The Iraq war vote in the Senate is not why I will not support Hillary Clinton, it is a symptom of what is wrong with her as a Democrat. Media Matters has consistently defended Hillary from inaccurate and misleading attacks, this time they aren't in her corner blasting the NYT for this article and its assertion:
"Summary: The New York Times falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton "has always maintained that her support of a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq was not an authorization to go to war." In fact, Clinton acknowledged at the time that the vote for the resolution could "lead to war," but she has stated that a vote for the resolution was not a "vote[] for" war, and that she expected the Bush administration to push for more weapons inspections in Iraq before resorting to war."
You can read her floor statement, as I have, and see that it does not express enthusiasm for war with Iraq, but that was not the vote. The vote was to allow the President to use military force against Iraq. I have had occasion to upbraid others for votes that did not mean what they stated when they voted or that were used in manners they did not anticipate. There are outcomes of votes, and typically the outcome is exactly what the matter voted on said in its language. Lawyers know language counts, they use that fact in court documents and in court on a regular basis. Yet we are to assume that they were ignorant of the fact at the time or that the 'other' side would play 'fair.' Hillary is a lawyer, passed the Bar and all that...
You don't get to be a Senator and plead ignorance, I'm real sorry, that's a completely stupid cop out. I certainly do not need to explain to my readers that these people have staffs and a responsibility. 'Have they fulfilled that responsibility?' is the only question that counts. That apparently is not the issue here, unless you want to pick on the "intelligence." Well...maybe.
The issue here appears to be that Hillary doesn't think BushCo played fair. You have to be particularly credulous to believe that BushCo did not want to do exactly what the measure voted on stated. Hillary insists that she was mislead. I'm afraid I don't quite understand that particular stance, the measure said exactly what it said, she voted for what it said, "Yea," means exactly that. It does not mean "sort of," or any other qualifier she'd like us to think it meant. She went exactly where she went for her reasons, you can speculate about the political tone at the time and misleading intelligence, but other Democrats and Ron Paul voted "Nay."
If you're a Democrat and you think Hillary is a swell candidate, maybe you need to look at her voting record and see if you really can warm up to it. Maybe you need to not eat spin about votes, maybe you just need to stop and think rather than accept the MSM qualification of "inevitable" candidate. And maybe you need to reflect on just what value all her experience adds up to, that co-Presidency First Ladyship preceded the vote to go to war with Iraq. So we really need a presidential candidate who is that easy to mislead and uses that as an excuse?
"Vote for me, I'm a dummy," doesn't strike me as real good stump speech...but she uses it.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Alexis Debat, ABC, and the Nixon Center
Do you find the conservative movement to be particularly credulous? Kind of like that greedy bass that went for the shiny lure, the nice flashy thing that looked not in the least like his real prey? You can keep a baby happy for hours by dangling bright colorful objects over its crib, just as long as they move a little....
Alexis Debat, ABC terrorism expert, former French Intelligence Ministry employee, in fact Doctor - PhD Alexis Debat Nixon Center Fellow is a complete fake. Rue89 has at least part of the story and it does raise some real serious smells, Brian Ross over at ABC looks particularly bad, but you have to go looking a little to see where all this crap got pedalled. PBS relied on ABC's judgement and used the guy, and whoa - fair and balanced Faux News Murdoch's London Times got a screaming headline, Pentagon 'Three-day Blitz Plan' for Iran , complete with red meat, “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
The Nixon Center which called him their Director of National Security and Terrorism (hey how's that for 'security'?) publishes a rag called The National Interest and here's some more of that stuff, "what started not as a clash of civilization is increasingly looking like one." Just in case you thought maybe we had some whack-job religio-loons to deal with, nah, the expert says it's an entire culture...oh no mommy I'm soooo scared.
ABC News has been trying to get some of his stuff off, but there's a bit still floating around, like the linked one, a four page piece fluffing Abu Zarqawi as the new Ossma ready for global conflict, yeah, the guy blown up in a hut in Iraq. You know that one got the right's knickers in a knot, 'gotta get them al-Qaeda in Iraq guys before they follow us home. Poor ABC : http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=610353&page=1, "This Blotter Has Been Removed..." (I'd have loved to done "Poor ABC" as the link, but the thing's a mess).
The Nixon Center hasn't scrubbed its Site yet so here's a little sample, "Iraq has turned into a safe house for terrorists. It is a place where recruits are trained and develop institutional and personal relationships that provide Al-Qaeda with a structure that is ambiguous yet existent and defined." Hey, you don't suppose GeorgeII and the BushCo apologists have been talking to this fake do you?
Kind of like BushCo's WMDs this guy's fakery was accomplished by building falsehoods verified by other falsehoods and credentials supported by the willing dupes' credentialing him. Now all of that only worked because he sold them what they wanted, he gave them the junk they wanted to believe, just like any good con. The list of rightists who bought this goes on for pages and pages of Google, terrorism freaks and others willingly eating it up, CBN lapped away at this scary stuff, "I think we have seen the hand of Iraq veterans coming back to Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco even Europe sometimes, with considerable skills, not only in bomb-making, but advanced counter intelligence, " Alexis Debat said.
Real facts say that terrorism is a threat from a small minority of people, and those people must be dealt with, real facts don't warrant the fear, fear, fear sold by these people who will buy just darn near anything that sounds like fear. Think about it, these people run around beating their chests while cringing from shadows, silliness. But then they do have a faux warrior in the White House keeping them stirred up - you'd think they'd learn.
Alexis Debat, ABC terrorism expert, former French Intelligence Ministry employee, in fact Doctor - PhD Alexis Debat Nixon Center Fellow is a complete fake. Rue89 has at least part of the story and it does raise some real serious smells, Brian Ross over at ABC looks particularly bad, but you have to go looking a little to see where all this crap got pedalled. PBS relied on ABC's judgement and used the guy, and whoa - fair and balanced Faux News Murdoch's London Times got a screaming headline, Pentagon 'Three-day Blitz Plan' for Iran , complete with red meat, “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
The Nixon Center which called him their Director of National Security and Terrorism (hey how's that for 'security'?) publishes a rag called The National Interest and here's some more of that stuff, "what started not as a clash of civilization is increasingly looking like one." Just in case you thought maybe we had some whack-job religio-loons to deal with, nah, the expert says it's an entire culture...oh no mommy I'm soooo scared.
ABC News has been trying to get some of his stuff off, but there's a bit still floating around, like the linked one, a four page piece fluffing Abu Zarqawi as the new Ossma ready for global conflict, yeah, the guy blown up in a hut in Iraq. You know that one got the right's knickers in a knot, 'gotta get them al-Qaeda in Iraq guys before they follow us home. Poor ABC : http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=610353&page=1, "This Blotter Has Been Removed..." (I'd have loved to done "Poor ABC" as the link, but the thing's a mess).
The Nixon Center hasn't scrubbed its Site yet so here's a little sample, "Iraq has turned into a safe house for terrorists. It is a place where recruits are trained and develop institutional and personal relationships that provide Al-Qaeda with a structure that is ambiguous yet existent and defined." Hey, you don't suppose GeorgeII and the BushCo apologists have been talking to this fake do you?
Kind of like BushCo's WMDs this guy's fakery was accomplished by building falsehoods verified by other falsehoods and credentials supported by the willing dupes' credentialing him. Now all of that only worked because he sold them what they wanted, he gave them the junk they wanted to believe, just like any good con. The list of rightists who bought this goes on for pages and pages of Google, terrorism freaks and others willingly eating it up, CBN lapped away at this scary stuff, "I think we have seen the hand of Iraq veterans coming back to Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco even Europe sometimes, with considerable skills, not only in bomb-making, but advanced counter intelligence, " Alexis Debat said.
