Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Finished With War - A Soldier's Declaration
The below declaration was read by Siegfried Sassoon to the British House of Commons on July 30, 1917.
Mr. Sassoon, a British soldier and poet, was later admitted to Craiglockhart Hospital for shellshock.
The words need no adjustment for the passage of time.
Finished With War - A Soldier's Declaration
"I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.
I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.
I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.
I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.
On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practiced on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realise."
S.Sassoon
July 1917
actuated against behalf being believe change clearly defence entered fighting insincerities longer majority military negotiation power realise regard sacrificed soldiers statement sufferings troops upon war
created at TagCrowd.com
Thursday, June 28, 2007
TNJ Silences CAB
In what seems to be a overly-sensitive reaction to an online posting, The News Journal has muffled one of its own, a member of the newspaper’s Community Advisory Board. This is an example of how so-called “mainstream” media is slowly losing touch with reality.
The Community Advisory Board (CAB) is a group of everyday citizens selected by the Editorial Staff to submit a column for publication approximately once per quarter. The selection of the CAB is based partly on a writing sample, with some deference given to politically-correct demographics. I was quite proud of myself to be admitted to this group in May of last year. I believe my gig lasts until February 2008 (maybe sooner if they get pissed off at me).
In addition to the quarterly article, we are also encouraged to contribute to the online “blog”, Delaware TalkBack. You can see how much play that site gets.
A fellow CAB member e-mailed me the other day saying that she had submitted a Letter to the Editor for publication in the print version and was told by a member of the Editorial Board that it would not be printed, due to a policy whereby CAB members can only post through the blog and that any letters submitted by a CAB member for print would not be published.
She was a bit disturbed by this. She felt that the written outlet would receive a wider audience.
My response to her was:
DNJ does have a policy about Letters to the Editor. I believe that there is only one letter allowed from one individual within a 90-day period. Since CAB (and, by extension the "TalkBack" blog) is not a "Letter to the Editor" per se, but rather somewhat of a public adjunct to the Editorial Board), I do not see why this policy would be 'extended' to include that venue. After all, there is no limit to the number of postings one can make on "TalkBack".
"I can see where they would not want a small number of individuals dominating public opinion space, but the policy should be made clear (I assume it is in writing?). I agree with you that TalkBack is not getting much public play; this I believe is the relatively new nature of "blogging" and public access to high-speed internet. It is unbelievable to me how many people I know do not even have computers. So, we may be victims of an emerging media that has yet to find its place."
My fellow CAB member then published her letter to the Delaware Talkback blog. Oh, but one thing. After her initial statement she included the sentence:
"Since I am prohibited from commenting via Letters to the Editor, I submit my comments herewith."
All was fine for a little over 24 hours. I received the following e-mail from her this afternoon:
"Check Talk Back. You will notice that the comment you found so amusing has been deleted ..... Now I'm getting irate! Would you call this censorship, or just editing ? I thought you were permitted to express yourself on a blog! "
I say that the following facts are known:
1. The statement that was deleted was a true statement
The Community Advisory Board (CAB) is a group of everyday citizens selected by the Editorial Staff to submit a column for publication approximately once per quarter. The selection of the CAB is based partly on a writing sample, with some deference given to politically-correct demographics. I was quite proud of myself to be admitted to this group in May of last year. I believe my gig lasts until February 2008 (maybe sooner if they get pissed off at me).
In addition to the quarterly article, we are also encouraged to contribute to the online “blog”, Delaware TalkBack. You can see how much play that site gets.
A fellow CAB member e-mailed me the other day saying that she had submitted a Letter to the Editor for publication in the print version and was told by a member of the Editorial Board that it would not be printed, due to a policy whereby CAB members can only post through the blog and that any letters submitted by a CAB member for print would not be published.
She was a bit disturbed by this. She felt that the written outlet would receive a wider audience.
My response to her was:
DNJ does have a policy about Letters to the Editor. I believe that there is only one letter allowed from one individual within a 90-day period. Since CAB (and, by extension the "TalkBack" blog) is not a "Letter to the Editor" per se, but rather somewhat of a public adjunct to the Editorial Board), I do not see why this policy would be 'extended' to include that venue. After all, there is no limit to the number of postings one can make on "TalkBack".
"I can see where they would not want a small number of individuals dominating public opinion space, but the policy should be made clear (I assume it is in writing?). I agree with you that TalkBack is not getting much public play; this I believe is the relatively new nature of "blogging" and public access to high-speed internet. It is unbelievable to me how many people I know do not even have computers. So, we may be victims of an emerging media that has yet to find its place."
My fellow CAB member then published her letter to the Delaware Talkback blog. Oh, but one thing. After her initial statement she included the sentence:
"Since I am prohibited from commenting via Letters to the Editor, I submit my comments herewith."
All was fine for a little over 24 hours. I received the following e-mail from her this afternoon:
"Check Talk Back. You will notice that the comment you found so amusing has been deleted ..... Now I'm getting irate! Would you call this censorship, or just editing ? I thought you were permitted to express yourself on a blog! "
I say that the following facts are known:
1. The statement that was deleted was a true statement
2. The statement was not inflammatory. It was merely a statement of a fact.
3. The statement was not deleted because of grammar or other technical editing reasons.
4. The policy referred to in the statement was never communicated to members of the CAB.
5. It is unknown what the reason for the deletion was; one can only assume it was to assauge the delicate egoes at TNJ.
But beyond this, it points to the fact that soon-to-be-non-mainstream media does not have the balls to publish what one of their own adjunct editorial writers has to say. It also points to the fact that it is true bloggers that may be the ones to be reckoned with, as was mentioned in WDEL's interview today with three prominent Delaware bloggers.
3. The statement was not deleted because of grammar or other technical editing reasons.
4. The policy referred to in the statement was never communicated to members of the CAB.
5. It is unknown what the reason for the deletion was; one can only assume it was to assauge the delicate egoes at TNJ.
But beyond this, it points to the fact that soon-to-be-non-mainstream media does not have the balls to publish what one of their own adjunct editorial writers has to say. It also points to the fact that it is true bloggers that may be the ones to be reckoned with, as was mentioned in WDEL's interview today with three prominent Delaware bloggers.
If a communication outlet is concerned about "politeness", does that extend to a deference to politicians? Must we be so nice? And must we also fail to scrutinize ourselves and our own motives?
I advised my fellow CAB member to start her own blog.
I advised my fellow CAB member to start her own blog.
There may be hope for us yet.
Cathcart Needs Energy
It is approximately 6:45 P.M., and I'm grooving to the webcast of the House session.
Rep. Cathcart has asked for a recess to "get some energy"..
Cathcart is one of the sponsors of House Bill 177, the "anti-fusion bill" which would strip candidates and voters of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Standing by ......
House will resume at 7:45 P.M.
Rep. Cathcart has asked for a recess to "get some energy"..
Cathcart is one of the sponsors of House Bill 177, the "anti-fusion bill" which would strip candidates and voters of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Standing by ......
House will resume at 7:45 P.M.
