tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89180904879990272652024-02-19T07:56:00.101-08:00Political ThermopylaeGive the partisans nothing! But take from them everything!Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-90144960689171799222012-01-25T21:36:00.000-08:002012-01-25T21:51:19.902-08:00The Case for Mitt Romney<a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/09/t1larg.romney.obama.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 180px;" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/09/t1larg.romney.obama.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />I could compare and contrast Mitt Romney with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Senator Rick Santorum, and Representative Ron Paul. There are many good arguments that could be made in his favor with a direct comparison with any or all of his GOP nomination competitors. Sure Romney isn't perfect, but such a comparison would, in my view make a clear case. But....I will not be doing that. This is a more centrist blog and that wont be necessary. I will use comparison, and I will use contrast, and I will make the case why Mitt Romney is the superior choice,....but in the general election. <br /><br />On another thread in The Rise of the Center I listed the criteria that I look for in a Presidential candidate in the comments section, I listed my 4 criteria and will use those criteria for my comparison here. <br /><br />1. Obeys the US Constitution<br /><br />A perfect contrast can be drawn here between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Mitt Romney in getting healthcare reform through in Massachusetts signed into law a mandate for coverage in his own State that was widely in support of such. There is no violation as the 10th Amendment gives States that right. Romney has time and time again dismissed any notion of forcing an unconstitutional federal mandate.<br /><br />Barack Obama signed a widely unpopular bill with an unconstitutional mandate for the entire nation that ignore the protection of the 10th Amendment. This individual mandate was the very thing he criticized rival Hilliary Clinton for on the campaign trail in 2007 and 2008 during the Democratic Primary. Just look at the video record http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknJLMc84bo<br /><br />2. Actually be able to lead.<br /><br />Mitt Romney got major things done in Massachusetts as a Republican governor in a Democratic State with two houses controlled by a democratic legislature. He lowered taxes, turned a $3 billion deficit into a $2billion rainy day fund by the time he left office. He slashed spending and balanced the state budget all four years he was governor. When he took over the state was 50th in rate of change in unemployment shedding jobs all over the place, when he left Massachusetts was in the top ten in the nation He did all this with a state legislature that was 85% democratic by cutting taxes and cutting spending. Now that is leadership, working with others, convincing them to follow you despite ideological differences, putting the right people in the right jobs and executing.<br /><br />On the Other hand there is President Obama.....sure he inherited a bad situation, but so did Romney, granted Obama's situation was in someways worse, but in some ways it was much better. He went into office on a huge euphoric wave with his own party in control of both branches of government with a filibuster proof majority. He had tons of political capital as he was replacing the unpopular George W. Bush and riding the wave of Hope and Change and as the first black president which helped to shield him from much media and other criticism when he assumed office. But what happened? His signature healthcare reform could not get passed by normal channels even with his majority as moderate democrats rebelled and sided with Republicans who were in opposition. Not until a constitutionally shady gimick of reconciliation was brought in and twisted like a pretzel would he get it passed and even then only with questionable ethics using earmarks and favors to sway the democratic votes he needed, the "Cornhusker Kickback" to Sen Nelson for his vote, the "Louisianna Purchase" of Sen Landrieu's vote, etc.<br /><br />But did Obama at least get the economy going in the right direction? I think most of us know the answer to that. Record deficits for three years that top any before he took office, Massive unemployment not just in the official rate but even more so in the real unemployment rate that doiesn't change when people give up and stop looking for work, no rainy day fund but instead a government that begs to raise its debt ceiling every couple of months because it continues to increase its spending. Department heads involved in scandal from the Interior and the Gulf spill, to the Feds less than 1% loans to big banks, to Justice's fast and furious, to Energy's loan to Solyandra and 23 other businesses that have failed or are in desperate straits.<br /><br />I could go on and talk about the Olympics, about a President actually wagging his finger at the Supreme Court at a SOTU address, but I'll go to the next point after I do give one bit of credit to the President on the leadership issue, he did give his 'okie-dokie' when the Seals had Bin Laden in their sights, but serious does anyone reading this right now have one ounce of doubt they would have made that same call? does anyone even doubt they would make that no brainer for even a millisecond? I don't.<br /><br /><br />3. Putting the country first.<br /><br />This is the one area where I won't have much to say. Both Romney and Obama try to put the country first, they just have different views of what policies achieve that, and both are bound by their own biases. Both also have sought to advance their careers and agenda without thinking about the consequences from time to time and been divisive. Its a fairly close call here, but I give the advantage to Romney who was able to work with a legislature that was 85% democratic and get his agenda carried out to a large degree, that took not only leadership but some compromise on his end on some things Obama has not proven himself able to put forth that same level of working across the aisle, not entirely his fault, but I can't say I' ever saw Governor Romney using the same type of verbal assaults and condescending finger wagging from his executive position.<br /><br />4. Efficiency<br /><br />Mitt Romney went into a state with severe economic problems and turned them around almost from the start and built on that until he left office.<br /><br />President Obama went into his job with a similar situation and put hundreds of billions into projects with little effect, then for a year turned his head away from the economy and instead to a largely unpopular healthcare reform bill which got passed with shady tactics that he couldn't get done even with a filibuster proof majority and ignored the unemployment situation for a year. When he did he set up a commission on the deficit then promptly ignored the advice they gave him.<br /><br />I ask you, which was more efficient, I think it is clear.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-68618952482348869962011-07-12T13:45:00.000-07:002011-07-12T13:51:10.681-07:00Obama, the debt ceiling and lack of leadership<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjcRTTTpLRS5f6yLTv_fc0F3pRxdrjYqrLIK57eg-PplQ71IozM5qzGJ8wv5BMXoL5JqRKgIRPM-TVtqtgmwQZt9el5o0d15BMSOg1JaIU1InpSJG6zbf0wq_NHib9G_j2yfe-dqrfYNmr/s1600/gorrell.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 287px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjcRTTTpLRS5f6yLTv_fc0F3pRxdrjYqrLIK57eg-PplQ71IozM5qzGJ8wv5BMXoL5JqRKgIRPM-TVtqtgmwQZt9el5o0d15BMSOg1JaIU1InpSJG6zbf0wq_NHib9G_j2yfe-dqrfYNmr/s400/gorrell.