Real facts say that terrorism is a threat from a small minority of people, and those people must be dealt with, real facts don't warrant the fear, fear, fear sold by these people who will buy just darn near anything that sounds like fear. Think about it, these people run around beating their chests while cringing from shadows, silliness. But then they do have a faux warrior in the White House keeping them stirred up - you'd think they'd learn.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Democrats Want Defeat In Iraq - Boehner
Since GOP House Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made a comment on CNN to Wolf Blitzer referring to the US commitment in Iraq as a "small price" for stopping al Qaeda and stabilizing the Middle East he's been taking all sorts of heat. So, leave it to these sort of people to "spin" the snot out of it in rescue mode.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer wanted to know their reaction to the criticism generated by this remark, "We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al-Qaida here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East." His spokeswoman Jessica Towhey had this to say, "...progress on the ground that some Democrats are so desperate to ignore," and further, It's apparent that some Democrats and the far-left wing of their party are deeply afraid we are winning in Iraq now, and it's clear they will do anything they can - including making false representations - to ensure our troops come home after defeat, not victory."
So, it is the position of the Leadership of the GOP that the Democrats want the US defeated in Iraq. That might be considered rather "hot" rhetoric in any circumstance, but when you consider that the Bush administration has done just about everything possible to guarantee failure, it is reprehensible. Putting troops in harm's way under a false flag was irresponsible in the beginning - that is irresponsibility with people's lives, and from there they botched every major move that might have allowed success. Bush and the Republicans have made such a mess of this that now there is not clear idea of what would define success or defeat, it is a constantly moving goal. The troops have not, of course, failed at any military mission involving opposing troops, but that goal was passed early on, within the space of months. The failures have all been political, Bush and Republican failures.
What Republicans expect you to believe is that we are going to "win" something, that it involves a small price, and that the opposition are traitors who are attempting to defeat US troops in battle. That particular kind of talk would, in many circles, get you smacked in the face. Maybe I am a little too civilized to go find Rep. Boehner and hit him, but boy it sure is irritating and defines him as something other than a politician, unless you consider Joe McCarthy and example of politics. Cheap inflammatory talk based on no more than their emotional response to being called wrong is debasing of the political process and another example of why the Republicans need to spend some time in the political wilderness. What a bunch.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer wanted to know their reaction to the criticism generated by this remark, "We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al-Qaida here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East." His spokeswoman Jessica Towhey had this to say, "...progress on the ground that some Democrats are so desperate to ignore," and further, It's apparent that some Democrats and the far-left wing of their party are deeply afraid we are winning in Iraq now, and it's clear they will do anything they can - including making false representations - to ensure our troops come home after defeat, not victory."
So, it is the position of the Leadership of the GOP that the Democrats want the US defeated in Iraq. That might be considered rather "hot" rhetoric in any circumstance, but when you consider that the Bush administration has done just about everything possible to guarantee failure, it is reprehensible. Putting troops in harm's way under a false flag was irresponsible in the beginning - that is irresponsibility with people's lives, and from there they botched every major move that might have allowed success. Bush and the Republicans have made such a mess of this that now there is not clear idea of what would define success or defeat, it is a constantly moving goal. The troops have not, of course, failed at any military mission involving opposing troops, but that goal was passed early on, within the space of months. The failures have all been political, Bush and Republican failures.
What Republicans expect you to believe is that we are going to "win" something, that it involves a small price, and that the opposition are traitors who are attempting to defeat US troops in battle. That particular kind of talk would, in many circles, get you smacked in the face. Maybe I am a little too civilized to go find Rep. Boehner and hit him, but boy it sure is irritating and defines him as something other than a politician, unless you consider Joe McCarthy and example of politics. Cheap inflammatory talk based on no more than their emotional response to being called wrong is debasing of the political process and another example of why the Republicans need to spend some time in the political wilderness. What a bunch.
Friday, September 14, 2007
UPS, FedEx, and Teamsters
Most of us are familiar with the Brown Trucks, the white FedEx, and have some passing familiarity with the Teamsters. If you were standing outside the business of package delivery you'd think those companies and Teamsters would have a shared relationship. You'd also be wrong.
You see, UPS started out 100 years ago and not too oddly, they used trucks to accomplish their business, FedEx on the other hand started out as an air-delivery company and there's the rub. Teamsters long ago organized UPS but FedEx as an airline operates under different more difficult labor laws. FedEx operates under the Railroad Labor Act which bars any one group of organized employees from crippling that carrier.
Rep James Oberstar (D- Minn), the chairman of House Transportation Committee has produced an amendment to the FAA re-authorization bill that would put FedEx's drivers, maintenance workers, and some other employees under the same NLRB rules UPS operates under. Here's a surprise, Sen Trent Lott (R-MS) promises to throw himself on this "landmine." Do you suppose working people who vote for these anti-labor Republicans will ever give up on their sham god-ness and wake up to their plutocratic agenda?
You see, UPS started out 100 years ago and not too oddly, they used trucks to accomplish their business, FedEx on the other hand started out as an air-delivery company and there's the rub. Teamsters long ago organized UPS but FedEx as an airline operates under different more difficult labor laws. FedEx operates under the Railroad Labor Act which bars any one group of organized employees from crippling that carrier.
Rep James Oberstar (D- Minn), the chairman of House Transportation Committee has produced an amendment to the FAA re-authorization bill that would put FedEx's drivers, maintenance workers, and some other employees under the same NLRB rules UPS operates under. Here's a surprise, Sen Trent Lott (R-MS) promises to throw himself on this "landmine." Do you suppose working people who vote for these anti-labor Republicans will ever give up on their sham god-ness and wake up to their plutocratic agenda?
Lamont Vs. Lieberman
I've wondered over the past year how the Connecticut voters felt about electing Joe Lieberman(I) once it was an accomplished fact and BushCo's war dragged on ... and on ... and on, with good ole Joe cheerleading all the way. There sure was a lot of kicking at Democrats and other left organizations about the Primary results, mostly to the effect that they were a bunch of spoiled children. It seems they weren't, what they were was ahead of the curve.
Daily Kos commissioned a poll regarding votes if the election were held today, the poll was conducted by Research 2000 and the results are rather interesting. 600 likely voters who vote regularly in State elections were polled by telephone, statewide. On whom they voted for : All - Lieberman 49, Lamont 42, Schlesinger 9 (the Republican guy); Democrats - Li 32, La 64, Sc 4; Republicans - Li 67, La 10, Sc 23; Independents - Li 53, La 41, Sc 6. That was then, 2006.
Now, 2007 : All - Li 40, La 48, Sc 10; Dem - Li 25, La 72, Sc 3; Rep - Li 69, La 7, Sc 24; Ind - Li 38, La 49, Sc 9. R2K states +/-4%
Apparently Republicans have somewhat hardened in their view of Iraq, with Lamont showing a 3% drop, by age groups 45-59 and 60+ show the most enthusiasm for Joe, though it has softened by 7&8 respectively.
What this shows is the risk not of challenging an incumbent Democrat in a primary, but rather the importance of a convincing campaign - first, and second not getting there ahead of the voters. Getting there ahead of the voters in the 2006 election poses a difficult question, how did the Lamont campaign manage that?
Daily Kos commissioned a poll regarding votes if the election were held today, the poll was conducted by Research 2000 and the results are rather interesting. 600 likely voters who vote regularly in State elections were polled by telephone, statewide. On whom they voted for : All - Lieberman 49, Lamont 42, Schlesinger 9 (the Republican guy); Democrats - Li 32, La 64, Sc 4; Republicans - Li 67, La 10, Sc 23; Independents - Li 53, La 41, Sc 6. That was then, 2006.
Now, 2007 : All - Li 40, La 48, Sc 10; Dem - Li 25, La 72, Sc 3; Rep - Li 69, La 7, Sc 24; Ind - Li 38, La 49, Sc 9. R2K states +/-4%
Apparently Republicans have somewhat hardened in their view of Iraq, with Lamont showing a 3% drop, by age groups 45-59 and 60+ show the most enthusiasm for Joe, though it has softened by 7&8 respectively.