The “Terrible Three” Shine on WDEL
Delaware Watch (Dana Garrett), Delaware Way (Nancy Willing), and Down With Absolutes (Mike Matthews) were featured on the Rick and Jerry show from Legislative Hall today. I managed to listed on the WDEL live stream audio. Isn’t technology wonderful?
The joke was that “all the liberal bloggers are here because all the conservatives are working”.
I was honored to get an invite, but couldn't make the trek from my job in Philly on such short notice.
HA ! But I managed to steal some company time while my
boss napped in the next office.
As usual, the professional and high-brow tone of the conversation was set by DWA, who was offering free sausages to anyone would would vote against H.B. 177, commonly referred to as the "ani-fusion bill", but which Dana Garrett more accurately called "The Incumbent Protection Plan".
It appears that no actual sausages changed hands. Nice touch though, Mike. And you handled the smirky innuendos to "Mike's sausage" quite well (come to think of it I think you instigated it).
Despite some levity, and hints of excitement (I'll let the parties speak to that), this was in most respects a serious conversation. Much was made of the presence and possible influence of bloggers, as well as radio talk shows such as WDEL. Politicans are starting to try to find ways to fight back, possibly even threatening to have bloggers register as lobbyists.
Huh? We are not lobbyists, we are citizens. If citizens cannot express their opinion, then where are we? We are all, and that includes you there at home grumbling at the newspaper stories, and you anonymous gripers and posters on the DelawareOnline forums, we are all citizen lobbyists.
My significant other had his own comment via e-mail: "vote out the politicos - they're threatened by folks that use the web to write what everyone thinks of them already."
I believe that Dana Garrett said it best, and I am putting this in italics as opposed to quotations since I am not certain it is exact. He said that politicians needs to start realizing that they don't work for the parties they work for the people.
All three bloggers were asked what their next focus was going to be. I won't give away any secrets, but watch all three for the latest from each of their unique perspectives !
Great job all of you !
The joke was that “all the liberal bloggers are here because all the conservatives are working”.
I was honored to get an invite, but couldn't make the trek from my job in Philly on such short notice.
HA ! But I managed to steal some company time while my
boss napped in the next office.As usual, the professional and high-brow tone of the conversation was set by DWA, who was offering free sausages to anyone would would vote against H.B. 177, commonly referred to as the "ani-fusion bill", but which Dana Garrett more accurately called "The Incumbent Protection Plan".
It appears that no actual sausages changed hands. Nice touch though, Mike. And you handled the smirky innuendos to "Mike's sausage" quite well (come to think of it I think you instigated it).
Despite some levity, and hints of excitement (I'll let the parties speak to that), this was in most respects a serious conversation. Much was made of the presence and possible influence of bloggers, as well as radio talk shows such as WDEL. Politicans are starting to try to find ways to fight back, possibly even threatening to have bloggers register as lobbyists.
Huh? We are not lobbyists, we are citizens. If citizens cannot express their opinion, then where are we? We are all, and that includes you there at home grumbling at the newspaper stories, and you anonymous gripers and posters on the DelawareOnline forums, we are all citizen lobbyists.
My significant other had his own comment via e-mail: "vote out the politicos - they're threatened by folks that use the web to write what everyone thinks of them already."
I believe that Dana Garrett said it best, and I am putting this in italics as opposed to quotations since I am not certain it is exact. He said that politicians needs to start realizing that they don't work for the parties they work for the people.
All three bloggers were asked what their next focus was going to be. I won't give away any secrets, but watch all three for the latest from each of their unique perspectives !
Great job all of you !
Text of White House Letter Rejected Subpoenas in Attorney Firings
(Note: Writer is White House Counsel)
June 28, 2007
Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers:
On June 13, 2007, the White House received two subpoenas from your Committees requesting documents relating to the replacement of United States Attorneys, calling for the documents to be produced by June 28, 2007. I write at the direction of the President to advise and inform you that the President has decided to assert Executive Privilege and therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents. In addition, Chairman Leahy subpoenaed documents from former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs Sara M. Taylor, with the same return date of June 28, 2007. Chairman Conyers has subpoenaed documents from former Counsel to the President Harriet E. Miers, with a return date of July 12, 2007. Counsel for Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers have been informed of the President's decision to assert Executive Privilege and have been asked to relay to Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers a direction from the President not to produce any documents.
With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation. We had hoped this matter could conclude with your Committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke Executive Privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.
At the outset of this controversy, the President attempted to chart a course of cooperation. It was his intent that Congress receives information in a manner that accommodated Presidential prerogatives. The Department of Justice, for its part, has produced or made available for review more than 8,500 pages of documents, including scores of documents containing communications with White House personnel. In addition, the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General's former Chief of Staff, former White House Liaison, and other senior Department officials have testified in public hearings and, in some instances, submitted to interviews with Committee staff. As a result, your Committees have received an extraordinary amount of information regarding the U.S. Attorney replacement issue by way of accommodation.
In keeping with the established tradition of Congress and the Executive Branch working together to accommodate each others' interests, the President was willing to go even further in response to your inquiries. At his direction, we proposed and offered to provide you with documents containing communications between the White House and Department of Justice regarding the request for the resignation of the U.S. Attorneys in question, as well as documents containing communications on the same subject between the White House staff and third parties, including Congress. We also offered to make available for interviews the President's former Counsel; current Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor; Deputy Counsel; former Director of Political Affairs; and a Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Political Affairs.
The President's offer reflected his desire to cooperate and accommodate.
It was designed to provide your Committees with additional documents, and the rare opportunity to participate in interviews and question close advisors to the President about the matters under inquiry. With the benefit not only of the enormous amount of information you received from the Department of Justice, but also additional White House documents, you would have been able to further inquire about these matters.
To be sure, the President's offer also took care to protect fundamental interests of the Presidency and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Specifically, the President was not willing to provide your Committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings. The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock Presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch. Presidents would not be able to fulfill their responsibilities if their advisors on fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress were reluctant to communicate openly and honestly in the course of rendering advice and reaching decisions. These confidentiality interests are especially strong in situations like the present controversy, where the inquiry seeks information relating to the President's powers to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys - authority granted exclusively to the President by the Constitution.
The principles at stake here are of the utmost importance and find meaningful parallels in any number of other settings. For example, Messrs. Chairmen, I am sure you would wish to protect the confidentiality of deliberations between Members of Congress and their staff. So, too, do I believe that most judges would be quick to stress the importance to their decision-making processes of maintaining the confidentiality of their deliberations with their colleagues and law clerks. So, too, here: for the Presidency to operate consistent with the Constitution's design, Presidents must be able to depend upon their advisors and other Executive Branch officials speaking candidly and without inhibition while deliberating and working to advise the President. The doctrine of Executive Privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the President's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications. I refer you to the attached opinion from the Acting Attorney General to the President, discussing this in further detail as well as informing him as to the appropriateness of an assertion of Executive Privilege in these circumstances.
Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your Committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas. Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue.
By contrast, the President has frequently, plainly, and completely explained that his position, and now his decision, is rooted in a need to protect the institution of the Presidency. The President's assertion of Executive Privilege is not designed to shield information in a particular situation, but to help protect the ability of Presidents to ensure that decisions reflect and benefit from the exchange of informed and diverse viewpoints and open and frank deliberations. Issuing subpoenas and seeking to compel the disclosure of information in lieu of accepting the President's reasonable offer of accommodation has led to confrontation.
