are voting in Orange County here in California, some travelling from as far away as Washington state.

Regardless of your position on the war, you got to admit that democracy is a heady brew.

I wish the Iraqis all the best, and I hope we get out of their faces soon.