What this shows is the risk not of challenging an incumbent Democrat in a primary, but rather the importance of a convincing campaign - first, and second not getting there ahead of the voters. Getting there ahead of the voters in the 2006 election poses a difficult question, how did the Lamont campaign manage that?
Boston (D) Files for OR HD45
Today Cyreena Boston, age 27, filed to run for HD45 as a Democratic candidate. Cyreena was raised in NE Portland and returned after attending Spellman College. Cyreena is the former DPO Constituency Director, one of the DNC sponsored hires.
I have known Cyreena from the time she was hired by DPO, I have found her to be intelligent, charming, and dedicated. She has studied issues in depth and delved into Constituency Outreach. While her grasp of minority issues is deep and broad, it is important to note that her reach far exceeds that, a large part of her job involved rural Oregon, including my part of the state, the OR 2nd CD.
There is not doubt in my mind that Cyreena will ably serve HD45 with great dedication and accessibility. The largest part of her job for DPO involved listening and learning the issues confronting various constituency groups and bringing them forward to DPO. This is possibly the most intensive on the job training one could have for the position she is seeking. Until now I have not endorsed any candidate for any position, on the basis of personal knowledge and admiration I am now doing so. Even though HD45 is far from my district and I am unable to cast a vote, I am happy to give my support to a friend and former colleague.
If you'd like to learn more or offer support, you can reach her site at http://www.friendsofcyreena.com/.
I have known Cyreena from the time she was hired by DPO, I have found her to be intelligent, charming, and dedicated. She has studied issues in depth and delved into Constituency Outreach. While her grasp of minority issues is deep and broad, it is important to note that her reach far exceeds that, a large part of her job involved rural Oregon, including my part of the state, the OR 2nd CD.
There is not doubt in my mind that Cyreena will ably serve HD45 with great dedication and accessibility. The largest part of her job for DPO involved listening and learning the issues confronting various constituency groups and bringing them forward to DPO. This is possibly the most intensive on the job training one could have for the position she is seeking. Until now I have not endorsed any candidate for any position, on the basis of personal knowledge and admiration I am now doing so. Even though HD45 is far from my district and I am unable to cast a vote, I am happy to give my support to a friend and former colleague.
If you'd like to learn more or offer support, you can reach her site at http://www.friendsofcyreena.com/.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
New York Times and Mexican Trucks
The DOT gave permission to a Mexican trucking company last week to begin hauling freight in the US under a pilot program that will allow about 500 trucks from 100 Mexican carriers. Environmental and safety regulations that apply to American trucks would supposedly apply to Mexican trucks. The US House has already voted to cut of funding for the program.
The NYT Editorial states they suspect that the Teamsters oppose this program to "stave off the competition" and that the Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo to enforce environmental laws. This opposition increases costs to companies and consumers; and tells Mexico that when it comes to free trade the US only likes it one way. The long haul fleet is much more modern than the critic's caricatures. Congress should allow Mexican trucks through.
Would it surprise you that I might have some disagreement with this editorial? Every industry that has insourced labor from Mexico has shown falling wages, is it any wonder that the Teamsters would oppose this move? If the Teamsters do not oppose this move with the full force available to a union, they have lost their minds. The Teamsters have the membership numbers to throw down the threat of a strike to break this one, assuming it's not an empty threat. The Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo? They must read papers and listen to the news. Companies and consumers pay, that's odd, labor is generally paid for, you might think China and poison goods would be a hint about paying. The long haul fleet is modern, and is going to be checked? I don't think it's a great idea to run foreign nationals from one of the most corrupt nations in the world up and down our highways in 60,000 pound trucks. In fact, I believe we've already imported more than enough Mexican labor, there might be something to be said for US labor not being Mexico's number one source of income. Maybe something like this makes it real clear that NYT's Editorial Board is salaried and pretty much completely disconnected from working Americans. If you don't see the potential to get bitten by this, you may have that in common with them. I suppose it would be unfair to mention the Mexican truck that blew up and killed at least 37 people, since this "pilot" program wouldn't allow hazardous loads...sure, pilot and then? When exactly does BushCo get stopped from crushing labor for the benefit of the plutocrats?
The NYT Editorial states they suspect that the Teamsters oppose this program to "stave off the competition" and that the Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo to enforce environmental laws. This opposition increases costs to companies and consumers; and tells Mexico that when it comes to free trade the US only likes it one way. The long haul fleet is much more modern than the critic's caricatures. Congress should allow Mexican trucks through.
Would it surprise you that I might have some disagreement with this editorial? Every industry that has insourced labor from Mexico has shown falling wages, is it any wonder that the Teamsters would oppose this move? If the Teamsters do not oppose this move with the full force available to a union, they have lost their minds. The Teamsters have the membership numbers to throw down the threat of a strike to break this one, assuming it's not an empty threat. The Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo? They must read papers and listen to the news. Companies and consumers pay, that's odd, labor is generally paid for, you might think China and poison goods would be a hint about paying. The long haul fleet is modern, and is going to be checked? I don't think it's a great idea to run foreign nationals from one of the most corrupt nations in the world up and down our highways in 60,000 pound trucks. In fact, I believe we've already imported more than enough Mexican labor, there might be something to be said for US labor not being Mexico's number one source of income. Maybe something like this makes it real clear that NYT's Editorial Board is salaried and pretty much completely disconnected from working Americans. If you don't see the potential to get bitten by this, you may have that in common with them. I suppose it would be unfair to mention the Mexican truck that blew up and killed at least 37 people, since this "pilot" program wouldn't allow hazardous loads...sure, pilot and then? When exactly does BushCo get stopped from crushing labor for the benefit of the plutocrats?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Humboldt Co, CA Said No To Corporate Personhood
In 2006 Humboldt Co passed Measure T, which bans non-local corporations from participating in local elections and further denies that the artificial entity "corporation" has a claim to First Amendment Free Speech. Well, I'd like to know how I missed it until now. My tip off came from AlterNet and Loaded Orygun and I won't mess about with their work.
I have long wondered how exactly it came about that the fictional entity status of corporations designed to allow them to enter into contracts and participate in the legal arena morphed into the concept of personhood. I suppose if I had time (and a real driving curiosity) I could dig into the SCOTUS and find what they claimed, but philosophically I'm a bit conflicted.
Now I run an S Corp, which has about as much relationship to MicroSoft as the stone in your yard does to the moon, but I have to understand what it is that I own. Mostly that's to stay out of Court and to know what my accountant needs for what. What I own is a paper thing that can make contracts, pay bills, own stuff, and sue or be sued - which leaves me (mostly) personally out of that fray and I enjoy certain tax benefits. Now I certainly don't view that S Corp as more than a business convenience. The S Corp exists because the State allows it to through a registration and a fulfillment of certain requirements, it is a creature of the State. It was born of paper and ink and exists only in that realm. It has certain assets and individual/s involved in ownership but it certainly has no blood or thinking processes of its own. How it qualifies for the natural right to freedom of speech is beyond me, it is a wholly artificial construct.
I suppose that the crunch comes when people band together to create a political activism construct and begin to put together an infrastructure. A speech organization with property has to have some mechanism to own it, pay bills, and possibly enter into legal activities, and that is what a corporation is about, allowing a multiply held construct to engage as a singular entity. Having 1o,000 members sign a check would be rather troublesome and a contract with all those signatures might be a bit unwieldy. Most of the "free press" are corporations.
Hmmm. I wonder what you have to say? I'm kind of stuck on this one.
I have long wondered how exactly it came about that the fictional entity status of corporations designed to allow them to enter into contracts and participate in the legal arena morphed into the concept of personhood. I suppose if I had time (and a real driving curiosity) I could dig into the SCOTUS and find what they claimed, but philosophically I'm a bit conflicted.