Consistent with the analysis of the Acting Attorney General, the President is satisfied that the testimony sought from Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers is subject to a valid claim of Executive Privilege and is prepared to assert the Privilege with respect to that testimony if the matter cannot be resolved. However, the President has further instructed me to confirm that while unwilling to submit to subpoenas compelling the production of documents and testimony, in the absence of any subpoenas he continues to be willing to provide you with information as previously offered. In short, the President requests that your inquiry proceed in a balanced manner, respectful of important constitutional principles of both institutions, rather than through confrontation. It is hoped you will reconsider your present position, accept the President's offer, and bring closure to this controversy so we may all return to more productive activity on behalf of the Nation.
Respectfully yours,
Fred F. Fielding
June 28, 2007
Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers:
On June 13, 2007, the White House received two subpoenas from your Committees requesting documents relating to the replacement of United States Attorneys, calling for the documents to be produced by June 28, 2007. I write at the direction of the President to advise and inform you that the President has decided to assert Executive Privilege and therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents. In addition, Chairman Leahy subpoenaed documents from former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs Sara M. Taylor, with the same return date of June 28, 2007. Chairman Conyers has subpoenaed documents from former Counsel to the President Harriet E. Miers, with a return date of July 12, 2007. Counsel for Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers have been informed of the President's decision to assert Executive Privilege and have been asked to relay to Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers a direction from the President not to produce any documents.
With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation. We had hoped this matter could conclude with your Committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke Executive Privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.
At the outset of this controversy, the President attempted to chart a course of cooperation. It was his intent that Congress receives information in a manner that accommodated Presidential prerogatives. The Department of Justice, for its part, has produced or made available for review more than 8,500 pages of documents, including scores of documents containing communications with White House personnel. In addition, the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General's former Chief of Staff, former White House Liaison, and other senior Department officials have testified in public hearings and, in some instances, submitted to interviews with Committee staff. As a result, your Committees have received an extraordinary amount of information regarding the U.S. Attorney replacement issue by way of accommodation.
In keeping with the established tradition of Congress and the Executive Branch working together to accommodate each others' interests, the President was willing to go even further in response to your inquiries. At his direction, we proposed and offered to provide you with documents containing communications between the White House and Department of Justice regarding the request for the resignation of the U.S. Attorneys in question, as well as documents containing communications on the same subject between the White House staff and third parties, including Congress. We also offered to make available for interviews the President's former Counsel; current Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor; Deputy Counsel; former Director of Political Affairs; and a Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Political Affairs.
The President's offer reflected his desire to cooperate and accommodate.
It was designed to provide your Committees with additional documents, and the rare opportunity to participate in interviews and question close advisors to the President about the matters under inquiry. With the benefit not only of the enormous amount of information you received from the Department of Justice, but also additional White House documents, you would have been able to further inquire about these matters.
To be sure, the President's offer also took care to protect fundamental interests of the Presidency and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Specifically, the President was not willing to provide your Committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings. The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock Presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch. Presidents would not be able to fulfill their responsibilities if their advisors on fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress were reluctant to communicate openly and honestly in the course of rendering advice and reaching decisions. These confidentiality interests are especially strong in situations like the present controversy, where the inquiry seeks information relating to the President's powers to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys - authority granted exclusively to the President by the Constitution.
The principles at stake here are of the utmost importance and find meaningful parallels in any number of other settings. For example, Messrs. Chairmen, I am sure you would wish to protect the confidentiality of deliberations between Members of Congress and their staff. So, too, do I believe that most judges would be quick to stress the importance to their decision-making processes of maintaining the confidentiality of their deliberations with their colleagues and law clerks. So, too, here: for the Presidency to operate consistent with the Constitution's design, Presidents must be able to depend upon their advisors and other Executive Branch officials speaking candidly and without inhibition while deliberating and working to advise the President. The doctrine of Executive Privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the President's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications. I refer you to the attached opinion from the Acting Attorney General to the President, discussing this in further detail as well as informing him as to the appropriateness of an assertion of Executive Privilege in these circumstances.
Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your Committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas. Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue.
By contrast, the President has frequently, plainly, and completely explained that his position, and now his decision, is rooted in a need to protect the institution of the Presidency. The President's assertion of Executive Privilege is not designed to shield information in a particular situation, but to help protect the ability of Presidents to ensure that decisions reflect and benefit from the exchange of informed and diverse viewpoints and open and frank deliberations. Issuing subpoenas and seeking to compel the disclosure of information in lieu of accepting the President's reasonable offer of accommodation has led to confrontation.
Consistent with the analysis of the Acting Attorney General, the President is satisfied that the testimony sought from Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers is subject to a valid claim of Executive Privilege and is prepared to assert the Privilege with respect to that testimony if the matter cannot be resolved. However, the President has further instructed me to confirm that while unwilling to submit to subpoenas compelling the production of documents and testimony, in the absence of any subpoenas he continues to be willing to provide you with information as previously offered. In short, the President requests that your inquiry proceed in a balanced manner, respectful of important constitutional principles of both institutions, rather than through confrontation. It is hoped you will reconsider your present position, accept the President's offer, and bring closure to this controversy so we may all return to more productive activity on behalf of the Nation.
Respectfully yours,
Fred F. Fielding
Bloggers Live on WDEL Today
Bloggers will talke politics on-air today from 2:00 - 3:00 P.M. on WDEL. In an e-mail invite I received from Rick Jensen, he advises that the content will be "opinions on policy and process."
Regretfully, getting to Dover from Philly at this time of the day is impossible for me.
But I'll be listening !
Regretfully, getting to Dover from Philly at this time of the day is impossible for me.
But I'll be listening !
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
To Representative Short RE: HB 177
Dear Representative Short,
I am writing to express my opposition to House Bill 177, "AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 15 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO CANDIDATES", commonly referred to as the "anti-fusion bill."
In my opinion, this change to the existing code would severely limit the rights of candidates to run, as well as the rights of the electorate to vote for a candidate of their choice. It seems to me that this bill would in effect seal my choice to only those candidates promoted by the powers-that-be in the two major political parties. In many cases, my vote would have to be the "lesser of two evils".
Both nationally and locally, there is increasing disfavor with how "party politics" essentially disenfranchise those who would seek an alternative to the status quo. Our country's history has been built on coalition-building among various interests. Why limit it to just two?
The synopsis of HB 177 states that "the United States Supreme Court has upheld state laws prohibiting fusion candidates." The most cited case here is Timmons-v-Twin Cities Area New Party (1997), a 6-3 decision which overturned the State of Minnesota's appellate court decision. In this case, the anti-fusion provision under Minnesota law was only to "forbid the possibility of a candidate appearing twice on the same ballot due to his/her nomination by more than one party." That is not the case with HB 177's provisions, therefore citing this ruling as "upholding" the prohibition of fusion candidates does not apply
The synopsis further states that "However, persons unaffiliated with any party still have the right to appear on the ballot as permitted by law." While this attempts to add a measure of enlightenment, it is in fact a cruel joke. You know yourself that without "affiliations", a person running for office does not have a chance.