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5628571242215004882" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />A flashback that is apt.<br /><br />"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."<br /><br />--Democratic Senator Barack Obama 2006<br /><br /><br />Holy come back to bite you in your presidential butt Batman!Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-39416738139569946822011-07-11T05:30:00.000-07:002011-07-11T05:36:09.901-07:00No Crazy People as President Please<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK3cK-D2x55c_FgtL_Osj4I-lV_caT4UK91nme8NE89T7DskvLNAnEfaEGGlHwRup0qOndqiuAFkit9ZXaTTpvmDTSMg5ovbJ5CBLh-7NW7dglabwRRJfw3PP4lwDZSu2wRnkPQY0apasz/s1600/institutionalize.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK3cK-D2x55c_FgtL_Osj4I-lV_caT4UK91nme8NE89T7DskvLNAnEfaEGGlHwRup0qOndqiuAFkit9ZXaTTpvmDTSMg5ovbJ5CBLh-7NW7dglabwRRJfw3PP4lwDZSu2wRnkPQY0apasz/s400/institutionalize.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5628072603521480930" /></a>Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-46943633493665122572011-04-04T14:07:00.000-07:002011-04-04T14:21:24.323-07:00The Centersphere<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.civismundi.net/06RANGE%20OF%20IDEOLOGY%20FROM%20CENTRIST%20TO%20RADICAL%20page%206_html_m37c465a6.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 447px; height: 331px;" src="http://www.civismundi.net/06RANGE%20OF%20IDEOLOGY%20FROM%20CENTRIST%20TO%20RADICAL%20page%206_html_m37c465a6.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Just wanted to make reference to a great collection of truly moderate (and not just trying to appear to be by using the word) and centrist oriented sites with descriptions from <a href="http://riseofthecenter.com/centersphere/">The Rise of the Center</a> blog:<br /><br /><blockquote>Donklephant – Justin Gardner runs this absolute staple for moderates, with the tongue in cheek tag line of “Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.” Its a great place for some good political chatter, and fun. He’s been around a while and has earned a good following. In full disclosure, I used to post there myself, and may do so in the future.<br /><br />Uncovered Politics – I really dig what I’ve seen from these guys, since I dug it up a couple months ago. One of the more professionally designed sites. Very newspaper like, in a good way. One of the bloggers there (Austin Cassidy) is a co-founder of Independent Political Report & Third Party Watch.<br /><br />POLI-TEA – Probably the site out there that is most like mine… so of course I think its great! This is the personal blog of Damon Eris, who posts in several other places, from CAIVN, to Independent Political Report. One of the top voices in the centersphere, his blog is another must read.<br /><br />Think 3 Institute – This isn’t a think tank, but it might as well be. The design is… not awesome, but they consistently have some of the most intelligent political commentary you can find anywhere. Generally a mix of in depth policy and both national and New York state politics.<br /><br />The Center Lane – Just like Think 3, The Center Lane is a place you can go and always expect very high quality content. It chooses quality over quantity, but the quality is very very good.<br /><br />The Pragmatic Center – Nick Goebel, who I’ve chatted with a bit, has his head on straight. His blog is a mix of common sense political talk on national and Michigan state politics.<br /><br />Independent Political Report – This is the most popular site on this entire list. There is a mix of centrist politics and independent politics (defined generally… including all non major party related news). A good place to keep track of the forces fighting the two party system.<br /><br />Third Party and Independent Daily – This site doesn’t just stick to centrist type stuff, as any third party groups are discussed, but there is a lot of great coverage of smaller stories you don’t see anywhere else, related to those on the front lines of the war against the two party system. If you really want to keep your finger on what is going around with all the major groups that are trying to pare down the two party duopoly, this is a great place to start, along with IPR.<br /><br />Outside the Beltway – This moderate conservative (they call themselves classically liberal) blog has been around since 2003, which might explain why the traffic ranking sites list it as the highest traffic site on this list. In general it is probably the most professionally put together site on the list as well.<br /><br />The Wright and Left Report – This site’s tag line is “Determining fact from lunacy in the circus that is politics”, and from what I’ve seen so far, it does a pretty good job. There seems to be a lean to the left, but certainly no partisan shill.<br /><br />Independent Rage – As the name would suggest, this puppy is a pit bull. He doesn’t pull punches, doesn’t censor himself, has Nirvana set to play when you load the site, is generally just a riot… and he likes posting pics of scantily clad women, so take all of that in mind. In his own words “Being serious about politics all the time is not everyone’s cup of tea, and so I really do try to mix up my blog with a combination of the fun and the serious.” But look past all that and you see someone who has a pretty interesting, and very honest, perspective.<br /><br />Mildly Relevant Thoughts – Yet another blogger, this one mostly video blogging (which is a nice change of pace), who I’ve had the pleasure of talking to a bit. Much like Independent Rage, this one is… not exactly serious, and at times downright raunchy, but its all in good spirited fun. Check his site out for reliably funny and biting commentary on the absurd circus that is American politics.<br /><br />Rebel Yid – This is another blog that I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with the man behind the keyboard, and has become one of my first reads. Sharp commentary, with “Ideas beyond the left/right, red/blue, and liberal/conservative thinking”. Definitely a right lean, but still moderate enough to fit under our big tent here.<br /><br />All Things Reform – This is a pretty heady site, and isn’t about centrist politics, but most of it is what you might call ‘transpartisan’, that any good intentioned politico would support, and/or want to know about.<br /><br />The New Moderate – Rick Bayan has been at it since 2007 apparently. I’ve had the pleasure of talking with him a bit by email, and his site has moved into the “First Read” section of my RSS feeds. This site falls into the category of blogs that don’t post all of the time, but when they do, they’re in depth and insightful.<br /><br />Center Movement – This is one of the best designed sites on the list, and it most notable for the fact that it automatically aggregates content from some of the better moderate and centrists blogs, as well as a bit of original content of its own.<br /><br />Moderate Voters – This is somewhat like Center Movement, but collects news from all over the web that they see as being related to moderates, not blog posts. Seriously though, they do a heck of a job scouring the news sites for stuff moderates might want to know about. A great resource.