Now I run an S Corp, which has about as much relationship to MicroSoft as the stone in your yard does to the moon, but I have to understand what it is that I own. Mostly that's to stay out of Court and to know what my accountant needs for what. What I own is a paper thing that can make contracts, pay bills, own stuff, and sue or be sued - which leaves me (mostly) personally out of that fray and I enjoy certain tax benefits. Now I certainly don't view that S Corp as more than a business convenience. The S Corp exists because the State allows it to through a registration and a fulfillment of certain requirements, it is a creature of the State. It was born of paper and ink and exists only in that realm. It has certain assets and individual/s involved in ownership but it certainly has no blood or thinking processes of its own. How it qualifies for the natural right to freedom of speech is beyond me, it is a wholly artificial construct.
I suppose that the crunch comes when people band together to create a political activism construct and begin to put together an infrastructure. A speech organization with property has to have some mechanism to own it, pay bills, and possibly enter into legal activities, and that is what a corporation is about, allowing a multiply held construct to engage as a singular entity. Having 1o,000 members sign a check would be rather troublesome and a contract with all those signatures might be a bit unwieldy. Most of the "free press" are corporations.
Hmmm. I wonder what you have to say? I'm kind of stuck on this one.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Medicaring Insurance Companies
Insurance companies bid for Medicare and the GAO says the government can recoup over payments. It seems that Medicare doesn't do it, about $59 million in 2003, when they audited 49 of 220 providers and found significant errors at 41 of them. They are supposed to audit 1/3 of the companies annually, in 2006 they managed 14%.
In a completely "unrelated" story, Medicare is going after beneficiaries for unpaid services, it seems that they've sent letters to about 135,000 people telling they still owe money, in most cases money that they failed to withhold from Social Security checks. As Kerry Weems, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said, “I am intently focused on this matter and will make it a priority to correct the errors and minimize them in the future.”
Thanks to NYT Health .
So, $59million in 2003 with decreasing audits each year and now they're going after beneficiaries? Sounds like the BushCo we know and loathe, give to corporations take from the poor, an inverted Robin Hood.
In a completely "unrelated" story, Medicare is going after beneficiaries for unpaid services, it seems that they've sent letters to about 135,000 people telling they still owe money, in most cases money that they failed to withhold from Social Security checks. As Kerry Weems, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said, “I am intently focused on this matter and will make it a priority to correct the errors and minimize them in the future.”
Thanks to NYT Health .
So, $59million in 2003 with decreasing audits each year and now they're going after beneficiaries? Sounds like the BushCo we know and loathe, give to corporations take from the poor, an inverted Robin Hood.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Dick Durbin Says No Money
Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) voted against the 2002 authorization for war but he has since voted for the emergency funding bills. Congress is gearing up for the Petraeus/Crocker testimony and the White House signaled request for an additional $40 billion. Durbin yesterday stated that he would not vote for further funding of the war unless it is tied to a withdrawal plan.
He has said that he will not use his position to lobby for his stance, “Each person has to come to grips with this individually,” but he has met with several members who hold the same view. After his recent return from his third trip to Iraq Durbin told the audience at The Center for National Policy that Congress faces a "moral obligation" to end the war.
"More than on either of my earlier visits, I feel overwhelmed by the tragedy we have created—for Iraq, for its neighbors, for America’s image around the world, and for our troops,” Durbin said.
“I used to think this war was our worst foreign policy mistake in a generation. Now I think it is our worst foreign policy mistake ever,” he added.
He indicated that he would consider voting for the Defense appropriations bills but will not support the annual supplementals that are the major funding device for the Iraq war. Republican filibusters and vetoes will not change his position. (Chicago Trib)
This seems to be about the most we're going to get, there are obvious alternatives, like passing the Defense appropriations bill with strings and letting Bush veto it until he runs out of money. In point of fact they could easily do the same with the entire Executive branch starting with White House funding, yes, his "home." If the Congress proposes to push against power, they had best bring their own and be ready to exercise it. They already made the mistake of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" last time around and looked like, well, pretty much what they were. Unprepared and Unwilling.
The Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress must decide exactly what it is they wish to accomplish. Once they've decided that they need to buck up and get to it. This business of taking partial measures with little resolve will not accomplish anything in the face of the Executive branch power and Bush stubbornness. Bush is perfectly aware of how the situation stands, it does not take a real sharp fellow to see it, the question is why Congress didn't.
He has said that he will not use his position to lobby for his stance, “Each person has to come to grips with this individually,” but he has met with several members who hold the same view. After his recent return from his third trip to Iraq Durbin told the audience at The Center for National Policy that Congress faces a "moral obligation" to end the war.
"More than on either of my earlier visits, I feel overwhelmed by the tragedy we have created—for Iraq, for its neighbors, for America’s image around the world, and for our troops,” Durbin said.
“I used to think this war was our worst foreign policy mistake in a generation. Now I think it is our worst foreign policy mistake ever,” he added.
He indicated that he would consider voting for the Defense appropriations bills but will not support the annual supplementals that are the major funding device for the Iraq war. Republican filibusters and vetoes will not change his position. (Chicago Trib)
This seems to be about the most we're going to get, there are obvious alternatives, like passing the Defense appropriations bill with strings and letting Bush veto it until he runs out of money. In point of fact they could easily do the same with the entire Executive branch starting with White House funding, yes, his "home." If the Congress proposes to push against power, they had best bring their own and be ready to exercise it. They already made the mistake of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" last time around and looked like, well, pretty much what they were. Unprepared and Unwilling.
The Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress must decide exactly what it is they wish to accomplish. Once they've decided that they need to buck up and get to it. This business of taking partial measures with little resolve will not accomplish anything in the face of the Executive branch power and Bush stubbornness. Bush is perfectly aware of how the situation stands, it does not take a real sharp fellow to see it, the question is why Congress didn't.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Doris Anderson Found - Alive
She's been found alive after two weeks in the wilds of Baker County, Jason Jacoby and Mike Ferguson of the Baker City Herald have the story. Baker County Deputy Travis Ash and and OSP Senior Trooper Chris Hawkins went back out to search on their day off and used good woodsman tactics to find her, the story by Chris Collins in the Herald details the rescue.
I know, respect, and like all these reporters so I'm only going to tease you into reading our local paper.
For those of you unfamiliar with our countryside, it is very rough, very high, and a very good place to not get lost in.
I know, respect, and like all these reporters so I'm only going to tease you into reading our local paper.
For those of you unfamiliar with our countryside, it is very rough, very high, and a very good place to not get lost in.
Hillary Clinton and The Club
Over at BlueOregon in comments I tried to make the point that there are things to look at in campaigns that have much more to do with what you're going to get than the resume. One thing I mentioned is "who" thinks they have something to gain from a candidate and one of the best measures of that is money. Let's take a look at some of Hillary's money.
#1 @ $293,400 is DLA Piper who provide global legal representation to business clients
#2 @ $160,500 is CitiBank and if you think it's just a bank...
#3 @ $138,953 is Emily's List a woman's issues PAC
#4 @ $134,960 is Skadden, Arps, et al a law firm specializing in mergers and acquisitions
#5 @ $134,050 is Goldman Sachs a big advocate of privatizing SS
#6 @ $116,575 is Cablevision Systems
#7 @ $116,550 is Kirkland and Ellis an international commercial law firm
#8 @ $113,700 is Morgan Stanley
#9@ $102,500 is Viacom
#10 @ $100,200 is Greenberg Taurig LLP specializing in lobbying and commercial law
#11 @ $98,100 is Time Warner
#12-20 ranging from low of $78K are mostly financial organizations and commercial law
So, who thinks they stand to reap benefits worth investments of $78K to almost $300K? How does that stack up with what your ears hear? Just exactly who is invisible and who is visible? These are the top 20 donors, totalling $2,286,288 which is something other than chickenfeed.
If you're curious about individual contributions you can go to Open Secrets to find who has donated and who they work for, starting at $9200 and moving down, 2 pages to get under $6900.
