Large Democratic majorities in the next Congress might be able to enact meaningful, uncontroversial reform of our national voting system. Here's what I offer as a basic fix. Let's standardize ballots at the Federal level but avoid the issues of re-districting and campaign finance. (These are important, but fraught with controversy. Let's fix the easy stuff first.) And let's set up a Federal voter registry.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to specify the methods of election to Federal office (Article X). It should use this to establish standards for voting: how ballots are designed, what processes are required for the physical logistics of voting, what safeguards are necessary, how disputes are resolved. It can even establish a national voter registry, with identification standards.

Congress can provide funds to municipalities to reward them for applying these standards to non-Federal races. This incentive will encourage state and local offices to apply the same, defined standards across the entire process, but they are not required to (indeed, the Constitution does not permit the Federal government to mandate how local elections are conducted).

More after the fold.

Why don't the leading Democratic candidates pledge to prosecute the crimes of the Bush administration?

Review the websites of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. None of them promises to bring the Bush crime syndicate to justice. Perjury, obstruction of justice, conflicts of interest, corruption, unconstitutional behavior, invasions of privacy: for seven years we've watched the criminal abuse of our laws and us. Yet not a single candidate has made an issue of bringing these miscreants to justice, except Dennis Kucinich (1%) and Chris Dodd (out).

More below the fold...

I'm a single-issue voter: I won't vote for any presidential candidate who won't condemn torture, completely and without condition. I've heard Democratic politicians deplore it, but not one has focused on the total elimination of torture as an American tactic. None have declared themselves to be "the anti-torture candidate."

I'm still waiting for anyone to state something along the lines of:

"If elected, I will not tolerate torture under any circumstances. I will direct every agency and department of this government to halt all actions which could be construed as torture and all interrogations which use coercive techniques. From the moment I am sworn in, the United States will abide by every international agreement we have signed regarding the treatment of those in our custody, no matter where they may be. Torture is, vile, despicable and un-American. We won't do it, at all, ever, while I am president."

We haven't heard this yet from any candidate, to my recollection. Why not? (More after the jump.)

If we want to stop Cheney, we should stop funding him. This is simple. The next procurement bill can have a short paragraph stating that "The Office of the Vice-President shall receive no funds beyond those required by law to pay the Vice-President's salary."

If we want to make it rock-solid, let's add: "No funds shall be diverted from other purposes to fund any functions of the Vice-President's office, whatsoever."

This will close Cheney's "office," and some of his power. Don't even give him a secretary. Force him to get his own coffee, make his own copies, and represent himself to the press. The Constitution does not stipulate anything beyond that his salary can't be lowered during his term of office.

This can be done swiftly, and the Congressional Republicans will be hard-pressed to defend the staffing of an office that has lied to them and to the American public.

Attach this to each and every spending bill. Let them filibuster or veto it: Cheney becomes the isssue either way. There is NO downside for Democrats.

Bush's escalation will come with "benchmarks," a favorite buzzword of lazy MBAs. Iraq is the new "No Child Left Behind": we'll measure their progress and reward or punish accordingly.

And how will we punish them: by withdrawing, or by refusing to leave? The same question applies to the reward: will we leave if they behave, or will we stay if they don't?

This crystallizes the illogic of "we'll stand down as they stand up," a mantra adopted by a number of clueless Democrats who saw it as a safe haven while not thinking out the implications. It has let them evade the core question: Who are WE to set benchmarks and issue ultimatums?

All this talk of holding Iraqis and their government to any sort of standard ignores the essential fact of this war: we invaded them without... (more after the jump)

I'm a firm believer in small statements if big ones are unavailable. For me, Bush's upcoming State of the Union Address is an opportunity. If he can't be seized and dragged to a waiting flight to the Hague, then how about some fart noises? Some untraceable hissing?

I can't bring myself to watch another Kremlinesque farce, with craven Congresspeople leaping to their feet, multiple standing ovations before the dope has even opened his mouth, and the pack thrusting their hands (and mugs) forward to be patted and kissed.

I know that "respect for the office" trumps political pettiness, but this is a man who has shown amazing contempt for the other two branches of government. At what point do they get to return that institutional disrespect?

What should we petition our representatives and senators to do, especially if they are of the Democratic persuasion? I've got a few suggestions after the jump...

Over 60% of Americans oppose the Iraq war and occupation, but our voice isn't yet an angry roar. Perhaps that's because we haven't had to pay the cost, yet, unless we've had a family member or friend die. BushCo has hidden the bodies and put the cost off-budget. The incoming Democrats are trying to put it back on- budget, but they run the risk being accused of ballooning the deficit if the public isn't crystal-clear on what is being paid for.

It's time for a War Tax. Until now, all we've been asked to do is go shopping. Now, we should do the math on this debacle and let everyone know the out-of-pocket cost to each of us in dollars.