The mood of the populace, given the record of our legislature on both sides of the aisle in recent years both locally and nationally, is a mood of frustration with party politics and the restraints imposed by the dominant political machinery. HB 177 limits the power of individuals to associate outside of the confines of this machine.
Thank you for your consideration of my views,
I am writing to express my opposition to House Bill 177, "AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 15 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO CANDIDATES", commonly referred to as the "anti-fusion bill."
In my opinion, this change to the existing code would severely limit the rights of candidates to run, as well as the rights of the electorate to vote for a candidate of their choice. It seems to me that this bill would in effect seal my choice to only those candidates promoted by the powers-that-be in the two major political parties. In many cases, my vote would have to be the "lesser of two evils".
Both nationally and locally, there is increasing disfavor with how "party politics" essentially disenfranchise those who would seek an alternative to the status quo. Our country's history has been built on coalition-building among various interests. Why limit it to just two?
The synopsis of HB 177 states that "the United States Supreme Court has upheld state laws prohibiting fusion candidates." The most cited case here is Timmons-v-Twin Cities Area New Party (1997), a 6-3 decision which overturned the State of Minnesota's appellate court decision. In this case, the anti-fusion provision under Minnesota law was only to "forbid the possibility of a candidate appearing twice on the same ballot due to his/her nomination by more than one party." That is not the case with HB 177's provisions, therefore citing this ruling as "upholding" the prohibition of fusion candidates does not apply
The synopsis further states that "However, persons unaffiliated with any party still have the right to appear on the ballot as permitted by law." While this attempts to add a measure of enlightenment, it is in fact a cruel joke. You know yourself that without "affiliations", a person running for office does not have a chance.
The mood of the populace, given the record of our legislature on both sides of the aisle in recent years both locally and nationally, is a mood of frustration with party politics and the restraints imposed by the dominant political machinery. HB 177 limits the power of individuals to associate outside of the confines of this machine.
Thank you for your consideration of my views,
Job Hunting at Middle-Age
It's a bitch getting old. Especially if you're hunting for a new job.
This daily two-hour commute to Philadelphia is getting to this middle-aged psyche and stamina, so I have decided after 13 years with the same company to get back into the job search mode.
Updating a resume is hard. First, it is difficult for me to be self-promoting, and that essentially is what a resume is: HERE IS WHAT I DO AND HOW GOOD I AM AT IT ! I also want to eschew any inklings of my actual age, preferring instead to overcome the wrinkles in a face-to-face interview where perhaps I can dazzle them with my brilliance and they will overlook the menopausal shift.So, today I am scouring Monster and CareerBuilder for local Project Manager positions, doing and re-doing my resume, wondering if I'm asking for enough or too much, and generally just throwing myself to the wolves.
Would that this were not necessary. Would that I could instead sustain myself with writing, community involvement, politics, and watching my pitiful garden grow.
When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
Ron Paul's Weekly Column, Texas Straight Talk
June 25, 2007
The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.
On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.
........
Read the rest of the column here.
June 25, 2007
The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.
On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.
........
Read the rest of the column here.
Organizational Dry Rot
The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority.
- Kenneth Blanchard
The recent strife within Delaware Common Cause, expounded upon by bloggers Nancy Willing and Mike Matthews, and summarized most clearly by Dana Garrett seem to be the result not only of the insidiousness of partisanship, but the culmination of the effects of organizational dry rot as well.
Organizational development experts can vary slightly in their descriptions of the rot within an enterprise that can lead to its demise, but their main thrust is the same. Legacee, which offers a leadership programs for organizations, lists what they see as the symptoms of organizational dry rot (adding that it often begins with the founders) which, if uncorrected, can cause the slow and painful death of the most noble of associations. Some of these symptoms are:
Personal relationships characterized by mistrust prevents open communication.
Strategic objectives are not followed, talked about, or made clear.
Barely concealed frustration produces rising tension and periodic blow-ups.
Unclear roles and responsibilities cause confusion over who does what when.
These symptoms, left unattended or unchecked, only tend to fester over time. There comes a point when the bitterness left behind makes the viability of the organization hopeless.
I hope that Common Cause can recognize these symptoms and overcome them. Most of all, I hope they do so in an open and forthright manner, and without personal invective. This should be done for the good of the organization, but most of all for the good of the people of Delaware.
Whatever solution arises from this quagmire, I trust that the good citizen warriors, many of whom were at the “gathering” of concerned citizens last night, whether they fight under the name of Common Cause or something else, will not let this mitigate their enthusiasm nor temper their zeal. Perhaps we can learn and go on. But go on we must.
Speaking of the meeting, I was sincerely humbled by the years of activism and the obvious passion of the individuals in that room. It is obvious that I have much to learn. I appreciate that my significant other and I were welcomed, even as strangers, and hope that we can become more proactive in making a difference in our community.
After all, we have the best to learn from.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Bring It To a Vote (With Mood Music)
Groove on it, but listen to the words.You know how to play it, right? Click on the pink button.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Washington Post: Ron Paul is Huge on the Web
"But perhaps what most notably separates Paul from the crowded Republican field, headed by what former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III calls "Rudy McRomney," is his stance on the Iraq war. He's been against it from the very beginning."
Full article here.....
Full article here.....
DNJ Makes Freudian Slip?
In the "Corrections" section of the News Journal today, the following item appears:
"CASTLE'S AFFILIATION INCORRECT: In a story about stem cell legislation in Wednesday's main news section, Rep. Mike Castle's political party affiliation was incorrect. He is a Republican. This was an editing error."
Who Knew ?????
"CASTLE'S AFFILIATION INCORRECT: In a story about stem cell legislation in Wednesday's main news section, Rep. Mike Castle's political party affiliation was incorrect. He is a Republican. This was an editing error."
Who Knew ?????
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Ever Feel Like This?
I think of all of the good people out there struggling to make a difference. I see their petty squabbles but their ultimate (and sometimes begrudged) respect for each other.
For those who fight to inform, for those cry at bigotry and injustice, who fight against tyranny and despite the aggravating ennui of those they wish to inform and incite, keep on keeping on.
Despite this, despite these noble pursuits, whether agreed to or not, despite the strange impetus that makes people look in the mirror every day and ask, "What did I do today?", there are those times. A time like I am having today, when I wonder if anyone, anywhere can make a difference.
I am not a warrior. I am a simple citizen trying to understand, and trying to make an impact in my community, my State, my country, and the world. Sometimes it seems quite overwhelming, and I wonder if I should just forget it, turn on the AC, and lay back to watch American Idol. Everyone else seems to have 'no problem'. Sure, they gripe and groan, but that is the extent of it. Why should I care?
But this will pass, and like the rat in the cage I will gnaw at my own limbs to be free.
