While Americans eagerly vote for the next president, here’s a sobering reminder: As of Tuesday, George W. Bush still has 77 days left in the White House — and he’s not wasting a minute.

President Bush’s aides have been scrambling to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and abortion rights, among others — few for the good. Most presidents put on a last-minute policy stamp, but in Mr. Bush’s case it is more like a wrecking ball. We fear it could take months, or years, for the next president to identify and then undo all of the damage.

Here is a look — by no means comprehensive — at some of Mr. Bush’s recent parting gifts and those we fear are yet to come. ….[MORE]

Popularity: 3% [?]

An LA Times Editorial
Published: September 28, 2008

As the Bush administration attempts to stabilize the nation’s economy, we are witness to the final chapter of a period of perverse and dishonest leadership that has used its own crises to justify the expansion of its own power. This was a president who came to office on promises of modesty — who championed a “humble nation,” scorned nation building and promised a more limited role for government in the lives of its citizens. Then he presided over a six-year attempt to tear down and rebuild the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now has embarked on the most profound expansion of the federal government’s role in the private economy since the Depression.

In both cases, the pattern is the same. Ineptitude led to crisis; crisis then became the argument for the radical expansion of executive power. The administration insisted that it exercise its new authority with a minimum of scrutiny by Congress, the courts or the public.

In the so-called war on terror, that has meant the abdication of our most basic American principles. We have forfeited privacy and honor — the administration has monitored phones and e-mails without warrants and has secreted prisoners in foreign lands, arguing that they deserved none of our protections even while in our custody. As a nation, we have stooped to torture (while debating the meaning of the word) and refused to recognize one of our most basic Anglo-American notions, the principle of habeas corpus (thankfully, the Supreme Court, seven of whose members are Republicans, drew the line at that abomination). We have held prisoners in detention without trial, without charge, without end. In so doing, we have antagonized the world and debased America’s moral authority to lead.

The same administration responsible for these catastrophes has over the last month nationalized the largest source of funding for mortgages and the largest insurance company on the planet. And it proposed to intervene even more dramatically in the nation’s economy by having the Treasury Department — with no court, congressional or public oversight — relieve financial institutions of the troubled mortgages and related securities that have locked up the lending system.

There is no doubt about the depth and range of the crisis that provokes these calls for government action. The gyrations of the stock market have been dismaying, and the threat to the country’s financial institutions — and everyone who borrows from or invests in them — is real. Still, the audacity of this administration demanding expanded powers and curtailed accountability is a wonder to behold. The bitter irony is that this crisis warrants dramatic intervention, but President Bush’s record makes him difficult to trust even when he’s right.

These troubles are about more than a president who is unfaithful to his word. Bush has transformed the balance of power in our government. We are seeing the erection of an imperial presidency, immune from oversight when it fights terrorists and when it rescues banks.

Politically, these developments raise two questions: Which candidate to succeed Bush benefits most by the events of recent weeks? And which candidate, if either, would have the strength to roll back these expansions of presidential power if elected?

To the first question, the answer seems to be Barack Obama, though only modestly. Obama’s poll numbers have inched up in recent days as voters have taken stock of a frighteningly complex economic meltdown and been left to wonder what to think of John McCain’s abrupt, halting responses — as McCain saw it, the “fundamentals” of the economy were sound one moment, at risk the next.

Questions about McCain’s judgment in recent days have only been deepened by the performances of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She has struggled in her rare public appearances, and her selection risks appearing all the more reckless and cynical when held against the seriousness of this financial crisis. Even McCain’s campaign “suspension” seemed like gamesmanship. He said he was rushing to Washington, but took his time, and the talks derailed soon after he arrived. He proclaimed that the situation was so dire he would not return to the stump until an agreement was reached, then did precisely what he said he wouldn’t. It was not an impressive week for the Straight Talk Express.

Still, Obama has hardly run away with this issue, and the economic news exposes his weaknesses as well. He is, after all, untested by executive crisis and a freshman senator of limited achievement in government. Voters may well blanch at his relative inexperience, given the gravity of these times. Indeed, it is telling that in a week when his opponent flailed, Obama made scant headway in the polls.

