Sen. Ted Stevens guilty on all counts

Per Salon.com:

Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens

The jury in the corruption trial of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) came back Monday afternoon with a verdict that could well send Stevens' career down the tubes. Stevens was found guilty on all seven of the charges he faced, felonies relating to false statements he made on Senate financial disclosure forms on which he failed to report some $250,000 in gifts.

Stevens reportedly faces up to five years in prison on each of the counts, but the AP says he "will likely receive much less prison time, if any."

Though he's the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Stevens may not be part of that body for much longer. He's facing a tough Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, this year, and recent polling has generally shown Begich holding on to a slim lead. If Stevens is re-elected despite the conviction, it would be up to the Senate to decide whether or not to let him remain in his seat.

Capitalism + Subsidies = Hypocrisy

Watching George Will on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday made me wistful for the 1980s brand of GOP conservatism that, you know, seemed PRINCIPLED. (Note: I'm the last person who would claim that the Democrats hold exclusive claim to principles, but the GOP seems to be trafficking in a particularly virulent strain of politics these days.)

No, I didn't agree with its values, but that brand of conservatism at least seemed to believe in something sincerely and with conviction.

Will made the point that I've heard him make consistently over the last several months, that if you think the US has engaged in capitalism over the last 20 years, you're a moron. (I'm paraphrasing, but not by much.)

The thing is, government subsidies are Socialism. Subsidies "spread the wealth". Subsidies to corporations are a fancy way of saying the Government is taking YOUR money and giving it to companies that cannot succeed on their own. Corporate welfare anyone?

Couldn't we take a fraction of the money that we use to subsidize industry in this country and use it to send every one of their employees to college, training them to work in a field that needs skilled workers?

If we want to have the argument about socialism, fine. But lets have it in honest terms and not engage in rhetoric.

An army deployed against its people

In his blog on Salon.com today, Glenn Greenwald discusses the recent announcement by the US Army that, for the first time ever, US soldiers would be deployed on our own soil to act as needed against civilian unrest.

One of the most concerning portions of the Army statement was the part emphasized here by me:

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

In Greenwald's blog today and in his Salon radio interview, he discusses this new domestic military role with the ACLU, who has lodged a Freedom of Information Act inquiry to find out why this new standing military force is needed on US soil.

My takeaway: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have undeniably stretched our military to its limit, so much so that the National Guard has been deployed to serve overseas to the detriment of our domestic security, as enunciated by many state authorities who rely on the National Guard during times of disaster.

Do we need guard detail available throughout the nation? Yes. But I question why it should be a US military force, a force dedicated to combating foreign threats. Army units are NOT specialized in domestic security, and I, for one, want to know why the Department of Defence thinks they should now be in a position where they may be deployed against their fellow citizens.

(BTW - where are the "strict constitutionalists" on this one??)