The world is a vampire, sent to drain
Secret destroyers, hold you up to the flames
And what do I get, for my pain
Betrayed desires, and a piece of the game
Even though I know-I suppose I'll show
All my cool and cold-like old Job
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Then someone will say what is lost can never be saved
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Now I'm naked, nothing but an animal
But can you fake it, for just one more show
And what do you want, I want to change
And what have you got
When you feel the same
Even though I know-I suppose I'll show
All my cool and cold-like old Job
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Then someone will say what is lost can never be saved
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Tell me I'm the only one
Tell me there's no other one
Jesus was an only son
Tell me I'm the chosen one
Jesus was an only son for you
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
And I still believe that I cannot be saved.
Sorry, Smashing Pumpkins. I believe we can still be saved.
For those who fight to inform, for those cry at bigotry and injustice, who fight against tyranny and despite the aggravating ennui of those they wish to inform and incite, keep on keeping on.
Despite this, despite these noble pursuits, whether agreed to or not, despite the strange impetus that makes people look in the mirror every day and ask, "What did I do today?", there are those times. A time like I am having today, when I wonder if anyone, anywhere can make a difference.
I am not a warrior. I am a simple citizen trying to understand, and trying to make an impact in my community, my State, my country, and the world. Sometimes it seems quite overwhelming, and I wonder if I should just forget it, turn on the AC, and lay back to watch American Idol. Everyone else seems to have 'no problem'. Sure, they gripe and groan, but that is the extent of it. Why should I care?
But this will pass, and like the rat in the cage I will gnaw at my own limbs to be free.
The world is a vampire, sent to drain
Secret destroyers, hold you up to the flames
And what do I get, for my pain
Betrayed desires, and a piece of the game
Even though I know-I suppose I'll show
All my cool and cold-like old Job
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Then someone will say what is lost can never be saved
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Now I'm naked, nothing but an animal
But can you fake it, for just one more show
And what do you want, I want to change
And what have you got
When you feel the same
Even though I know-I suppose I'll show
All my cool and cold-like old Job
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Then someone will say what is lost can never be saved
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Tell me I'm the only one
Tell me there's no other one
Jesus was an only son
Tell me I'm the chosen one
Jesus was an only son for you
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
And I still believe that I cannot be saved.
Sorry, Smashing Pumpkins. I believe we can still be saved.
Can a Libertarian Republican Appeal to Democrats?
Article by Brian Doherty, Senior Editor of Reason.
Excerpt 1:
"Ron Paul may not be the next president of the United States, but he is already in effect the president of meetup.com."
Excerpt 2:
"Ron Paul is the most energetic and consistent advocate on an issue of paramount political importance, especially to left-progressives—ending our involvement in Iraq. He’s willing to leave many controversial issues to states and localities. He wants to leave most of us alone to manage our own affairs, as either individuals or smaller polities. He’s a dedicated enemy of some of the most evil and repressive policies currently afoot in America. If America’s progressives can’t manage to give him at least two cheers, the fault lies not with their candidates, but with themselves."
The full article here........
Excerpt 1:
"Ron Paul may not be the next president of the United States, but he is already in effect the president of meetup.com."
Excerpt 2:
"Ron Paul is the most energetic and consistent advocate on an issue of paramount political importance, especially to left-progressives—ending our involvement in Iraq. He’s willing to leave many controversial issues to states and localities. He wants to leave most of us alone to manage our own affairs, as either individuals or smaller polities. He’s a dedicated enemy of some of the most evil and repressive policies currently afoot in America. If America’s progressives can’t manage to give him at least two cheers, the fault lies not with their candidates, but with themselves."
The full article here........
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Where is Mike Castle's Response?
A CNN article today states, "Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of "openness and transparency" in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects."
And an aide to the Republican Representative from Lousiana has the balls to say, "As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to."
Mike Castle did not respond to CNN's request.
But he is in good company. Neither did Nancy Pelosi.
And an aide to the Republican Representative from Lousiana has the balls to say, "As long as we are not required to release them, we're not going to."
Mike Castle did not respond to CNN's request.
But he is in good company. Neither did Nancy Pelosi.
Oberle on the Cross?
The News Journal and the bloggiing community are abuzz with the fact that State Representative Bill Oberle sits on the House Gaming and Parimutuels Committee, while is wife's company, Blue Hen Promotions, does business with Delaware casinos.
Is there a conflict of interest? First State Politics does not seem to think so. Others think that the situation reeks of impropriety. The rest of us just have to sit back and wonder. I hesitate to condemn someone without all of the facts, yet the arrangement as it stands twangs the conscience.
But Rep. Oberle is probably not breaking any Delaware laws:
"The legislative conflict-of-interest law allows the General Assembly's 62 members to vote on bills that benefit them financially as long as the lawmakers do not benefit more than others in the same business." (Source)
So before we condemn Sen. Oberle, let us look at the law. Sure, it would be "nice" if there appeared to be no conflict of interest, but if this "appearance" is just that, and if the conflict-of-interest law makes any sense (which is debatable), then look instead at the facts.
It may be that there is funny business going on. At the very least it smells of good-old-boyism.
But before condemning the man, question the law. It is unfair to chastize someone who may be, in his heart, adhering to the letter of existing legislation. If you don't like it, change it, and don't nail a sacrifical lamb to the cross in the interest of pure titillation.
Is there a conflict of interest? First State Politics does not seem to think so. Others think that the situation reeks of impropriety. The rest of us just have to sit back and wonder. I hesitate to condemn someone without all of the facts, yet the arrangement as it stands twangs the conscience.
But Rep. Oberle is probably not breaking any Delaware laws:
"The legislative conflict-of-interest law allows the General Assembly's 62 members to vote on bills that benefit them financially as long as the lawmakers do not benefit more than others in the same business." (Source)
So before we condemn Sen. Oberle, let us look at the law. Sure, it would be "nice" if there appeared to be no conflict of interest, but if this "appearance" is just that, and if the conflict-of-interest law makes any sense (which is debatable), then look instead at the facts.
It may be that there is funny business going on. At the very least it smells of good-old-boyism.
But before condemning the man, question the law. It is unfair to chastize someone who may be, in his heart, adhering to the letter of existing legislation. If you don't like it, change it, and don't nail a sacrifical lamb to the cross in the interest of pure titillation.
Monday, June 18, 2007
GM Wages War on Fuel Efficiency
General Motors is waging war on House Bill 6, which would require new vehicles and trucks to average 35 miles per gallon.What I find odd is that mileage requirements for vehicles have not changed in 20 years. Haven't we had more than enough warnings and evidence and our dependence on foreign oil needs be be addressed? In my own lifetime, I remember the gas lines of the 1970's. And there have been more than enough scares.
So in the last 20 years no one in the auto industry has had the bright idea to make even a modest increase in the overall mileage ratings their vehicles obtain? I find that short-sighted and typical of the myopic and heavy-handed view that industry tends to take when dealing with the public's guilty pleasures.
I am not some crazy tree-hugger. I just think that the writing has been on the wall for so long, why hasn't General Motors taken the time to read it? GM now is instead asking their employees to write their legislators to oppose the measure.
Would that they could have rallied their engineers and scientists twenty years ago.
Earmark Victory May be a Hollow One
Ron Paul's weekly column.
June 18, 2007
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The UnitedNations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions.
