I certainly hope so. Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he will let the FISA version that contains retroactive telecommunications immunity proceed to a floor vote on Monday. Back in October, Senator Chris Dodd vowed to do whatever it takes, including a filibuster, to keep this version of FISA from being made law. Also, at the time, the other presidential candidates currently serving in the Senate: Clinton, Obama and Biden all pledged to publicly support Dodd's filibuster. Dodd's campaign is asking folks to remind the candidates of that pledge. We'll see if they stay true to their word and actually demonstrate their worthiness to be president.
This also means that we, again, need to make sure that our senators know that we expect them to stand up for us, even if that means supporting the filibuster. Now, I don't expect Gordon Smith to support anything having to do with choosing citizens over big business money in his pockets, but I do expect Wyden to do so. Or at least I hope he does.Late this afternoon, Wyden released a statement regarding Reid's decision. (Typos and misspells are from the release)
I want to say a word about the process which the distinguished senate majority leader has jus touched on. I was one of two in the senate intelligence committee to oppose the intelligence committee's version of the legislation. I am strongly opposed to granting telecommunications companies total retroactive immunity when they have been accused of wrongdoing in the president's wireless wiretapping legislation. It was the major reasonable why i opposed the legislation.
I do, however, respect Senator Reid's decision to hold the debate on this legislation under the regular senate rules. certainly, the distinguished majority leader has been under a lot of pressure from all sides to change the rules that in one way might favor one side or the other, but i think the majority leader has made the right decision by insisting that this debate go by the book.
I've had the chance now to work with the distinguished majority leader for more than a quarter of a century. I know how much respect he has for the senate and for this institution. He firmly believes in the committee process. He firmly believes in the senate rules and traditions, and he worked to carry those beliefs out as both the minority whip and the minority leader.
I'm heartened by his statement that he strongly disagrees with the immunity, and that leads me to believe that he will definitely vote against it. Ron Wyden is no stranger to the filibuster (big oil) and has used the threat of one on several occassions, particularly around Alito, death with dignity, and net neutrality.
Wyden is known as a nice man and as respectful of his fellow senators. I admire that about him. However, hopefully this respectfulness doesn't extend to supporting Reid over the rights of American citizens against rampant corporate invasion of privacy and disregard for the law.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Calls for Cheney Impeachment
Well, if I didn't already know that the mainstream media picks and chooses its stories, and that major announcements are made at the end of the day on Fridays, when it is assumed that no one is paying attention, it would surprise me that I haven't seen this headline on any major outlets:
Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.
This is BIG news folks! Is it time to start partying in the streets, or anything? No, of course not, but when you have people in Congress finally standing up and recognizing that the actions taken by this administration are too great to ignore, it needs to be news, particularly when those people belong to the body that is assigned the investigative authority, to begin with:
Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, “A Case for Hearings,” that declares, “The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.”
It's fairly well-known that Rep. John Conyers, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is, and has been, open to investigating Cheney. However, evidently Pelosi has kept the pressure on to not pursue an investigation. Something tells me we won't find out her motives until she is long gone.
According to the article though:
It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi — or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney’s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.
Let's keep our fingers crossed. For good measure, drop a note to Conyers, urging him to move ahead with an investigation.
And here is the rest of it.
Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.
This is BIG news folks! Is it time to start partying in the streets, or anything? No, of course not, but when you have people in Congress finally standing up and recognizing that the actions taken by this administration are too great to ignore, it needs to be news, particularly when those people belong to the body that is assigned the investigative authority, to begin with:
Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, “A Case for Hearings,” that declares, “The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.”
It's fairly well-known that Rep. John Conyers, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is, and has been, open to investigating Cheney. However, evidently Pelosi has kept the pressure on to not pursue an investigation. Something tells me we won't find out her motives until she is long gone.
According to the article though:
It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi — or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney’s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.
Let's keep our fingers crossed. For good measure, drop a note to Conyers, urging him to move ahead with an investigation.