I know that most candidates have to go to PACs and businesses to get funding, but maybe there's some illumination here. You might want to remember that NAFTA was a Clinton deal (hey, she wants credit for First Lady & Bill) and that the common worker took that one in the shorts.
Agribusiness $305,350
Communications/Electronics $3,018,328
Construction $844,550
Defense $52,950
Energy & Natural Resources $383,800
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $7,781,040
Health $1,663,317
Lawyers & Lobbyists $6,582,595
Transportation $263,497
Misc Business $5,184,947
Labor $44,850
Ideological/Single-Issue $415,173
Other $4,584,920
Suppose I get rid of the small change and un-categorized contributions
Communications/Electronics $3,018,328
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $7,781,040
Health $1,663,317
Lawyers & Lobbyists $6,582,595
Misc Business $5,184,947
OK, I'm a Lefty Democrat, I admit it, my sympathies are with those who do the work to build this country and those who are left out of the economic system. I look at BushCo with vehement criticism on that basis, I know who has won and lost under their idea of an economy. Funny, most of the usual suspects show up right here on Hillary's list. You have strange ideas if you think these folks are funding their own losses and the loser's gain.
Maybe if you look at Hillary's vaunted experience and see who won under her votes...
Will I help her Primary campaign? No. Would I work for her campaign in a General Election? No. Would I stop criticizing her in a General? No. Would I vote for any of the Republicans? Not even if Hell froze over. So, yes I'd have to vote for the least horrid, gads - again??? Not if you back the people who speak to Democratic values and tell the truth about this dynastic endeavor. Which ever of the other candidates you like, not one of them is Hillary. Let's kill the media "inevitable candidate" buzz.
#1 @ $293,400 is DLA Piper who provide global legal representation to business clients
#2 @ $160,500 is CitiBank and if you think it's just a bank...
#3 @ $138,953 is Emily's List a woman's issues PAC
#4 @ $134,960 is Skadden, Arps, et al a law firm specializing in mergers and acquisitions
#5 @ $134,050 is Goldman Sachs a big advocate of privatizing SS
#6 @ $116,575 is Cablevision Systems
#7 @ $116,550 is Kirkland and Ellis an international commercial law firm
#8 @ $113,700 is Morgan Stanley
#9@ $102,500 is Viacom
#10 @ $100,200 is Greenberg Taurig LLP specializing in lobbying and commercial law
#11 @ $98,100 is Time Warner
#12-20 ranging from low of $78K are mostly financial organizations and commercial law
So, who thinks they stand to reap benefits worth investments of $78K to almost $300K? How does that stack up with what your ears hear? Just exactly who is invisible and who is visible? These are the top 20 donors, totalling $2,286,288 which is something other than chickenfeed.
If you're curious about individual contributions you can go to Open Secrets to find who has donated and who they work for, starting at $9200 and moving down, 2 pages to get under $6900.
I know that most candidates have to go to PACs and businesses to get funding, but maybe there's some illumination here. You might want to remember that NAFTA was a Clinton deal (hey, she wants credit for First Lady & Bill) and that the common worker took that one in the shorts.
Agribusiness $305,350
Communications/Electronics $3,018,328
Construction $844,550
Defense $52,950
Energy & Natural Resources $383,800
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $7,781,040
Health $1,663,317
Lawyers & Lobbyists $6,582,595
Transportation $263,497
Misc Business $5,184,947
Labor $44,850
Ideological/Single-Issue $415,173
Other $4,584,920
Suppose I get rid of the small change and un-categorized contributions
Communications/Electronics $3,018,328
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $7,781,040
Health $1,663,317
Lawyers & Lobbyists $6,582,595
Misc Business $5,184,947
OK, I'm a Lefty Democrat, I admit it, my sympathies are with those who do the work to build this country and those who are left out of the economic system. I look at BushCo with vehement criticism on that basis, I know who has won and lost under their idea of an economy. Funny, most of the usual suspects show up right here on Hillary's list. You have strange ideas if you think these folks are funding their own losses and the loser's gain.
Maybe if you look at Hillary's vaunted experience and see who won under her votes...
Will I help her Primary campaign? No. Would I work for her campaign in a General Election? No. Would I stop criticizing her in a General? No. Would I vote for any of the Republicans? Not even if Hell froze over. So, yes I'd have to vote for the least horrid, gads - again??? Not if you back the people who speak to Democratic values and tell the truth about this dynastic endeavor. Which ever of the other candidates you like, not one of them is Hillary. Let's kill the media "inevitable candidate" buzz.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Some Recovery
After a truly discouraging spate of readership of 20's and low 30's (per sitemeter) for about a month, readership has climbed back to fairly reliable 60's and 70's. Some of you from places far far from small town NE OR checked in pretty regularly, astonishingly some regulars were from UK, Portugal, and Australia and perhaps as outre' NY,NY and Brooklyn, NY. My CA readership gained as others went and some credit goes to Fred, see Humboldt Blog link in side bar, for sending his pals. Guns have been a mainstay of readership, a consistent 20% come for those posts - I do hope some will wander out and see the rest...
Some titles are guaranteed to spike readership from search engines, "Iran" is good for that right now, "Larry Craig" got lots of looks, two reliable draws are "Ruger Bisley Vaquero .45 Colt" and "Remington Side by Side Hammered Stage Coach Shotgun" - sorry political readers, my best politico writings are trumped heavily by the odd gun articles. One day I suppose I ought to learn to write headlines with search engines in mind, but...I like my titles.
I'm glad to see readership up, there's little point in writing to myself on a blog, it takes too much time to tell myself what I already found...
Thanks for stopping in, I'll try to make it interesting
Some titles are guaranteed to spike readership from search engines, "Iran" is good for that right now, "Larry Craig" got lots of looks, two reliable draws are "Ruger Bisley Vaquero .45 Colt" and "Remington Side by Side Hammered Stage Coach Shotgun" - sorry political readers, my best politico writings are trumped heavily by the odd gun articles. One day I suppose I ought to learn to write headlines with search engines in mind, but...I like my titles.
I'm glad to see readership up, there's little point in writing to myself on a blog, it takes too much time to tell myself what I already found...
Thanks for stopping in, I'll try to make it interesting
Not MY Commenting Rules...
I've had at least one conservative commenter crab that I was unfair when I asked for some toning down and then delete a comment that went (admittedly in my judgement) too far. Now why a conservative would read my lefty blog is odd to me, it certainly is a recipe for staying stirred up. Possibly they want to know what the animals are up to, I check in on Rush and Faux for the same reason. I don't really know what is up with that but I was accused of being unfair and like all liberals, hunting in a pack (I'm not sure what that means).
So, I give you Redstate's posting rules :
The posting rules for redstate.com are as follows:
No profanity.
No personal attacks.
No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.
No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.
The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals. This is our home, and we ask you kindly not to track mud into it. Revocation of posting privileges (banning) will take place after a warning of behavior which violates the intent and spirit of these rules.
The proprietors of this site are the sole and final judges and enforcers of this policy. ..(there's more)
Now I discourage profanity and personal attacks, but really; how constipated is that stuff. If you want to dispute a post with me, ok, dispute it - but do that, not pointless "you liberals are all the same" stuff. There's at least a couple things wrong with that, I'm too left to be a liberal and then a good number of liberals think I'm gun and car crazy; which I'd say takes care of "same."
Sure, I'll admit I think impeachment is a waste of time, but I'd also like to see GWB and some of his cronies standing in Federal Court wearing orange jump suits and cuffs shortly after he leaves office. Yes, I do believe their are more remedies for their behavior than a symbolic and endlessly partisan impeachment. In fact I think January 20th 2009 would be a good time to have a "blogswarm" on that particular issue. Is that liberal???
So, really, if you think I'm just full of it; read something else, write your own blog, or come play. But if you come to play don't try the "X" did that or "Y" was worse, I wasn't talking about "X" or "Y", I was talking about "Z"; unless of course "Z" is running against "X" or "Y".