I propose both a fuel tax and an windfall-profits tax on petroleum products. (We've done each before.) For the latter, we can allow a 10% return on the actual cost of distilling oil into gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, and other petroleum products. The government, representing us, should take the rest.

More after the break...

There are motives on all sides. Pierre Gemayel was assassinated last Tuesday, Nov. 21. His murder occurred as the U.N. authorized an inquiry into the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the popular former Prime Minister of Lebanon who was blown up in February, 2005. If you follow Lebanese politics a bit, please vote your hunch. If you don't know what religion Gemayel was, please don't vote.

We've won the Senate, but with a margin that puts us at the mercy of a bitter, vengeful, pissed-off Joe Lieberman. Given his history as a drama queen, he'll make sure that we know: It's All About Him.

How should we approach this unstable, self-pitying, narcissistic dweeb? The answer is coded into our DNA, whether we're nerds or football heroes:

NOOGIES!! And wedgies, swirlies, and swooshies!! All Democratic Senators must promise to tackle the Lieberdweeb in the Capitol corridors, surround him and noogie off what hair he has left. Then, grab inside his pants for the elastic of his briefs (he's not a boxer guy) and hang him from the nearest door closer. If he's got a briefcase, steal it and hide it behind the radiator! Endless fun will ensue!! If it doesn't work, drag him to the boys' room!!!

Respect? Never! He craves abuse, and we should give him all we can.

Republican Lt. Gov. Kerry Murphy Healey has been demanding a 1-on-1 debate with Deval Patrick, who is now leading her by more than 20 points in their race for Governor of Massachusetts. She wants to exclude Christy Mihos, a hometown Libertarian, and Grace Ross, the Rainbow-Green Party candidates. (Both poll about 8% between them, but they've been fine agitants in the three debates to-date, needling both candidates on their lapses and getting in some good zingers.)

It turns out that a Roxbury civic group is happy to host a 1-on-1 debate--in fact, they've extended 3 invitations so far, and Patrick has accepted. The problem? Healey is trying to live down her notorious black-rapist-lurking-in-a-parking-garage ad. There wouldn't be awkward questions that she's trying to avoid, would there?

Right now in Massachusetts regular unleaded is down to $2.09, triggering nostalgic memories of, say, late 2004--those were great times, eh? But infrequent motorists would be well-advised to top off their tanks in the next two weeks. You could save yourself $5, $10, or even $15 in short order!

You might also consider buying twenty or thirty gas cans and filling them up, too. Just don't smoke around them--it's bad for your health!

Americans may not mind being lied into a war, but we sure don't like to then lose that war.

The Iraq War is lost, and at this point the blame falls entirely on the Bush Administration. Why aren't we pounding them for having lost this war?

Remember how they blamed liberals for "losing" China, and then Vietnam. In Iraq, the timeframe is still entirely on the Republican watch.

By asking NOW who lost Iraq, we can leapfrog a pointless debate on whether we have, in fact, lost it, and pin the blame where it belongs.

John Kerry's Washington office just told me on the phone (202-224-2742) that Kerry has just endorsed Ned Lamont for the Senate. We can expect a press release soon. Kerry's home offices are not yet clued in on this yet.

Over the next few days, we can expect more of the Democratic establishment to fall in line behind the people's chosen candidate, Ned Lamont. Lieberman's money will dry up, he'll resort to Republican endorsements, and his sad career will wither up and blow away.

Get ready for the coming spin on Lamont/Lieberman. Joe stuck his long goodbye to the Democratic Party as deep into the July 4th newshole as he could, but in the weeks to come he'll be calling in every chit with every talking head he knows.

Expect him to show up on Russert, Matthews, and Fox, philosophically ruing today's sad state of politics, when a senior statesman gets ambushed by far-left drive-by bloggers. He won't mention Lamont--he'll focus on us, and how we're manipulating the internet--a clear evil. He'll reminisce with the beltway whores about how it used to be, and they'll fawningly agree.

He'll position himself as a man of principle. Expect much more of putting the country ahead of his party. "Yes, Tim, it's painful, but it's what any American would do. I have to think about the country, and not just my party. I didn't leave the Democrat (sic) Party --it left me." (More after the jump...)

This is my first diary--please forgive my mistakes.

The Verizon website says:
"Verizon was one of the first large employers to create an ethics office headed by an executive responsible for compliance. Our comprehensive Code of Business Conduct... has become a model for other companies. We train and certify our employees on their understanding of the code, and the code is available online for reference.

Because the code cannot address every situation that might arise, we also operate a confidential VZ Ethics Line (800 856-1885 or 800 968-4586 TTY and 800 488-7900 for Verizon Wireless) that employees, suppliers and the public can call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ask questions, seek clarification or report alleged misconduct or violations of our code."

I called their Ethics Line, which is staffed by a 3rd-party ethics investigation firm called Global Compliance. I was impressed by how they handled my complaint. (Read more..)