2426 Rayburn BuildingWashington, DC 20515 (202) 225-5126
2615 W. Jefferson Trenton, MI 48183 (734) 675-4084
669 Federal Building231 W. LafayetteDetroit, MI 48226 (313) 961-5670
And here is the rest of it.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Recession in Oregon?
Honestly, I don't know. I am not an economist nor do I desire to be one! There is an interesting report that has been released, however, by the real ecnomists at the University of Oregon. Obviously they don't guarantee a coming recession, but if history is any indication, unfortunately the chances are pretty good (bad?) that things aren't going to be pretty.
"As a general rule," according to the Oregon Economic Forum's monthly report released Monday morning, "a decline in the index of greater than 2 percent over six months (annualized), coupled with a decline in more than half of its components, signals that a recession is likely imminent."
The index, maintained by the UO College of Arts and Sciences and its Economics Department, tracks eight indicators ranging from interest rates to payrolls.
In October the index dropped 0.5 percent to 102.0 -- the third consecutive monthly fall. (The index stood at 100 in 1997). Oregon initial unemployment claims rose in October to the highest level since November 2006. Residential building permits issued in the state dropped to the lowest level since September 2000.
Economists cautioned that the "general rule" merely signals, but by no means guarantees, that a recession is coming. But their report highlighted October's negative results, and said: "A decline of this breadth and magnitude preceded the 2001 recession and suggests a weak economic environment in the near term."
This would be one of those times that I hope that the professionals and experts have no idea what they are talking about. I'm not holding my breath.
And here is the rest of it.
"As a general rule," according to the Oregon Economic Forum's monthly report released Monday morning, "a decline in the index of greater than 2 percent over six months (annualized), coupled with a decline in more than half of its components, signals that a recession is likely imminent."
The index, maintained by the UO College of Arts and Sciences and its Economics Department, tracks eight indicators ranging from interest rates to payrolls.
In October the index dropped 0.5 percent to 102.0 -- the third consecutive monthly fall. (The index stood at 100 in 1997). Oregon initial unemployment claims rose in October to the highest level since November 2006. Residential building permits issued in the state dropped to the lowest level since September 2000.
Economists cautioned that the "general rule" merely signals, but by no means guarantees, that a recession is coming. But their report highlighted October's negative results, and said: "A decline of this breadth and magnitude preceded the 2001 recession and suggests a weak economic environment in the near term."
This would be one of those times that I hope that the professionals and experts have no idea what they are talking about. I'm not holding my breath.
And here is the rest of it.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Still Kennedy's Party?
Religion in America, and the role it plays in how our country is governed is a hot topic these days. The religious right has worked for years to convince us that we are a "Christian" nation and that our laws should be designed and administered in accordance with the tenets of the Christian church. Even worse, they contend that this was the original intent of the founders of this country. Obviously they haven't spent much time really reading Washington, Paine, Jefferson, or even better Madison.
I started thinking about writing this post as I was reading an incredibly powerful Kos diary entry. The author addresses, among other things, the current comparisons between Romney and JFK (which to me is a bit like comparing James Madison with Jerry Falwell, but that's another post) by focusing on the entirety of Kennedy's speech to a collection of Protestant leaders when he was running for president. Contrary to the current spin that would have us believe that he made the speech in order to defend his own Catholicism, Kennedy spoke directly to his unshakable belief in the separation of church and state.
In his speech Kennedy insists that he believes in an American in which "no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference." At no point does Kennedy coddle his audience by suggesting that he will allow a crack in the wall. Instead, he challenges them to put up or shut up.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
He goes on to say:
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
"Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood".
When Kennedy made his speech, he also made it clear that he would much prefer to discuss issues much more critical to the strength and welfare of this country:
"I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to eat breakfast at school anymore."