We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
June 18, 2007
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The UnitedNations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions.
We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
153rd Military Police Company Deployment
Deployment ceremonies for the 153rd Military Police Company were held Monday, June 18th 2007 at the Governor Bacon Parade Field in Delaware City.
On hand were Governor Minner, Senator Carper and Congressman Castle.
Whatever your politics, remember to support not only our men and women in uniform, but the families that they leave behind while performing their duty for their country.
MILITARY POLICE CREED:
I am a soldier and proud member of the United States Army Military Police Corps Regiment.
I am Of the Troops and For the Troops.
I believe there is no higher calling than to ASSIST, PROTECT, and DEFEND my fellow soldiers,, their families, and the basic ideals of our Constitution that guarantee our freedom and our American way of life.
I am always ready to help individual solders retain or regain their dignity.
I assist commanders in performing their missions, safeguarding their commands, and maintaining discipline, law and order.
I am proud of the Military Police Corps Regiment and fully understand the awesome responsibility given to all military police soldiers.
At the same time, I am humble because I know that I am a servant of my country and my Army. To perform my duties properly, my honesty, integrity, and courage must be balanced by competence, alertness, and courtesy.
I know that I am constantly in the public eye and my behavior sets the standards of excellence of my fellow soldiers
To my unit, my commander and myself, I promise sustained, just and honorable support. To my country, the Army, and my Regiment, I promise the skills of my training, my physical ability, my mental initiative, and my moral courage, for I am a soldier in the MILITARY POLICE CORPS REGIMENT.
GODSPEED 153RD MILITARY POLICE COMPANY
DELAWARE AWAITS YOUR SAFE RETURN.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Does Delaware Have the Balls to Reject REAL ID?
South Carolina did. Anybody in Delaware have the cajones?
From WJVF-TV in Augusta, GA:
After state lawmakers talked about it for months, it's now official; South Carolina will not participate in the federal REAL ID program. Gov. Mark Sanford signed the resolution Wednesday afternoon at the DMV office on Saluda Dam Road in Greenville.
Congress passed REAL ID two years ago in an effort to tighten the security of states' driver's licenses and ID cards. It requires states to verify an applicant's documents. But that means states would have to link their databases with each other and the federal government in order to verify birth certificates and other documents from others states.
That lengthier process would mean longer lines at the DMV. Gov. Sanford reminded people of the hours-long waits at SC DMV offices a few years ago. "What this bill (REAL ID) would bring us back to is those same longer lines," he said.
Michael Mahaffey of Greenville certainly doesn't want that. He was getting his license renewed Wednesday and says he waited more than two hours before. "As far as today, it's almost computer-fast compared to whatever it has been before," he says.
But there's a major potential problem in South Carolina's action in refusing to take part in REAL ID. The federal law says citizens will have to have a REAL ID-compliant license or ID in order to board an airplane or enter a federal building. Now that we've opted out, what will South Carolina citizens do?
Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, sponsor of the resolution saying the state will not participate, says, "There are bills pending in Congress to repeal the REAL ID or greatly alter it. I think this will greatly add to that incentive. The federal government cannot afford to have millions and millions of its citizens unable to get on an airplane."
South Carolina is now one of 32 states that have either opted out or have bills pending to do so. One of the other main reasons the state is not participating is the cost. The DMV estimates it would cost $25 million to implement the program the first year and cost an additional $11 million every year after that.
From WJVF-TV in Augusta, GA:
After state lawmakers talked about it for months, it's now official; South Carolina will not participate in the federal REAL ID program. Gov. Mark Sanford signed the resolution Wednesday afternoon at the DMV office on Saluda Dam Road in Greenville.
Congress passed REAL ID two years ago in an effort to tighten the security of states' driver's licenses and ID cards. It requires states to verify an applicant's documents. But that means states would have to link their databases with each other and the federal government in order to verify birth certificates and other documents from others states.
That lengthier process would mean longer lines at the DMV. Gov. Sanford reminded people of the hours-long waits at SC DMV offices a few years ago. "What this bill (REAL ID) would bring us back to is those same longer lines," he said.
Michael Mahaffey of Greenville certainly doesn't want that. He was getting his license renewed Wednesday and says he waited more than two hours before. "As far as today, it's almost computer-fast compared to whatever it has been before," he says.
But there's a major potential problem in South Carolina's action in refusing to take part in REAL ID. The federal law says citizens will have to have a REAL ID-compliant license or ID in order to board an airplane or enter a federal building. Now that we've opted out, what will South Carolina citizens do?
Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, sponsor of the resolution saying the state will not participate, says, "There are bills pending in Congress to repeal the REAL ID or greatly alter it. I think this will greatly add to that incentive. The federal government cannot afford to have millions and millions of its citizens unable to get on an airplane."
South Carolina is now one of 32 states that have either opted out or have bills pending to do so. One of the other main reasons the state is not participating is the cost. The DMV estimates it would cost $25 million to implement the program the first year and cost an additional $11 million every year after that.
Voices from the South
We returned yesterday from an 11-day road trip through the South. It was interesting to note that the states, counties and communities we visited along the way have issues very much the same as those in Delaware. The headlines and letters to the editors in the local newspapers, though touched with their own regional flavor, reflect many of the concerns that we face here in Delaware, a somewhat schizophrenic state in terms of its Southern heritage. Are we North or South? In the end, it doesn't much matter.
First, our ride. We loaded the motorycle to the gills with clothes, camping gear, fishing poles, electronic equipment, and of course a grill. We didn't get as much camping in as we would have liked, but we were certainly prepared ! Expertly piloted by my significant other, Chainsaw, we logged a total of 1,987 miles on the old geezer-glide, managing to be either ahead of or behind any significant rainfall for the entire trip, and averaging 42 miles per gallon.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch alerts everyone to the Psychic Festival in the historic Willow Lawn area. "Get up close and personal with psychics, readers, astrologers and healers". Virginia may need those psychics in order to solve the mysterious killing of fish in the western part of the state. A spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Quality states that "poultry waste, often applied to farm fields as fertilizer, remains on the list of suspects in the deaths."
How to Steal Gas in Virginia: There are still gas stations in Virginia where you pump first, then pay. There has been an increase in the number of stolen license plates: what the thieves do is put a stolen license plate on their own vehicle, fill up their tank, and drive away. What a concept ! I would never have thought of that. I have a feeling that these "honor system" gas stations may not be around for too much longer.
Letter to the Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch: "Hopewell School Plan Disgusts Community". The writer starts out by saying, "How inappropriate that development plans for the Patrick Copeland School site in Hopewell, withheld from the public during a closed session of the Economic Development Committee, were made public in the newspaper. Why was the public excluded -- to shield the developer from public opinion?" She goes on to say that "most of Hopewell's citizens, (as well as) state and national historic-preservation groups are disgusted with the town council's ruling majority. What secret game is being played out here in Hopewell?' Hmmm....do they need Kilroy in Virginia to keep them on their toes?
"30 million-year-old turtle found in Summerville" is the local headline in Charleston, SC's The Post and Courier ("the South's oldest daily newspaper"). The 4-foot-long by 3-foot-wide leatherback turtle was discovered in a Summerville ditch.