On the matter of which candidate could be trusted to roll back the excessive powers that Bush has aggregated, Obama is vague and McCain is exasperating. McCain has properly condemned the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and said he would close it, but when the court granted detainees there the rights of habeas corpus, McCain denounced the ruling as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” He condemned torture, but then, with the campaign underway, voted against legislation to limit the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation. Those oscillations do not reassure.

Obama, meanwhile, is more consistent and encouraging but offers few specifics. He pledges to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus and end the invasions of privacy undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism. Those are welcome positions and provide some hope that he would roll back Bush’s excesses. But while he pledges allegiance to the separation of powers, Obama has said little about how to honor that pledge. Rare is the politician who willingly cedes authority, and we have not heard enough from Obama to be convinced he’s that rare person.

These are not abstractions. They are the legacy of this grim epoch, one that should be equally offensive to conservatives and liberals. George Bush promised humility and delivered arrogance. The next president must not.

The United States of Arrogance

The hypocrisy of U.S. democracy and self-righteous foreign policy is troubling the world. The U.S. Dept of Defense, the world’s largest landlord, operates 737 military bases in 63 countries with military personnel in 156 nations. America is ready to strike any country to procure natural resources to extend its empire, keep the dollar afloat, and ensure its utopia. The military-industrial complex has put over 80,000 innocent Iraqis and 4,000 U.S. troops in an early grave, while putting itself in $9 trillion in debt. Alienating humanity and creating new terrorists daily, American foreign policy is a nightmare! Sexually abusing and raping in Abu Ghraib, using chemical white phosphorus (its own WMD) in Fallujah, destroying homes, ransacking mosques, and killing innocents across Iraq–America is winning the war of terror. Unprecedented soldier suicides attest to a disenchanted military. At home the FBI violates civil liberties, while the FDA approves deadly drugs, and CIA concocts phony “slam dunk” intel for war.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Cities Cracking Down on Saggy Pants — Some May Face Jail Time

The “Saggy Pants” fashion started in U.S. prisons, where inmates aren’t given belts with their baggy uniform pants to prevent hangings and beatings — a “gangster rap” craze featuring low-slung baggy pants sometimes held by the hands to prevent it from falling down the legs. Sometime the pants are worn so low, that boxer shorts or bare buttocks are in full view.

“For young people, it’s a form of rebellion and identity,” Adrian “Easy A.D.” Harris, 43, a founding member of the Bronx’s legendary rap group Cold Crush Brothers. “The young people think it’s fashionable. They don’t think it’s negative.”

“The reason I don’t wear tight pants is because it’s easier to get money out of my pocket this way,” Wise said. “It’s just more comfortable,” says Mark Wise. My jeans sag for practical reasons.

“Are they going to go after construction workers and plumbers, because their pants sag, too?” Murray asked. “They’re stereotyping us,” says shop owner Mack Murray

The latest city to crack down on “Saggy Pants” is Flint, Michigan. Flint cops are cracking down on sagging pants, and violators of ordinance could face fines — even jail time.

Flint residents now have to watch their butts because Police Chief David Dicks is on the lookout.

Dicks, who took over the department last month on an interim basis, announced that his officers would start arresting people wearing saggy pants that expose skivvies, boxer shorts or bare bottoms.

“Some people call it a fad,” Dicks told the Free Press this week while patrolling the streets of Flint. “But I believe it’s a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure, which has been on the books for years.”

On June 27, the chief issued a departmental memorandum telling officers: “This immoral self expression goes beyond freedom of expression.”

The crime, he says, is disorderly conduct or indecent exposure, both misdemeanors punishable by 93 days to a year in jail and/or fines up to $500.

Flint is often called one of the most violent cities in America, however in recent years, it has seen a drop in homicides.

Civil Liberties

Greg Gibbs, a lawyer and chair of the ACLU Flint chapter, said the crackdown sounds like a “vast waste of resources.”

“In Atlanta, we see this as racial profiling,” said Benetta Standly, statewide organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. “It’s going to target African-American male youths. There’s a fear with people associating the way you dress with crimes being committed.”

Michigan ACLU Executive Director Kary Moss said race could become an issue if the chief aggressively enforces the law…[MORE >>]

Popularity: 12% [?]