I started thinking about writing this post as I was reading an incredibly powerful Kos diary entry. The author addresses, among other things, the current comparisons between Romney and JFK (which to me is a bit like comparing James Madison with Jerry Falwell, but that's another post) by focusing on the entirety of Kennedy's speech to a collection of Protestant leaders when he was running for president. Contrary to the current spin that would have us believe that he made the speech in order to defend his own Catholicism, Kennedy spoke directly to his unshakable belief in the separation of church and state.
In his speech Kennedy insists that he believes in an American in which "no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference." At no point does Kennedy coddle his audience by suggesting that he will allow a crack in the wall. Instead, he challenges them to put up or shut up.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
He goes on to say:
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
"Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood".
When Kennedy made his speech, he also made it clear that he would much prefer to discuss issues much more critical to the strength and welfare of this country:
"While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space."
Amazing how we have so many of the same pressing issues as almost fifty years ago.
It's on this topic that I think the Kos article really gets to the core of alot of things.
"Any and all of those issues might have been the centerpiece of a Democratic speech today, because those issues remain unsolved. And oddly enough, many of these issues were also on the mind of the man who two thousand years ago stood up in his family church and announced that "I come bringing good news for the poor.""
There is a link in the article that takes you to an audio clip of Republican voters being interviewed in Iowa ahead of the upcoming primaries. At one point, one of them says,"I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to eat breakfast at school anymore."
Here is how the author responds to that, because I cannot say it any better:
Get that? She makes not just enough money, but a "great deal of money." How dare anyone take it away for something so frivolous as feeding a poor child? And yet Republicans, through their actions in blurring the lines between church and state, have become the "party of faith." Because they say so. Because they are bold in their actions and snarling in their defense.
Note that we should not pretend that "a program will take your money." Or "the government will take your money." This is a democracy, and we are the government. I will take your money. I will. Some of that money you worked hard for and want to keep. I will give it to a kid who is hungry. If your concern is that poverty should be addressed by individuals, then there's a simple solution: feed him. If there are no poor children needing food, I won't have to take anything for them. If your position is that people would be more generous if only the government would stay out of it, then sorry. I'm not willing to put this child at risk to as part of your experiment. Besides, if that were true, then why were their more hungry kids before we started these programs to give them a little breakfast? If your position is that your being able to keep all your money is more important than a child being fed, then I simply think you're wrong. And sick. You want to keep that money? You better beat me at the polls.
The strategy of vultures gives us both a party and a nation that would embarrass John Kennedy. The erosion of that barrier between the interest of the state and that of the church gives us a church that Jesus would not recognize. As an American and a Christian, I find both results terrifying.
I've been reading about a growing backlash among evangelical groups against their far-right leadership because they have come to recognize that the racist, classist, hate-filled diatribe that those leaders are spewing and pursuing do not, in reality, truly represent the faith that they pretend so hard to appear to represent. I can only hope that the backlash continues to grow.
I can also only hope that the Democratic leadership will cease cowering behind the selfish need to win races and really stand up for what the party is supposed to be about. Just as it has been apparent for many years that the Republican party is no longer Lincoln's party, we are fast approaching a time when it will be said that the Democratic party is not Kennedy's party. That is a sad day that I hope won't come.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Gordon Smith is SO not a moderate or friend of Oregon
The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief bill has stalled in the Senate. What's that you ask? Well, it is a bill that would have "protected millions of middle-class taxpayers from being hit with a surprise tax increase over the next several months" including more than 220,000 Oregon families, to start with. It also would have extended tuition tax credits for 53,000 Oregon college students and their families and the tax credits for 33,000 Oregon teachers who have out of pocket expenses in their jobs.
While Gordon Smith continues to insist on painting himself as a moderate who is not in cahoots with the Bush agenda, he exposes the hypocrisy of this claim when it comes down to actually voting in the best interests of his own constituents, by voting against legislation like this current bill and voting with what the administration wants. How much longer can Smith honestly and truly deceive himself into believing that Oregonians are really so unaware of what he is doing, or that we don't care? I guess we'll find out when Merkley retires Smith from the Senate.