Letter to the Editor, The Post and Courier: "Respect Gallantry". Mr. LeCompte of Moncks Corner, SC writes: "The flag of the Confederate States of America has retreated from the top of the statehouse in Columbia....can't we show....gallantry and respect for the memory of the soldiers who served her? Hold your fired, I beseech you, and allow the descendents of those long dead Confederates the dignity of honoring the memory and sacrifice of their soldiers."
The project to restore Charleston's grand old City Hall has been deemed complete, at a cost of $10.2 million dollars The editor of The Post and Courier says that this should "ensure that City Hall will continue to serve the citizens of Charleston and their elected members of council for generations to come."
SC Governor Mark Sanford vetoed legislation that would have had the State Election Commission run the 2008 presidential primaries, as opposed to the Republican and Democratic parties. "The parties had asked for the bill because of a number of concerns, including potential lawsuits, if the primaries were not properly run." In his veto, the Governor stated, "...it is our belief that government money should not be used in political party activities."
First, our ride. We loaded the motorycle to the gills with clothes, camping gear, fishing poles, electronic equipment, and of course a grill. We didn't get as much camping in as we would have liked, but we were certainly prepared ! Expertly piloted by my significant other, Chainsaw, we logged a total of 1,987 miles on the old geezer-glide, managing to be either ahead of or behind any significant rainfall for the entire trip, and averaging 42 miles per gallon.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch alerts everyone to the Psychic Festival in the historic Willow Lawn area. "Get up close and personal with psychics, readers, astrologers and healers". Virginia may need those psychics in order to solve the mysterious killing of fish in the western part of the state. A spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Quality states that "poultry waste, often applied to farm fields as fertilizer, remains on the list of suspects in the deaths."
How to Steal Gas in Virginia: There are still gas stations in Virginia where you pump first, then pay. There has been an increase in the number of stolen license plates: what the thieves do is put a stolen license plate on their own vehicle, fill up their tank, and drive away. What a concept ! I would never have thought of that. I have a feeling that these "honor system" gas stations may not be around for too much longer.
Letter to the Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch: "Hopewell School Plan Disgusts Community". The writer starts out by saying, "How inappropriate that development plans for the Patrick Copeland School site in Hopewell, withheld from the public during a closed session of the Economic Development Committee, were made public in the newspaper. Why was the public excluded -- to shield the developer from public opinion?" She goes on to say that "most of Hopewell's citizens, (as well as) state and national historic-preservation groups are disgusted with the town council's ruling majority. What secret game is being played out here in Hopewell?' Hmmm....do they need Kilroy in Virginia to keep them on their toes?
"30 million-year-old turtle found in Summerville" is the local headline in Charleston, SC's The Post and Courier ("the South's oldest daily newspaper"). The 4-foot-long by 3-foot-wide leatherback turtle was discovered in a Summerville ditch.
Letter to the Editor, The Post and Courier: "Respect Gallantry". Mr. LeCompte of Moncks Corner, SC writes: "The flag of the Confederate States of America has retreated from the top of the statehouse in Columbia....can't we show....gallantry and respect for the memory of the soldiers who served her? Hold your fired, I beseech you, and allow the descendents of those long dead Confederates the dignity of honoring the memory and sacrifice of their soldiers."
The project to restore Charleston's grand old City Hall has been deemed complete, at a cost of $10.2 million dollars The editor of The Post and Courier says that this should "ensure that City Hall will continue to serve the citizens of Charleston and their elected members of council for generations to come."
SC Governor Mark Sanford vetoed legislation that would have had the State Election Commission run the 2008 presidential primaries, as opposed to the Republican and Democratic parties. "The parties had asked for the bill because of a number of concerns, including potential lawsuits, if the primaries were not properly run." In his veto, the Governor stated, "...it is our belief that government money should not be used in political party activities."
On the road to Chainsaw's brother's house in Thurston, GA (outside of Macon), we passed a beautiful old Southern home which had a homemade wooden sign, about 8 x 5 feet posted on the front lawn: "Stop the Quarry ! Still Fighting!".
"Middle Georgia's Newspaper", The Telegraph highlights Macon Vote 2007 with a front-page article titled An Uncertain Future. "Change is coming. By this time next year, Macon will have a new mayor. And with more than one-third of council seats being replaced by newcomers and a contentious hotel deal still up in the air, Macon could see alot more changes than that this election."
Of interest is that in Ward V, professional blogger Erick Erickson will be taking over in Post 3. Professional blogger? Didn't know there was such a thing. There may be hope for us yet.
The whole hotel deal in Macon is quite a story. The city wants to attract conventions as well as more tourist dollars, so they decided to build a hotel downtown. One group, with which many council members hold some kind of financial interest, proposed one plan. Then, an independent study was commissioned which came up with another plan at a different location. The fight between supporters of each plan is nasty and contentious, and may well be the major issue in the election. However, a letter to the editor contends that the hotel is moot. The writer, in a letter titled Blue-law Morality says, "Does anyone think that building a city-owned-and-operated hotel is the answer? We in Macon do not get the business that other cities such as Atlanta get. Why is this? Primarily because of the blue laws still on the books. When Macon stops legislating morality we'll have more coming in. Business people like to party. They can't here in Macon."
Speaking of morality, you can buy beer and wine in all convenience stores and supermarkets in the South. It's right there with the soda and Gatorade. In Georgia, however, you cannot buy beer on Sunday. So what do they do? They cross yellow police tape along the front of the beer section.
William Self, a judge of the county Probate Court, opines that "Blind partisan loyalty has damaged community." He states that "The refusal of Macon...to make elections nonpartisan is indicative of the mentality that has kept....Macon...the eye of failure in the hurrcane of prosperity". "Blind partisan loyalty and the selfish protection of little 'fiefdoms of privilege, prestige or power' have earned us what we deservice."
The Georgia State Legislature if talking of a "special session revolt". Seems they don't like the fact that Governor Sonny Perdue slashed their proposed budget. "GOP leaders have discussed an almost unheard of step of calling themselves back into business." The purpose of the special session would be to "undo budget changes made by Perdue".
In the tiny town of Mountain Park, GA, residents are facing a 48% tax hike to pay for long-neglected infrastructure improvements. "What the hell are they going to do with all that money?" said an angry Sandy Fuller, who has lived in Mountain Park for more than 20 years. The mayor says that "infrastructure has been neglected for a number of years" and that "This is the responsible thing to do". Long-time resident Gladys 'Beakie' Coggins says "That's fine, but why all at once?"
The issues are the same everywhere: incompetent and secret governments, overdevelopment, taxation, education, and morality. It seems to me that people are getting angrier and are starting to see beyond their own backyards into the world beyond. They are angry about not having a say, of having no control, and are demanding accountability. The local columnists and the letters to the editor seem more biting and in-your-face than in the recent past. People in the South, like Delaware, are tired of being run over by an out-of-control, good-old-boy political process. They are trying to preserve their traditions and their way of life, and balk at the outstretched-hand attached to a smiling face that promises them everything, but in the end delivers nothing but grief.