This blog has the comments feature turned on for a reason, and it's not so you can tell me I'm wonderful (I already know how wonderful I am), it's so you can put something new into the mix. Go ahead and do that.
Thanks for coming around
So, I give you Redstate's posting rules :
The posting rules for redstate.com are as follows:
No profanity.
No personal attacks.
No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.
No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.
The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals. This is our home, and we ask you kindly not to track mud into it. Revocation of posting privileges (banning) will take place after a warning of behavior which violates the intent and spirit of these rules.
The proprietors of this site are the sole and final judges and enforcers of this policy. ..(there's more)
Now I discourage profanity and personal attacks, but really; how constipated is that stuff. If you want to dispute a post with me, ok, dispute it - but do that, not pointless "you liberals are all the same" stuff. There's at least a couple things wrong with that, I'm too left to be a liberal and then a good number of liberals think I'm gun and car crazy; which I'd say takes care of "same."
Sure, I'll admit I think impeachment is a waste of time, but I'd also like to see GWB and some of his cronies standing in Federal Court wearing orange jump suits and cuffs shortly after he leaves office. Yes, I do believe their are more remedies for their behavior than a symbolic and endlessly partisan impeachment. In fact I think January 20th 2009 would be a good time to have a "blogswarm" on that particular issue. Is that liberal???
So, really, if you think I'm just full of it; read something else, write your own blog, or come play. But if you come to play don't try the "X" did that or "Y" was worse, I wasn't talking about "X" or "Y", I was talking about "Z"; unless of course "Z" is running against "X" or "Y".
This blog has the comments feature turned on for a reason, and it's not so you can tell me I'm wonderful (I already know how wonderful I am), it's so you can put something new into the mix. Go ahead and do that.
Thanks for coming around
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Things in Iraq Are Better - Utter Nonsense
You absolutely have to enlarge this graph, I'm sorry I couldn't enlarge it.
I'd be ecstatic if things in Iraq were better, I may oppose this war but I want the troops doing well and being well. I care deeply how their lives fare, I understand wounds and death are a part of warfare - but lying to the US public is garbage. I took the time to put together this bar graph which contains total Iraq fatalities for each month. One month of one year, April of 2004 has exceed 2007 fatalities by month since the "Surge", January 2004 exceeded January 2007. You can track the ups and downs in a glance. The recent good news is mirrored in every month, it gets really hot in July and August and every year deaths go down.
I can stand a philosophical argument about this war, but outright lying makes me livid. There is a special place for these people if you're religious, it's called Hell and they can't get there too soon to disappoint me. I cannot in anything approaching polite language describe the disconnect between this graph and what we're being told.
Iran, What A Waste
One can probably thank international corporate interests for the mess that is today's Iran, them and some of the naturally avaricious native to that country. (If you're wondering why this, I'm getting Iranian hits - I like a balanced output-so, Tehran you won't like this one) One can only look at the history of that nation and shake one's head. Persia. The name resonates through history, conquerors, artists, scientists - and now?
The Shah of Iran, once America's "Friend," and militaristic oppressor of a nation, perhaps one of the modern disasters in the Middle East. What sort of government he ran at the time was it's own bad outcome, but worse was the reaction. A nation of intelligent forward thinking people turned "religious," and decided that it needed an enemy, a unifying force, a nice big enemy, and one obligingly stupid enough to ignore what the Shah was - the United States. There is no minimizing what the US got up to in Iran, but it also was scarcely "The Great Satan," but it was a handy scapegoat and a tool of fear and anger to cement a population under a theocracy that was entirely foreign many's natural inclination. Never misunderstand the depths of religious devotion common in that nation, the children of the Shah's elite prayed at the proper times and observed proper diet, but managed to avoid mania. But the Shah had to go and the truly organized resistance was theocratic, so that's how that went.
Iran devolved from a civil nation into a theocratic barbarism, finally pitting it's theocratic dictatorship against Saddam's secular dictatorship. Millions died. The US took satisfaction in aiding Saddam against the captors of its Embassy personnel, at least partly in the hope that an avowed foe's government would implode under the pressure, not looking for any nation to be winner, pleased by their mutually weakened states. As always, oil figured large. An outcome of that war was the destruction of most of a generation of Iranians, the creation of a huge sociological hole in the national fabric. Children raised by the Ayatollahs, fed on a diet of "The Great Satan," and religious fervor - that potent mixture of hate and fear and godliness. (hate is generally a fear induced state)
Fear and religion, feeding some of the most basic human emotions, used as a governing principle is incredibly effective in the short run, but in the long term doomed to failure. Fundamentalist religion is stifling of independent thought, and doubly so when backed by force of government. Questioning of orthodoxy becomes dangerous or fatal, and creativity is always questioning of the status quo, that is its definition. Fear wears thin, and when the threat is unrealized over time, that fear engendered anger remains and needs a target, a closer and more realizable target. Anger has become a nationally sanctioned emotional state, it is the supposed norm. It finds targets, the uncovered woman, the unreligious book, or, the repressor. It must begin to feed within, unless provided fresh targets. This is the stupidity of US threats, it simply provides fresh targets, a distraction from what ails the country.
Think on this, the per-capita income of Iran is abysmal, in an oil rich and resource rich nation, with a history of education and striving, the place is poor. So poor that it rations gasoline, so poor that much of the population lives a centuries old life style. There are no heathen nations raping Iran's resources, where are they going? Why is it necessary for a civilized ordered "religious" nation to have censorship, vigilantes, and other repressions? This "religious" people must be repressed to keep order, how is that needed? Would they not freely out of religious duty be good citizens? Evidently their government doesn't believe so. Evidently something is out of joint in Iran.
What happened to proud Persia? Reduced to meddling in other's misery, unable to raise their own citizenry's lifestyles into the modern world, so fearful of their own citizenry that not even a police force will suffice, extra-legal forces must be employed, so constipated in their out look that free thinking and speech are punishable offenses, pretty pathetic. A great nation brought so low, by its own.
Ahmadinejad and Bush should be pals, their world views are congruent and their puppet masters care little to nothing for the health and well-being of the common citizenry and finally their versions of gods prefer enemies to friends, fear to affection, and power to service. But, their vision of the world demands that they be foes, by definition of their idea of politics. Stupidity reigns...
The Shah of Iran, once America's "Friend," and militaristic oppressor of a nation, perhaps one of the modern disasters in the Middle East. What sort of government he ran at the time was it's own bad outcome, but worse was the reaction. A nation of intelligent forward thinking people turned "religious," and decided that it needed an enemy, a unifying force, a nice big enemy, and one obligingly stupid enough to ignore what the Shah was - the United States. There is no minimizing what the US got up to in Iran, but it also was scarcely "The Great Satan," but it was a handy scapegoat and a tool of fear and anger to cement a population under a theocracy that was entirely foreign many's natural inclination. Never misunderstand the depths of religious devotion common in that nation, the children of the Shah's elite prayed at the proper times and observed proper diet, but managed to avoid mania. But the Shah had to go and the truly organized resistance was theocratic, so that's how that went.
Iran devolved from a civil nation into a theocratic barbarism, finally pitting it's theocratic dictatorship against Saddam's secular dictatorship. Millions died. The US took satisfaction in aiding Saddam against the captors of its Embassy personnel, at least partly in the hope that an avowed foe's government would implode under the pressure, not looking for any nation to be winner, pleased by their mutually weakened states. As always, oil figured large. An outcome of that war was the destruction of most of a generation of Iranians, the creation of a huge sociological hole in the national fabric. Children raised by the Ayatollahs, fed on a diet of "The Great Satan," and religious fervor - that potent mixture of hate and fear and godliness. (hate is generally a fear induced state)
Fear and religion, feeding some of the most basic human emotions, used as a governing principle is incredibly effective in the short run, but in the long term doomed to failure. Fundamentalist religion is stifling of independent thought, and doubly so when backed by force of government. Questioning of orthodoxy becomes dangerous or fatal, and creativity is always questioning of the status quo, that is its definition. Fear wears thin, and when the threat is unrealized over time, that fear engendered anger remains and needs a target, a closer and more realizable target. Anger has become a nationally sanctioned emotional state, it is the supposed norm. It finds targets, the uncovered woman, the unreligious book, or, the repressor. It must begin to feed within, unless provided fresh targets. This is the stupidity of US threats, it simply provides fresh targets, a distraction from what ails the country.