<br /><br />The Hankster – Nancy Hanks is a long time activist in New York Independent Politics. Her blog is a must read, if only for her fairly regular “TODAY’S NEWS HEADLINES for INDEPENDENT VOTERS” updates, that cover an awful lot of what is going on in what I call the “independent groundswell”. She is well connected with the IndependentVoting.org crowd, which would be fairly described as the liberal side of the mainstream independent spectrum. (5.860)<br /><br />John Avlon – I’m making an exception here. John Avlon doesn’t have a blog per se… although he has a column at what you could consider a professional blogging site, The Daily Beast. He’s written two great books, one on independents and another on the political extremists, is a political analyst for CNN and is probably the best centrist pundit around these days. Click his name for a Google News search for what he’s done lately.<br /><br />The Future American – Jess Chapman, who cross posts here a few times a week, is a Canadian college student with ambitions of becoming the next John Avlon, a centrist political pundit in the United States. She covers national politics, occasionally mentions Canadian politics, and also some Northern Midwest coverage.<br /><br />Rise of the Center – You may have heard of this new-ish blog that some guy from Omaha with a weird name runs… he’s quite the political junkie, I hear, and has an acute addiction to twitter, haha. Fastest growing centrist blog around.</blockquote>Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-92037201314659303322011-03-29T23:52:00.000-07:002011-03-30T00:12:21.188-07:00Open thread for any banned at TMV<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.jerzeedevil.com/gallery/files/3/2/1/8/banhammer.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 375px; height: 523px;" src="http://www.jerzeedevil.com/gallery/files/3/2/1/8/banhammer.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />With one of my favorite comment boards having the ban hammer held over heads in a threatening matter (and in some cases certainly justified), I figured I'd open this thread up so that any banned folks could let us know where they are posting now, or where they might like to join up and another board and post together. This goes to those I tend to see eye to eye with and those who I tend not to. I don't care what your views are far-right to far left or anywhere in between you are welcome to use this thread to let others know where to find you if you wish and to vent.<br /><br />The invitation extends to any TMV moderators or staff if they wish to comment on any bannings or to vent.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-18538235931803650892010-06-24T08:19:00.000-07:002010-06-24T08:57:42.857-07:00Dr. Obama and the Medicine Show<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://memetrics.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/711931.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 494px; height: 600px;" src="http://memetrics.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/711931.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />The fact that it takes a Rolling Stone article to get our President to act on the division among the administration figures in Afghanistan does not leave me inspired with confidence in his leadership ability. That coupled with the mishandling of the Guld Spill has lead me to dedicate a song to him....<br /><br />...Hit it boys.....<br /><br />(talking...) Ha ha ha I don't believe it<br />Da, da, ah, ah don't touch it<br />Hey, Rahm, Hey Axlerod tell them who we are.....<br /><br />Well, we're political left wingers<br />We got away pointing fingers<br />And we're loved, media says we're great..... (except for FOX)<br />We make speeches about fairness and we lie about truth<br />At ten-thousand dollars a fund-raising plate..... (Cha-Ching)<br />We reconcile all kinds of bills nevermind we can't stop a spill.<br />But the spill we've never before known<br />Is the spill that'll grate when you get your war update<br />On the cover of the Rollin Stone<br /><br />(Rollin stone.....) Wanna see my appointee on the cover<br />(Stone.....)Wanna buy five copies for my baby mother..... (fist bump)<br />(Stone.....)Wanna see my war update<br />On the cover of the Rollin Stone.... (that's a very very good idea)<br /><br />I got a freaky ole lady name a Nancy Pelosi<br />Who embroideries on my ways and means<br />I got my poor ole grey haired caddy<br />Drivin my golfing limosine<br />Now it's all decided to blow our minds<br />But our minds won't really be blown<br />Like the blow that'll grate when you get your war updates<br />On the cover of the Rollin Stone<br /><br />(Rollin stone.....) Wanna see our pictures on the cover<br />(Stone.....) Wanna buy five copies for our baby mothers..... (fist bump)<br />(Stone.....) Wanna see my war update<br />On the cover of the rollin stone<br />(talking) Hey, I know how<br />Hope and Change.....<br /><br />Ah, that's liberal<br /><br />We got a lot of little fainting blue state groupies<br />Who do anything we say<br />We got a genu wine Tax Cheat<br />Who's teaching us a better way<br />We got all the politicians that lobbyist can buy<br />So we never have to be alone<br />And we keep getting irate when we get our war updates<br />On the cover of the Rollin Stone<br /><br />(Rollin stone.....)Wanna see my appointee on the cover<br />(Stone.....) Wanna buy five copies for my baby mother..... (wa wa)<br />(Stone.....) Wanna see my general's face<br />On the cover of the Rollin Stone<br />On the cover of the Rollin.......<br />Stone.....) Wanna see my appointee on the cover<br />(talking) I don't know why we ain't on the cover, Baby....<br />(Stone.....) Wanna buy five copies for my baby mother<br />(talking) We're liberal subjects....<br />(Stone.....) Wanna see my smilin face<br />(talking) I ain't kiddin, we would make a liberal cover....<br />On the cover of the Rollin Stone......<br />(talking) fresh shot, right up front, Man.....<br />I can see it now, we'll be up in the front....<br />Smilin, Man......<br />Ahh, liberal.......Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-2400712755871725312009-09-30T06:58:00.000-07:002009-09-30T07:18:04.076-07:00Slipping into Capitalism<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRy0zZs9ioq1JVHjrVaXKBc5mtTJmR_iTxMQXgCJQ8GqqylXvtDzy0wvfVYQ5uORXhBBjUSgSp7NJO-XM2EvrB2tpMHV1RfN3I9J4wBCy2_GlCoRfQoZKKGaeqTuT8-mw4eFb7jOXJbrNi/s1600-h/Castro.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 223px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRy0zZs9ioq1JVHjrVaXKBc5mtTJmR_iTxMQXgCJQ8GqqylXvtDzy0wvfVYQ5uORXhBBjUSgSp7NJO-XM2EvrB2tpMHV1RfN3I9J4wBCy2_GlCoRfQoZKKGaeqTuT8-mw4eFb7jOXJbrNi/s320/Castro.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5387264545108889490" /></a><br /><br />The Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/27/AR2009092703316.html?sub=AR">reports</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Faced with the smothering inefficiencies of a state-run economy and unable to feed his people without massive imports of food, Cuban leader Raúl Castro has put his faith in compatriots like Esther Fuentes and his little farm out in the sticks.<br /><br />If Cuba is searching for its New New Man, then Fuentes might be him. The Cuban government, in its most dramatic reform since Castro took over for his ailing older brother Fidel three years ago, is offering private farmers such as Fuentes the use of fallow state lands to grow crops -- for a profit.</blockquote><br /><br />Quite a change for the island nation. Of course the rhetoric must be applied to justify this:<br /><br /><blockquote>Raúl Castro prefers to call it "a new socialist model."</blockquote><br /><br />The "new socialist model" can be summed up in two words...... profit motive.<br /><br />What brought this on?<br /><br /><blockquote>After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of subsidies from Moscow and Eastern Europe, Cuba abandoned its huge farms devoted to sugar cane -- and that land was quickly taken over by marabu, a tenacious, thorny weed that now covers vast tracts of Cuba the way kudzu blankets the American South.