I enjoyed our road trip to the South, but it is good to be back home in Delaware. I return with a new sense of awareness, and a new strength in knowing that others are fighting the good fight. We must carry on, each of us in our own way.
We must carry on, or all is lost.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The Meaning of Cold, Hard Cash
If the $90,000 found in Representative William Jefferson’s freezer was in MY freezer, well, let’s just say the chances are good that it would not have been found. In fact, I doubt if the agents who discovered the cold, hard cash would have even ventured into my freezer, seeing as how they would probably come across something much less savory and interesting than 90 grand.
The Congressional Black Caucus has been less than enthusiastic in their support for their chilly colleague, only saying that he is “innocent until proven guilty”. Hardly a whole-hearted cry of foul.
And the Republicans are licking it up like so many chocolate Fudgesickles.
Too bad their fingers are just as sticky.
The Congressional Black Caucus has been less than enthusiastic in their support for their chilly colleague, only saying that he is “innocent until proven guilty”. Hardly a whole-hearted cry of foul.
And the Republicans are licking it up like so many chocolate Fudgesickles.
Too bad their fingers are just as sticky.
Lawful Enemy Combatants?
A Guantanamo Bay detainee has had charges against him dismissed due to the wording of the charges against him.
Omar Khadr had been held for five years and was accused of being Osama Bin Laden’s chauffer. He was also accused of throwing a grenade during a firefight which killed a U.S. Army Sergeant in Afghanistan in 2002.
However, since he was classified as and “enemy combatant” instead of an “alien unlawful enemy combatant”, he is entitled to prisoner of war status under the Geneva convention.
I am finding the semantics that distinguish the treatment of an enemy combatant and an unlawful enemy combatant extremely odd. If there is a case, it should be tried no matter what a person's classification. What happened to the evidence?
Is there such thing as a “lawful enemy combatant”. I mean, if you are any enemy combatant, but don’t break any laws, you’re cool ???
"You can't have people detained indefinitely, accused of being terrorists or accused of committing these war crimes and never getting a trial.”
- Kristine Husky, Khadr’s former defense lawyer
The legal games being played are not fair to anyone
Omar Khadr had been held for five years and was accused of being Osama Bin Laden’s chauffer. He was also accused of throwing a grenade during a firefight which killed a U.S. Army Sergeant in Afghanistan in 2002.
However, since he was classified as and “enemy combatant” instead of an “alien unlawful enemy combatant”, he is entitled to prisoner of war status under the Geneva convention.
I am finding the semantics that distinguish the treatment of an enemy combatant and an unlawful enemy combatant extremely odd. If there is a case, it should be tried no matter what a person's classification. What happened to the evidence?
Is there such thing as a “lawful enemy combatant”. I mean, if you are any enemy combatant, but don’t break any laws, you’re cool ???
"You can't have people detained indefinitely, accused of being terrorists or accused of committing these war crimes and never getting a trial.”
- Kristine Husky, Khadr’s former defense lawyer
The legal games being played are not fair to anyone
The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq
Ron Paul's weekly column:
June 4, 2007
Good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results.
The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives.
All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served.
The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intended but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination, without victory or resolution in sight.
Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don’t have the troops, the money, the equipment or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so.
Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear, the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and support of the troops so nothing happens except more of the same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives.
This wait and see attitude in Washington, and the promised reassessment of events in Iraq later on, strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans in order to influence the decision coming in three months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait and see attitude in Iraq, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving, the perfect time for the Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each other and on our troops and just possibly begin talking with each other.
Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq , yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave. They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida.
It’s time for a change in our foreign policy.
June 4, 2007
Good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results.
The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives.
All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served.
The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intended but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination, without victory or resolution in sight.
Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don’t have the troops, the money, the equipment or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so.
Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear, the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and support of the troops so nothing happens except more of the same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives.
This wait and see attitude in Washington, and the promised reassessment of events in Iraq later on, strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans in order to influence the decision coming in three months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait and see attitude in Iraq, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving, the perfect time for the Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each other and on our troops and just possibly begin talking with each other.
Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq , yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave. They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida.
It’s time for a change in our foreign policy.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Rules for Radicals
While I may not have agreed with his politics, Saul Alinksy, (1909-1972), was truly one of the most masterful and powerful organizers. His belief in empowering people to confront “the system”, and his methods of doing so, ring true today. Especially in Delaware. While he focused mostly on the poor and disenfranchised, he also saw that the middle class was ripe for revolution. In an interview with Playboy Magazine in 1972, he says,
“Remember, people are people whether they're living in ghettos, reservations or barrios, and the suburbs are just another kind of reservation -- a gilded ghetto.”
Think about yourself, your situation, your perception of your own power to shape your own destiny. Whose hands is it in? Some senator, representative, insurance company, developer, government agency or business? How do you feel about your sphere of influence and those of your neighbors? Sure, we all bitch and moan and complain, but do we do anything about it?
Saul Alinsky goes on to say in the interview:
“The despair is there; now it's up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We'll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We'll start with specific issues -- taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution -- and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the board rooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people, they'll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power. We'll not only give them a cause, we'll make life goddamn exciting for them again -- life instead of existence. We'll turn them on.”
Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, is for real. It shows you how to deal. But to be effective, you must discard your middle-class niceness and deal with the enemy on your own terms. Understand their turf: power, authority, longevity, comfort needs. Confront them. Demand to be heard. And if you think about it, it is not really all that radical. It is just trying to ingest a little common sense into the process.
A perfect example of the Alinsky tradition is John Allison, author of Kilroy’s Delaware. Here is a man intensely involved in education issues. Here is a man of both passion and humor. If you can’t handle his get-in-your-face blog, you may as well go back to your HD-TV and call it a life. Are you pissed off? Do you know a better way? Make it known instead of just bitchin’.
In his book, Alinsky says,
“I do not propose to be trapped by tact at the expense of truth”.
Are you trapped?
Get involved. Make a difference. Get up off of your sorry ass.
“To know power and not fear it is essential to its constructive use and control”. – Saul Alinsky
It Takes A Socialist Village
Quote of the decade from Cal Thomas:
“I am not robbed by people who have more money than I. I am robbed by a government that wants to penalize my industry and give increasing portions of what I earn to people who do not emulate my principles, morals and ethics... We once taught our young people the virtues of hard work, saving, personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions, chastity before and fidelity and commitment in marriage, honesty, integrity and virtue—not to mention the Ten Commandments (especially the one about not coveting that which belongs to your neighbor).
We now teach them entitlement, victimhood, class envy and rights to other people’s money.”
I'm not sure about the chastity part, but everything else is right on.
“I am not robbed by people who have more money than I. I am robbed by a government that wants to penalize my industry and give increasing portions of what I earn to people who do not emulate my principles, morals and ethics... We once taught our young people the virtues of hard work, saving, personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions, chastity before and fidelity and commitment in marriage, honesty, integrity and virtue—not to mention the Ten Commandments (especially the one about not coveting that which belongs to your neighbor).
We now teach them entitlement, victimhood, class envy and rights to other people’s money.”
I'm not sure about the chastity part, but everything else is right on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