Think on this, the per-capita income of Iran is abysmal, in an oil rich and resource rich nation, with a history of education and striving, the place is poor. So poor that it rations gasoline, so poor that much of the population lives a centuries old life style. There are no heathen nations raping Iran's resources, where are they going? Why is it necessary for a civilized ordered "religious" nation to have censorship, vigilantes, and other repressions? This "religious" people must be repressed to keep order, how is that needed? Would they not freely out of religious duty be good citizens? Evidently their government doesn't believe so. Evidently something is out of joint in Iran.
What happened to proud Persia? Reduced to meddling in other's misery, unable to raise their own citizenry's lifestyles into the modern world, so fearful of their own citizenry that not even a police force will suffice, extra-legal forces must be employed, so constipated in their out look that free thinking and speech are punishable offenses, pretty pathetic. A great nation brought so low, by its own.
Ahmadinejad and Bush should be pals, their world views are congruent and their puppet masters care little to nothing for the health and well-being of the common citizenry and finally their versions of gods prefer enemies to friends, fear to affection, and power to service. But, their vision of the world demands that they be foes, by definition of their idea of politics. Stupidity reigns...
The Letter
***From Pete Abel's project at Central Sanity, I'm not a Republican but I wish him well and those of you of his persuasion might join in. As a Democrat I believe that principled opposition is of paramount importance in political discourse and this could be a step in that direction. So, I give you:
The Letter
If you wish to add your name to the growing list of Republican and Independent voters who have already agreed to sign this letter, please email me at abel.reply"AT"gmail.com. "Signatures" should include your first and last name, e-mail address, city and state. Also, please let us know if we should list you as a Republican or Independent.
Once we have a minimum of 30 to 50 signatures, we will distribute the letter to the general recipients noted below.
TO: RNC Leaders, GOP Members of the U.S. House & Senate, GOP Governors
We, the undersigned, are moderate Republican and Independent voters who represent a growing force within the electorate.
Republican candidates will need to increasingly reckon with us in the months and years ahead, as we mobilize for no purpose less dramatic than the rescue of this Party and the refocusing of its platform on the bedrock principles of individual liberty and limited government; lower taxes and free markets; a strong national defense and collaborative foreign policy.
We intend this letter as an encouragement to GOP leaders who (a) embrace the principles outlined above; (b) recognize that the narrow-minded strategies of certain social conservatives have made the Party a shadow of its former self; (c) reject these social conservatives' alienating approach; and (d) prefer what former U.S. Senator John Danforth has labeled a politics of "reconciliation," a politics wherein we seek to emphasize what unites rather than what divides us. If you fit in this category, we encourage you to speak up and boldly state your beliefs, without equivocation. And if certain social conservatives attack you for doing so, we – the real base – will be there to lend our support.
We believe the wise use of taxpayer dollars requires our government to avoid deficits and the enormous and unnecessary burden those deficits will place on future generations.
We believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, capitalism, and the power of markets – markets that are allowed to operate with the least possible degree of regulation that is necessary to safeguard fair play and equal opportunity.
We believe in prudent actions that advance our national security, grounded in a foreign policy that, quoting former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, is "premised on the understanding that the rest of the world matters to us," and that thus we should guard "against becoming ensnared in nation-building enterprises and push for policies that engage us with the world community and show, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, 'a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.'"
We believe in the U.S. Constitution, its checks and balances, and importantly, the protections it affords our citizens such as habeas corpus. We further believe habeas corpus and other fundamental cornerstones of our Republic should be carefully guarded and delicately balanced during both times of peace and times of war, especially during extended, complex, and largely open-ended conflicts like today's war on terror.
We believe in maximizing personal liberty and minimizing government interference in our private lives, including the lives of pregnant women, terminally ill patients, gays, lesbians, and all other categories of responsible, law-abiding adults. Again quoting Governor Whitman: "The defining feature of the conservative viewpoint is a faith in the ability, and a respect for the right, of individuals to make their own decisions – economic, social, and spiritual – about their lives. The true conservative understands that government's track record in respecting individual rights is poor when it dictates individual choices. Accordingly, the conservative desires to limit government's reach as much as possible. Traditional conservatives adhere to the maxim, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, that government governs best that governs least."
We further believe that the truest pro-life position is one which allows and encourages the ethical pursuit of all scientific research that holds promise for mitigating diseases that afflict our families and friends.
We believe the education of our young people is critical to our future as a nation and that realistic, fiscally conservative policies should be developed to further advance educational standards, opportunities, and access, from the lowest grades to the highest, from kindergarten through college.
We believe in reasonable policies that will advance the health of our citizens, with an emphasis on children, seniors, and others who are truly in need and cannot otherwise afford health care.
We also believe in reasonable policies that will advance the health of our environment, with careful attention paid to protecting our economic vitality and objective analyses of the pro's and con's of alternative energy sources.
In summary, we embrace what management guru Jim Collins – in his bestselling book Built to Last – called the "Genius of the AND." We believe the GOP and its members can and should be simultaneously pro-choice and pro-life; pro-environment and pro-economy; pro-family and pro-liberty; pro-budget and pro-opportunity; pro-security and pro-Constitution. These beliefs need not be contradictory nor exclusive.
If you are and/or know an incumbent or prospective Republican candidate who shares these beliefs and wants the larger GOP to stand united behind him or her, we encourage you to let us know, so we can add you and/or those you know to the roster of leaders we will support with our votes, voices, volunteers, and dollars.
***If you'd like to comment here, that's acceptable, but if you wish to help out - do so over There ***
The Letter
If you wish to add your name to the growing list of Republican and Independent voters who have already agreed to sign this letter, please email me at abel.reply"AT"gmail.com. "Signatures" should include your first and last name, e-mail address, city and state. Also, please let us know if we should list you as a Republican or Independent.
Once we have a minimum of 30 to 50 signatures, we will distribute the letter to the general recipients noted below.
TO: RNC Leaders, GOP Members of the U.S. House & Senate, GOP Governors
We, the undersigned, are moderate Republican and Independent voters who represent a growing force within the electorate.
Republican candidates will need to increasingly reckon with us in the months and years ahead, as we mobilize for no purpose less dramatic than the rescue of this Party and the refocusing of its platform on the bedrock principles of individual liberty and limited government; lower taxes and free markets; a strong national defense and collaborative foreign policy.
We intend this letter as an encouragement to GOP leaders who (a) embrace the principles outlined above; (b) recognize that the narrow-minded strategies of certain social conservatives have made the Party a shadow of its former self; (c) reject these social conservatives' alienating approach; and (d) prefer what former U.S. Senator John Danforth has labeled a politics of "reconciliation," a politics wherein we seek to emphasize what unites rather than what divides us. If you fit in this category, we encourage you to speak up and boldly state your beliefs, without equivocation. And if certain social conservatives attack you for doing so, we – the real base – will be there to lend our support.
We believe the wise use of taxpayer dollars requires our government to avoid deficits and the enormous and unnecessary burden those deficits will place on future generations.
We believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, capitalism, and the power of markets – markets that are allowed to operate with the least possible degree of regulation that is necessary to safeguard fair play and equal opportunity.