</blockquote><br /><br />Guess they decided that its actually better to allow some capitalism than let the land sit useless under their previous policies. But what do the people of Cuba think:<br /><br /><blockquote>Fuentes pointed to his new fields of sweet potatoes, corn, tomatoes, cassava and beans. He's also growing flowers to sell. Chickens were running around, and trees bore monster avocados. The future looks better.<br /><br />"This is big change," he said. "Everyone wants in."</blockquote><br /><br />How far will it go? Who knows but one academic has an idea for them:<br /><br /><blockquote>"If they really wanted to solve their problem, they could solve it in a minute, with the stroke of a pen," by allowing private ownership and free markets, said José Alvarez, a professor emeritus and authority on Cuban agriculture at the University of Florida.</blockquote><br /><br />Is Cuba likely to turn into a capitalist state? Not likely, but they are begging to face at least the reality that the profit motive will help them to feed their people.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-4475621426656570952009-09-26T10:04:00.000-07:002009-09-26T10:16:26.906-07:00Don't buy healthcare? pay $25,000. can't afford the fine? spend a year in jail.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0qcRAiEzgPr2-qh6fVx_WViWUkWc2s1c2VMDGfJ5oAyBc3JMrFPeU1h4wIGrb7EmeeDNc0KlNSXG6bO8sOmtZWnLGFLauLm4Wc5kDmiy34OiV7iObqTf0kK1npxqZa5eOlQXICq_cPGZA/s1600-h/GoToJail-main_Full.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 196px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0qcRAiEzgPr2-qh6fVx_WViWUkWc2s1c2VMDGfJ5oAyBc3JMrFPeU1h4wIGrb7EmeeDNc0KlNSXG6bO8sOmtZWnLGFLauLm4Wc5kDmiy34OiV7iObqTf0kK1npxqZa5eOlQXICq_cPGZA/s200/GoToJail-main_Full.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5385826198694136914" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall">Policio reports</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.<br />Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.</blockquote><br /><br />Two thoughts occur to me.<br /><br />First, not everyone will have an easy time scraping up the money to pay, although I know some assistance is planned to be made available.<br /><br />Secondly, if they can't pay $1,900 what are the chances they can pay $25,000, can our overcrowded penal system handle the increased traffic? Should people who couldn't afford to pay be grouped with thieves, drug dealers, and worse?<br /><br />To me this type of penalty makes this less appealing than a fully paid public option (as much as I oppose that). What they should do instead in my option, if they must do this at all, is to freely cover everyone with catastrophic insurance and let individuals buy their own other than catastrophic insurance on the proposed markets without threat of legal penalty but with any assistance having the cost of the catastrophic coverage taken out of it. Fining and imprisoning people for not buying into health care strikes me as against the principles of our nation.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-37187962127785637422009-09-26T07:09:00.000-07:002009-09-26T08:13:34.483-07:00Its time for Justice in Honduras<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicIGzIz7yhGRpm6C0jtod0gv5758ig_lKXCCrRgZfAfouYKbWfUnj_0VTDPkWS4avoZAfuH1r9I25B9aTLFKAN3nPhBb-ugEmE3cAoU78qvc6u5E7AAKx0ITFqkqOXQ2b54bEulTceY5yt/s1600-h/Hondflag.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 160px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicIGzIz7yhGRpm6C0jtod0gv5758ig_lKXCCrRgZfAfouYKbWfUnj_0VTDPkWS4avoZAfuH1r9I25B9aTLFKAN3nPhBb-ugEmE3cAoU78qvc6u5E7AAKx0ITFqkqOXQ2b54bEulTceY5yt/s320/Hondflag.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5385794047621534354" /></a><br />The Congressional Reasearch Service (CRS) has released a <a href="http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf">new report</a> on the ousting of former President Manuel Zelaya.<br /><br />Among its findings:<br /><br /><blockquote>Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.<br /><br />However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct<br />violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.50 </blockquote><br /><br />So his removal from the Presidency was Constitutional, but his removal from the country was not.<br /><br />Yet the Obama administration has still failed to recognize the government of Honduras is the rightful legal government of the Country, and the administration has cut aid by $30 million and threatened to cut another $200 million. This is about 2% of the Honduran GDP.<br /><br />Furthermore the Washington Examiner <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800.html">reports</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.<br /><br />The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country's independent judiciary.<br /><br />Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya's violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their "human rights."<br /><br />But it may be that Americans should be even more concerned about the heavy-handedness, without legal justification, emanating from the executive branch in Washington. What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted? </blockquote><br /><br />Its time the Obama administration correct its failed position, and show a respect for the Rule of Law in other nations and their independent judiciaries.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-80255432060757369732009-09-14T20:07:00.000-07:002009-09-14T21:11:14.144-07:00Obama's transparancy problem<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://images.chron.com/blogs/txpotomac/Obama%20mirror.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 225px; height: 441px;" src="http://images.chron.com/blogs/txpotomac/Obama%20mirror.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />When President Obama was campaigning for the Presidency,government transparancy was one of his rallying cries. His speeches were full of such gems as:<br /><br />"When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as a president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing.”<br /><br />"To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."<br /><br />" "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."<br />Now you might ask, what has that last one have to do with transparancy, so I'll explain. On January 8, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama nominated lobbyist William Lynn as his Deputy Secretary of Defense. Objections were of course raised but lynn ended up being given a waiver by the administration and confirmed by the Senate. However other lobbyists followed and received their own wavers, some of whom were appointments not requiring Senate approval. Some other appointments don't even require waivers just "recusals" where the former lobbyist just voluntarily excuses himself from areas that he once lobbied for. But without the confirmation process little is know about the appointments, and even who all of them are. <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/">According to Polifact</a>:<br /><blockquote> * Recusals appear to have even less documentation than waivers. We have yet to see a recusal "order," despite having asked the White House for them. We know there are at least two recusals; there may be more. We're not sure how recusals specifically differ from waivers because the White House has said little about the policy. <br /><br />* The White House is not prompt about releasing the waivers. For two nominees who didn't require Senate approval, waivers were released weeks after they were signed and after the people took their positions. These two waivers were also substantially less detailed than the waiver issued for Lynn.