We believe in prudent actions that advance our national security, grounded in a foreign policy that, quoting former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, is "premised on the understanding that the rest of the world matters to us," and that thus we should guard "against becoming ensnared in nation-building enterprises and push for policies that engage us with the world community and show, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, 'a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.'"
We believe in the U.S. Constitution, its checks and balances, and importantly, the protections it affords our citizens such as habeas corpus. We further believe habeas corpus and other fundamental cornerstones of our Republic should be carefully guarded and delicately balanced during both times of peace and times of war, especially during extended, complex, and largely open-ended conflicts like today's war on terror.
We believe in maximizing personal liberty and minimizing government interference in our private lives, including the lives of pregnant women, terminally ill patients, gays, lesbians, and all other categories of responsible, law-abiding adults. Again quoting Governor Whitman: "The defining feature of the conservative viewpoint is a faith in the ability, and a respect for the right, of individuals to make their own decisions – economic, social, and spiritual – about their lives. The true conservative understands that government's track record in respecting individual rights is poor when it dictates individual choices. Accordingly, the conservative desires to limit government's reach as much as possible. Traditional conservatives adhere to the maxim, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, that government governs best that governs least."
We further believe that the truest pro-life position is one which allows and encourages the ethical pursuit of all scientific research that holds promise for mitigating diseases that afflict our families and friends.
We believe the education of our young people is critical to our future as a nation and that realistic, fiscally conservative policies should be developed to further advance educational standards, opportunities, and access, from the lowest grades to the highest, from kindergarten through college.
We believe in reasonable policies that will advance the health of our citizens, with an emphasis on children, seniors, and others who are truly in need and cannot otherwise afford health care.
We also believe in reasonable policies that will advance the health of our environment, with careful attention paid to protecting our economic vitality and objective analyses of the pro's and con's of alternative energy sources.
In summary, we embrace what management guru Jim Collins – in his bestselling book Built to Last – called the "Genius of the AND." We believe the GOP and its members can and should be simultaneously pro-choice and pro-life; pro-environment and pro-economy; pro-family and pro-liberty; pro-budget and pro-opportunity; pro-security and pro-Constitution. These beliefs need not be contradictory nor exclusive.
If you are and/or know an incumbent or prospective Republican candidate who shares these beliefs and wants the larger GOP to stand united behind him or her, we encourage you to let us know, so we can add you and/or those you know to the roster of leaders we will support with our votes, voices, volunteers, and dollars.
***If you'd like to comment here, that's acceptable, but if you wish to help out - do so over There ***
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Iran Shelling Iraq?
This certainly doesn't seem like a good way to make friends. Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, demanded Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stop shelling northern Iraq. Over 3000 Kuridsh villagers have been driven out of their home and their fields and orchards set on fire.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehor Mottaki claimed to Zebari that it was in response to across border raids by Pezak, an Iranian Kurdish group opposed to Tehran. The bombardment has continued sporadically for the past couple weeks and a Pezak spokesman stated that the shelling was nowhere near their area of activity. Senior Iraqi officials suspect Iran may be shelling in response to US insistence that Iran cease supplying militias.
I suppose it is the norm that the poor and innocent suffer in these types of struggles.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehor Mottaki claimed to Zebari that it was in response to across border raids by Pezak, an Iranian Kurdish group opposed to Tehran. The bombardment has continued sporadically for the past couple weeks and a Pezak spokesman stated that the shelling was nowhere near their area of activity. Senior Iraqi officials suspect Iran may be shelling in response to US insistence that Iran cease supplying militias.
I suppose it is the norm that the poor and innocent suffer in these types of struggles.
Iran and BushCo
Ray McGovern , former CIA analyst, believes that BushCo is priming the pump for war with Iran. I have to agree with him that the rhetoric has become hot and the media spin machine is winding up but there are a couple realities that even Dick and George would have to face, we're seriously bogged down in Iraq and the troops are seriously stretched. We certainly do have naval and air assets available, but in a matter of "conquest" those assets won't do the job.
Iran is 1.7 million sq K, or 3 times the size of France, it is not a little place and it is not all conducive to military movements. Iran is not a recent "colonial" construct, it is a nation of long history and cultural consistency. Persia - Iran - has been around and an empirical player for much of recorded history, this is not a country that would dissolve in the face of military attack. This is particularly true concerning the US which the populace has been raised from childhood to regard as "the Great Satan." None of this is exactly secret information and certainly is well known to the military.
McGovern postulates that the most likely course is air strikes against training camps and widening to the nuclear facilities. There is some reason to think that there would be a reaction to such a thing, and Iran is not without international assets of the nasty sort. I cannot think how an attack on Iran would make the USA a safer place nor act to calm the Middle East.
None of what I have written suggests that in the face of US troops on the ground in Iraq that Iran should be allowed a free hand to take part in attacks on them. It is a different thing to close a border and turn the Iraqi side into a free fire zone, which would be tough on the folks who live and trade nearby, but it also respects the sovereignty of Iran. The Iranian President plays a dangerous rhetorical game, but he is little more than a figure head for the Ayotollas who are apparently a bit more pragmatic. Iran has problems, very real economic problems as well as some social problems regarding repressive theocracy. If the border were closed and seriously enforced the Ayotollas might keep things from spiralling out of control.
It is possible that BushCo is working on scaring the Ayotollas into reining in the Kuds force, I'm not sure that idea would work. The back up for the threats is pretty thin and there is little chance of arousing the populace's discontent with airstrikes. Doing something half-way would almost certainly cement popular opinion with the government.
For a Party that gives great lip service to the long term view, this bunch sure seems enamoured of quick fixes. A modern country is more difficult to repress and open to extra-military action.
McGovern wants us to not just let this thing go, and I agree, having lost confidence in this administration's ability to avoid stupidity, he closes with,
There is very little time to exercise our rights as citizens and stop this madness. At a similarly critical juncture, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was typically direct. I find his words a challenge to us today:
There is such a thing as being too late. ... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity. ... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: 'Too late.'
Iran is 1.7 million sq K, or 3 times the size of France, it is not a little place and it is not all conducive to military movements. Iran is not a recent "colonial" construct, it is a nation of long history and cultural consistency. Persia - Iran - has been around and an empirical player for much of recorded history, this is not a country that would dissolve in the face of military attack. This is particularly true concerning the US which the populace has been raised from childhood to regard as "the Great Satan." None of this is exactly secret information and certainly is well known to the military.
McGovern postulates that the most likely course is air strikes against training camps and widening to the nuclear facilities. There is some reason to think that there would be a reaction to such a thing, and Iran is not without international assets of the nasty sort. I cannot think how an attack on Iran would make the USA a safer place nor act to calm the Middle East.
None of what I have written suggests that in the face of US troops on the ground in Iraq that Iran should be allowed a free hand to take part in attacks on them. It is a different thing to close a border and turn the Iraqi side into a free fire zone, which would be tough on the folks who live and trade nearby, but it also respects the sovereignty of Iran. The Iranian President plays a dangerous rhetorical game, but he is little more than a figure head for the Ayotollas who are apparently a bit more pragmatic. Iran has problems, very real economic problems as well as some social problems regarding repressive theocracy. If the border were closed and seriously enforced the Ayotollas might keep things from spiralling out of control.
It is possible that BushCo is working on scaring the Ayotollas into reining in the Kuds force, I'm not sure that idea would work. The back up for the threats is pretty thin and there is little chance of arousing the populace's discontent with airstrikes. Doing something half-way would almost certainly cement popular opinion with the government.
For a Party that gives great lip service to the long term view, this bunch sure seems enamoured of quick fixes. A modern country is more difficult to repress and open to extra-military action.
McGovern wants us to not just let this thing go, and I agree, having lost confidence in this administration's ability to avoid stupidity, he closes with,
There is very little time to exercise our rights as citizens and stop this madness. At a similarly critical juncture, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was typically direct. I find his words a challenge to us today:
There is such a thing as being too late. ... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity. ... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: 'Too late.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)