</blockquote><br />Also:<br /><blockquote>We haven't seen anything to make us change our ruling. But there's been a new development: Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa recently sent a letter asking for accountability about the recusals and waivers. (Grassley is one of four senators who voted against the nomination of William Lynn as a deputy secretary for defense; Lynn was a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon.) <br /><br />Grassley has asked Robert Cusick, director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, to require the Obama administration to release all waivers and recusals as they are issued and post the documentation to the Internet. Grassley said Cusick has that authority under the Ethics in Government Act.</blockquote><br />Well, so much for transpaancy on that. I could go into his appointment of over 30 "Czars" but I think the point has already been made, now to the other items.<br /><br />That healthcare reform on C-Span pledge, well it just never happened.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h3JKDTBOYKg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h3JKDTBOYKg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Of course the Presidnet spins this in this way:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oF6iyqpo36c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oF6iyqpo36c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Not one has bought this line except for his most ardent cheerleaders.<br /><br />Sources as varied as <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/">Salon</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/">The Huffington Post</a>,<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/27072046/">CNBC</a>, <a href="http://airamerica.com/content/obama-big-pharmas-sugar-daddy">Air America</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2224621/">Slate</a>,<a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U2MzBlMWJkN2Q0ZjllYjQ4YzEyNzNhNzM4ZGU1MGM=">The National Review</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/index.html">Glenn Greenwald</a>, etc. are all critical of the backroom deals the Obama administration made. Where was C-Span then?<br /><br />Now on to the first item mentioned, the 5 day pledge. <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/09/a-flagging-obama-transparency-effort/">The Cato institute details</a> the lack of compliance with this promise back in April.<br /><br /><blockquote>Of the eleven bills President Obama has signed, only six have been posted on Whitehouse.gov. None have been posted for a full five days after presentment from Congress.</blockquote><br />Additionally:<br /><blockquote>Several times the White House has posted a bill while it remains in Congress, attempting to satisfy the five-day rule. But this doesn’t give the public an opportunity to review the final legislation – especially any last minute amendments. Versions of the children’s health insurance legislation, the omnibus spending bill, and the omnibus public land management bill were linked to from Whitehouse.gov while making their ways through Congress, but not posted in final form.</blockquote><br />In some areas Obama has actually moved forward on transparency, but sometimes only due due to political pressure. For example the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/obama_pledges_t.html">releasing of White House logs</a>, which were in answer to <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/">lawsuits by watchdog groups</a> and <a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/09/obama_to_reveal_wh_visitor_log.html">court rulings</a>. Even after release the logs aren't easily acessable for previous periods before the turnaround and detailed requests for time and visitors must be made before the information is released, hardly transparant.<br /><br />It seems to me that the way to transparancy in the Executive branch is still via watchdogs, investigative reporting by the media, and lawsuits. On its own, the Obama administration does not seem very transparent at all.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-71031787272742076072009-05-29T14:45:00.001-07:002009-05-29T14:54:17.364-07:00Someone give David Brooks a Dictionary<a href="http://eliotche.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dictionary2.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 593px; height: 440px;" src="http://eliotche.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dictionary2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I think <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29brooks.html">he might need one</a><br /><br /><snip><br /><blockquote>People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. </blockquote><br />http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective<br />ob⋅jec⋅tive <br /><snip><br />–adjective<br /><br />5. <strong>not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.</strong><br /><br />6. intent upon or dealing with things <strong>external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings</strong>, as a person or a book.<br /><br /><br />"Empathy" is just an excuse for judges not to uphold the law. Empathy is a good quality for a legislator tasked with writing and ammending the law, but not something I want to see in judges tasked with upholding to law in an imopartial manner.<br /><br />Justice should be blind, we don't need to lift her blindfold.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-9208595445328082142009-05-23T13:04:00.000-07:002009-05-23T13:11:04.982-07:00The Torture debate<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/waterboarding-definition-wikipedia24dec05a.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 450px; height: 599px;" src="http://www.harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/waterboarding-definition-wikipedia24dec05a.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />Conservative radio host Eric Mancow <a href="http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html">admits</a> waterboarding is torture<br /><br />Video <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9TzGGsVt60">here</a>.<br /><br />Well that settles that.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-50514633063902453922009-04-15T22:09:00.000-07:002009-04-15T22:12:47.411-07:00Amazing Beauty<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.myparkmag.co.uk/images/cms/2-susan-boyle-2009.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 450px; height: 319px;" src="http://www.myparkmag.co.uk/images/cms/2-susan-boyle-2009.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY">Susan Boyle</a><br /><br />Click the above link, trust me you do not wanna miss this.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-89126400069956905592009-03-17T19:53:00.000-07:002009-03-17T19:58:20.652-07:00Obama administration throws Dodd under the bus to try to save its own hide.<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html">Gleeen Greenwald covers this pathetic turn of events.</a><br /><br /><snip><br /><blockquote>But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><snip><br /><blockquote>The only point here is that what the White House and many journalists are claiming simply did not happen. They're just inventing a false history in order to blame the politically hapless Dodd for what Geithner and Summers did. </blockquote><br /><br />Pretty shameful. So this is what Hope and Change look like?Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-44103629987713939362009-02-05T21:02:00.000-08:002009-02-05T21:26:29.482-08:00The Action Americans Need<a href="http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/doomlogo.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/doomlogo.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />My response to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174_pf.html"><blockquote>this Obama editorial</blockquote></a><br /><br />Are there things in the Stimulas package that benefit from being implimented ASAP? Yes there are. Are there things in the package that could benefit from a longer term debate, analysis and adjustment? Yes there are those as well. So why are we being given this "weapons of mass destruction, must act now" rhetoric? What should be done is to divide this gargantuan bill into two workable parts, one that addresses the immediate that can quickly be acted upon without the need to debate the longer term issues of the remainder. Many of these areas have wider bipartisan support and can be pushed though quickly, leaving the rest for a more detailed evaluation. Given the price tag on this monster of a bill, we really cannot afford to have a do over and care needs to be taken and we should not rush through what need not be rushed. We need to take care of the immediate and not throw in partisan wish lists out of fear of not acting quickly enough. Only a division of the bill is likely to achieve this.<br /><br />The President can play a constructive role and show true leadership by recognizing and dividing the short and longer term necessities and this will allow him to address more bipartisan concerns than writing editorials in the Washington Post trying to hammer in a mantra of "Now is the time", "Now is the time", "Now is the time"....... Sorry, but for much of this package Now is not the time, for some of it, there will never be a time for it. We need clear thinking, time to consider, and the pooling of various information, knowledge and opinions on those parts that aren't of immediate impact which make up a majority of the legislation. We don't need the politics of fear, we had enough of that, we want a change of that, not a continuation under a new banner. Obama's article was entitled "The Action Americans Need", well the real Action American's Need, is a level headed leadership that isn't afraid of a reasoned debate and wont rush to a paniced decision when it need not do so. We need the President to seperate this bill to address both the concern for quick action on some fronts, and the need for wiser and more thought out action on others. We need leadership not a stump speech.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-54412505255085592552009-01-30T18:01:00.000-08:002009-01-30T18:34:29.398-08:00Shoddy Scholarship?A friend of mine on a political forum (although I'm not sure he thinks of me the same way since we often disagree with passion, but nonetheless a pretty good guy I think) posted this:<br /><br /><blockquote>"A more factual synopsis of the Reagan presidency might read like this: That Reagan was a transformative figure in American history, but his real revolution was one of public-relations-meets-politics and not one of policy. He combined his small-town heartland upbringing with a skill for story-telling that was honed on the back lots of Hollywood into a personal narrative that resonated with a majority of voters, but only after it tapped into something darker, which was white middle class resentment of 1960s unrest.<br /><br />His story arc did become more optimistic and peaked at just the right moment, when Americans were tired of the “malaise” of the Jimmy Carter years and wanted someone who promised to make the nation feel good about itself again. But his positive legacy as president today hangs on events that most historians say were to some great measure out of his control: An economic recovery that was inevitable, especially when world oil prices returned to normal levels, and an end to the Cold War that was more driven by internal events in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe than Americans want to acknowledge.<br /><br />His 1981 tax cut was followed quickly by tax hikes that you rarely hear about, and Reagan’s real lasting achievement on that front was slashing marginal rates for the wealthy – even as rising payroll taxes socked the working class. His promise to shrink government was uttered so many time that many acolytes believe it really happened, but in fact Reagan expanded the federal payroll, added a new cabinet post, and created a huge debt that ultimately tripped up his handpicked successor, George H.W. Bush. What he did shrink was government regulation and oversight -- linked to a series of unfortunate events from the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s to the sub-prime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s."</blockquote><br /><br />Now I've seen it from both the left and the right, an effort to go after political "icons" of the other side, thats fine and dandy but you really should be able to offer up something better than shoddy arguments if you wish to do so with acclaim from more than guys on your own side of the political aisle. Now I admit, this is just a snippet from Will Bunch and his book Tear Down this Myth, but I have to wonder at his scholarly abilities with such statements. Kinda reminds me of Ann Coulter with all the bias just minus the outrageousness. <br /><br />Take the bit on taxes and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which I think is part of what you are referring to. Reagan did indeed sign it agreeing to raise taxes, but, he did so with a stipulation you make have forgotten about, that for every $1 of additional taxes, that government reduce spending by $3. Now that is a Conservative ideal.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982<br /><br />Also on that link note the table and the totals. 4 year average of the net effect on tax revenues as a per centage of GDP -0.95 I'd call that a tax reduction. This expression as a % of GDP eliminates distortions due to inflation, total federal reciepts, and real economic growth.<br /><br />Now lets take that new cabinet position mentioned:<br /><br />Guess he's is referring to the cabinet level office of Director of the National Drug Control Policy when he signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988<br /><br />While Reagan was definately for an aggessive approach to the drug issue, Reagan wasn't a big fan of the idea of the big government aspects.<br /><br />http://www.criticism.com/policy/republicans-drug-policy.php<br /><br />Reagan's secretary of health and human services, stressed education and rehabilitation, an approach often taken by Democrats. William J. Bennett, a conservative who served as Reagan's Secretary of Education, argued for greater military involvement in stemming the influx of drugs. He also urged Reagan to appoint a drug czar, but the president opposed it on grounds that it would necessitate more "big government." <br /><br />You have to also remember that that same legislation allowed for the death penalty for drug kingpins, definately a conservate item. Somehow I don't see Reagan signing this bill as a show of him being un Conservative. What I do see, is shoddy scholarship. If some average guy like me can put some quick holes in this guys argument without much effort, can't expect his work to be worth much time.<br /><br />These examples really point to him acting in a non Conservative way, they are examples of him acting in a moderate way to get Conservative items in that he felt important and doing so by working with a democratic Congress to do so. When the opposition is in power in the Congress there are limits on what items of your own agenda you can get through, and there are only certainways to introduce them that will be sucessful, Reagan understood that well, and used them. <br /><br />But, like I said, perhpas I'm wrong and the liberal blogosphere and forum posters are just choosing to post a particularly bad excerpt, and the rest of his work might be stellar. Well, maybe but until I see something with more promise of serious scholarship than this, I think I'll pass on this guys writing. But Hey if your a liberal and like being part of the choir being preached to, by all means run out and buy a copy, you will likely enjoy a partisan show, even if factually challeged.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-26926715125533312632009-01-27T11:14:00.000-08:002009-01-27T11:20:18.162-08:00Nation Tribes and Nation StatesA very interesting piece.<br /><br /><strong><a href="http://americanmohist.blogspot.com/2009/01/paradigm-shift-us-foreign-and-security.html">Paradigm Shift: The US Foreign and Security Policies in Flux</a></strong><br /><br />Excerpt:<br /><blockquote>US policies used to be, and still nominally is, Nation-State centric. Everything the United States does has to be channeled through states and official governments. For example, we know that terrorists reside in, say, Sudan. However, we can't just go in and grab them. We have to petition the Sudanese government for extradition, even though the Sudanese government does not have that much control over the terrorists. Once the terrorists get the wind of an impending extradition, they can use bribes and their contacts in the government to get out of Sudan. And there's nothing we can do about it [except the CIA].</blockquote><br />Another<br /><blockquote>One useful way to think about this shift is on the question of sovereignty: We used to be on the "Theory of Sovereignty", that we assumed every government had full sovereignty, even if reality conflicts with that claim. Now we will operate on "the Test of Sovereignty", where we only acknowledge your sovereignty after you have demonstrated it credibly. To use a dated example, we will acknowledge Indonesia's sovereignty over East Timor only if Indonesia can exercise its sovereign powers over East Timor.</blockquote>Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-19898116830593181042008-12-21T10:19:00.000-08:002008-12-21T10:26:56.950-08:00"Wanker of the Day"<a href="http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_12_14_archive.html#5345665870247988617">Atrios</a><br /><br /><blockquote><p>The three stooges, John, Joe, and Lindsey, go to the Washington Post to tell us<br />that what's important that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121902926.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">we<br />find "consensus" on Iraq.</a>This Washington fetishization of everyone agreeing<br />with each other is just weird. People disagree about stuff. I'd think people in<br />politics would understand that.</p><p> </p><p> </p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes God forbid that politicians should ever try to work togehter and come to an agreement. The far-lefties are just as bad as the far-righties. Atrios meets Ann Coulter. No there is only one stooge here, and that Stooge is Atrios.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-25333730857339656172008-09-27T16:47:00.000-07:002008-09-27T16:48:42.347-07:00Why do they even prentend to want bi-partisanship?Why even pretend, its so obvious.<br /><br />“Today Democrats showed up at scheduled bipartisan talks, but said they forgot to invite the Republicans." --NBC<br /><br />News<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#26905489" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#26905489</a>Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-5926515239657687062008-09-02T08:46:00.000-07:002008-09-02T08:56:39.024-07:00Rumsfeld of the Left?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ-EM3UiZzOE9Y_VqhO3XZ5B9BgYDLBFc0pb8Zy9aATT991s55o1-ZYtxJc2kWbsgC2w5fI9Sg2JGqGQFXAx1gLAf5uzvfwzCgbtpfH_Q2HU2wDRrFIk_ZB2oXYkRMH0EEOyyyFIPXi4Xo/s1600-h/Rumsfeld.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5241452971514725490" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ-EM3UiZzOE9Y_VqhO3XZ5B9BgYDLBFc0pb8Zy9aATT991s55o1-ZYtxJc2kWbsgC2w5fI9Sg2JGqGQFXAx1gLAf5uzvfwzCgbtpfH_Q2HU2wDRrFIk_ZB2oXYkRMH0EEOyyyFIPXi4Xo/s320/Rumsfeld.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Obama sounded a bit Rumsfeldian at the DNC:</div><div></div><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>“You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives,” said Barak Obama during his speech at the Democratic Convention.<br /></div><div>To me this brought back a memory :<br /></div><div>"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."<br /></div><div>–Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction<br /></div><div>So if Mr. Obama knows where Osama Bin Laden's cave is, why doesn't he kindly provide the military with the address? We all know where claims to know something can go exactly wrong.</div><br /><div></div>Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-60942908982969728742008-06-28T08:09:00.000-07:002008-06-28T08:20:36.962-07:00Today's Worst Person in the World<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDT2bI66Cr2rrqfq0gtpkoj-VFyvNLh80I2rFPjBGvoHKpKEHmWNuEchmakEw-Q9FglZdUsn4-RuRqhWW3I0ir743AgaQyR80I0pPlU0WoPmo41OUzh0V85RP3AnWdmsGBJFPdcCIVVBtf/s1600-h/Olbermann_worst.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5216950692332247394" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDT2bI66Cr2rrqfq0gtpkoj-VFyvNLh80I2rFPjBGvoHKpKEHmWNuEchmakEw-Q9FglZdUsn4-RuRqhWW3I0ir743AgaQyR80I0pPlU0WoPmo41OUzh0V85RP3AnWdmsGBJFPdcCIVVBtf/s320/Olbermann_worst.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Glenn Greenwald busts Keith Olbermann for blatant partisanship and selling out for his candidate of choice Here :</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/" target="_blank">http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/</a></div><div></div><div>Excerpt:</div><div></div><div><blockquote><p>What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.<br /><br />Is that really what anyone wants -- transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does? </p><p><br /></p></blockquote></div><div>I don't always agree with Greenwald, but he is consistent, and he will go after Democrats as well as Rebublicans when his values don't match theirs, unlike Olbermann who seems quite willing to sell his soul for his man Obama.</div>Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-75268752459200473372008-03-25T22:47:00.000-07:002008-03-25T23:15:00.841-07:00Obama's Fish Story Speech<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE18bysL1e-BqHTxbYR5H2XXxJlPBnZI-cnpJvWhypbhQ_R9jVXbYcoC-vReVHJ3WAO_ihqw6tO6_6_LRAMPYBbWVqK__T5KntAD8fLt-qfilJMWAjRC61HCD-7oTXsDMO498ZM3NLPAKc/s1600-h/0bama.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5181928762541098562" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE18bysL1e-BqHTxbYR5H2XXxJlPBnZI-cnpJvWhypbhQ_R9jVXbYcoC-vReVHJ3WAO_ihqw6tO6_6_LRAMPYBbWVqK__T5KntAD8fLt-qfilJMWAjRC61HCD-7oTXsDMO498ZM3NLPAKc/s320/0bama.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_race_conversation_what_are_y.html">Jonah wasn't digested by the Obama "Whale of a Speech"</a><br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br /><blockquote>Oh, thank goodness Obama fired the starter's pistol in the race to discuss race. Here I'd been under the impression that every major university (and minor one for that matter) in the country already had boatloads of courses -- often entire majors -- dedicated to race in America. I'd even read somewhere that professors had incorporated racial themes and issues into classes on everything from Shakespeare to the mating habits of snail darters. And scratching faintly in the back of my mind, I felt some vague memory that these same universities recruited black students and other racial minorities, on the grounds that interracial conversations on campus are as important as talking about math, science and literature. A ghost of an image in my mind's eye seemed to reveal African American studies centers, banners for Black History Month and copies of books like "Race Matters" and "The Future of the Race" lined up on shelves at college bookstores.</blockquote>...<br /><br /><blockquote>It all seems so otherworldly. I feel like one of the last humans in an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" movie in which all of the pod people are compelled by some alien DNA to pine continually for yet another "conversation" about a topic we've never, ever stopped talking about. </blockquote>--------------------------------<br /><br />Jonah is exactly right. For a better speech on race look at <a href="http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_gov_aa_00.htm">the one Bill Clinton made in October 1995.</a> Bill at least didn't need a scandal to prompt his voice.<br /><br />BTW Obama, if your so against discrimination why did you support the opposition to Proposition #2 in Michigan in 2006? The one that forbid the State to discriminate based on Race, Gender, or Religion?<br /><br /><strong>PROPOSAL 06-2 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES</strong><br /><br /><em>The proposed constitutional amendment would:<br /><br />• Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.<br /><br />• Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)Should this proposal be adopted?<br /><br />Yes<br /><br />No</em><br /><br />---------------------------<br /><br />How about a third option for Obama?<br /><br />Yes<br /><br />No<br /><br />Hypocrite.<br /><br /><blockquote></blockquote>Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-38158084658754145792008-01-28T21:22:00.001-08:002008-01-28T21:36:53.252-08:00HypocrisyAs much of the Conservative blogosphere lines up to cast stones at john McCain's candidacy, one thing struck me a couple of days ago. Much of their ire comes from McCain's sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance. The argument is usually one that it is an unconstitutional impediment to free speech. Yet I have yet to see any of these conservatives bring Taft- Hartley into the debate. Taft-Hartley severely restrained the influence of the trade unions, and among its provisions were limits on campaign finance. Perhaps they should revisit and discuss this act along with McCain-Feingold when making their claims of unconstitutionality.<br /><br />While they are at it they might also look at; The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, The Federal Election Campaign Act, The Hatch Act, The Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867, The Civil Service Reform Act, The Smith-Connally Act, The Espionage Act of 1917, and The Sedition Act of 1918.<br /><br />Campaign finance restrictions that are viewed as unconstitutional only when they work against one's party, but not when they benefit it seem the epitome of hypocrisy to me. That's why I dismiss those who make this criticism of McCain-Feingold as partisan hypocrites and fools. It would be refreshing to see them called on this more often and forced to defend their positions to the blogosphere at large.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-85916785304305441602008-01-23T16:35:00.000-08:002008-01-23T16:59:19.817-08:00Divided we fallI haven't blogged much recently. There have been plenty of worthy issues that have merited it for sure, but I've taken a bit of a step back on many current issues to get a little bit of perception. One thing that is quite troubling with the Presidential primary process in full swing now is how so many candidates are dividing America for their own political careers. Although in many cases it might be done with the noblest intentions and a firm belief in their own visions, the candidates are for the most part pulling us apart as they launch dogmatic assaults on each other.<br /><br />The resent escalation of hostilities between Hiliary Clinton and Barrack O'Bama is the latest in the series. One thing I had found quite admirable about O'Bama, was his appeal as a uniter, and although I think the Clinton camp was responsible for beginning the escalation, I have seen little from the O'Bama camp as far as taking a moral high ground to try to unite when faced by this sort of tactic. If he can't manage this with the Clinton campaign, will he be able to manage it vs a Republican candidate? If he wins the Presidency will he be able to unite the people if a large portion of Congress is hostile? I'm simply not impressed by his performance here, nor that of Senator Clinton.<br /><br />On the Republican side, Mitt Romney seems to be about as divisive figure as anyone could imagine, and Mike Huckabee's recent pandering to the Pro Confederate flag crowd to win votes at the expense of inflaming deep divisions show little promise of uniting a nation if either were elected. I'm from South Carolina and I an very much for the Confederate flag, though as a sign of heritage, and not as one of racism as many of the more ignorant of my fellow South Carolinians indeed do, so I'm not speeking against Huckabee's feelings on the issue itself, but on his using it for his own benefit despite the fact he would be applying the fan to the fire when it doesn't need be applied. Thus far Rudy Giuliani has pretty much alienated 1/2 the country with his assaults on the Democrats for political gain, making him one of the worst of the lot.<br /><br />That leaves me with John McCain. I'll tell you upfront here that I'm a long time McCain supporter. I see him as a uniter that can bring together the center, the moderate left and the moderate right, and even some from the far-right. The bad thing (or maybe its a good one) is that those who don't like him, tend to dislike him with a passion. But those are members of his own party. They will continue to apply fire to the situation even if he is elected making compromises with the other side of the aisle more difficult for McCain. So can he truly unite the country, or does he also fall short like the others? It will certainly be a political tightrope, with critics lining up on both sides. But maybe this is the correct test for America, whether a candidate who is more open to working with both sides of the aisle and facing criticism on both fronts will perform better than one who is firmly entrenched on one side who while having no chance to appeal to about 1/2 the electorate, still has a better chance of attracting the appeal of the other half than a McCain tightrope act would.<br /><br />Yet, for all the dangers of a double bladed sword slicing at a McCain approach, I'm not ready to surrender 1/2 the population's wishes to the other half in the "safety" of pure partisanship. Its a test whose time has come, and whether we will or will not be able to pass it is a question of the utmost importance.<br /><br />United we Stand<br /><br />Divided we Fall<br /><br />..and Fail.Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8918090487999027265.post-46942648537944996472007-11-09T11:54:00.001-08:002007-11-09T12:00:10.445-08:00Political Correctness gone crazyA hair salon owner is being sued for religious discrimination after refusing a Muslim teenager a job as a stylist because she wore a headscarf?<br /><br /><br />Story <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/08/nhair108.xml">here</a>:<br /><br />Whats next a Muslim woman suing for being refused a job in a shampoo commercial?Leonidashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00036778180409322463noreply@blogger.com0