While Gordon Smith continues to insist on painting himself as a moderate who is not in cahoots with the Bush agenda, he exposes the hypocrisy of this claim when it comes down to actually voting in the best interests of his own constituents, by voting against legislation like this current bill and voting with what the administration wants. How much longer can Smith honestly and truly deceive himself into believing that Oregonians are really so unaware of what he is doing, or that we don't care? I guess we'll find out when Merkley retires Smith from the Senate.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Domestic Partnership, Equality, the Religious Right...and Blackwater
I'm really not easily shocked, and I don't know why I was when I was introduced to some seriously disturbing news last evening. Many may already know that Oregon's Domestic Parnership Law, scheduled to take effect on January 1st, 2008, has been the target of a referendum effort by the anti-gay zealots in Oregon. Recently, they failed to collect enough signatures to get a referendum on the ballot for next November. If they had succeeded, the law would have been put on hold until after the election.
Yesterday, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the referendum sponsors, against the state of Oregon and the Secretary of State, charging that they had collected enough signatures and that the state played favorites in the verification process.
The complaint filed in Federal Court by out of state attorneys alleges that Oregon's Secretary of State and a dozen county clerks erred by not creating special procedures to reinstate the signatures of people who said they had signed the petition, but whose signatures were found to be invalid using well established criteria.
Now, this lawsuit was not unexpected by me. It is pretty much par for the course as far as anti-gay and right-wing extremists are concerned. The lawsuit isn't what shocked me, nor is it what really frightens me now. What I find so disturbing here is who is behind the lawsuit, and their connections to other things.
Yesterday, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the referendum sponsors, against the state of Oregon and the Secretary of State, charging that they had collected enough signatures and that the state played favorites in the verification process.
The complaint filed in Federal Court by out of state attorneys alleges that Oregon's Secretary of State and a dozen county clerks erred by not creating special procedures to reinstate the signatures of people who said they had signed the petition, but whose signatures were found to be invalid using well established criteria.
Now, this lawsuit was not unexpected by me. It is pretty much par for the course as far as anti-gay and right-wing extremists are concerned. The lawsuit isn't what shocked me, nor is it what really frightens me now. What I find so disturbing here is who is behind the lawsuit, and their connections to other things.
The anti-gay forces in this case are being represented by an organization called the Alliance Defense Fund, an ultra-conservative group that began as a litigation funding pool for right-wing organizations, like Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice. Eventually, the ADF decided to get directly involved in the litigation fun.
What is so disturbing about this? Well, a little background on the ADF and more importantly, who is bankrolling it.
Much of the ADF's funding comes from some very powerful (and rich) far-right sources.
“Some of the major donors include the Covenant Foundation, financed by the ‘Granddaddy’ of the Texas Christian Right, business mogul James Leininger, and the Bolthouse Foundation, which is underwritten chiefly with profits from Bolthouse Farms, a family-run California company whose products are often seen at organic markets and Whole Foods. Bolthouse requires recipients of its grants to pledge adherence to a statement of faith that includes the declaration that ‘man was created by a direct act of God in His image, not from previously existing creatures’ and a belief in ‘the everlasting blessedness of the saved and the everlasting punishment of the lost', and various members of the Amway-Prince Automotive empire, including the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation"
First of all, remind me not to shop at Whole Foods anymore!
I specifically want to focus on the Amway-Prince Automotive folks. Erik Prince, son of Edgar (who co-founded the Family Research Council, a leading right-wing Christian group)and Elsa Prince, is vice-president of the Foundation, while his sister, Betsy is wife to Amway magnate, right-wing financier, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Richard DeVos. Erik, a former Navy SEAL and right-wing, born-again Christian, served as an intern in the G.W. Bush Whitehouse. A major Republican contributor, multimillionaire Prince is well-known for something else. As indicated by the title of this post, Erik Prince is tied directly to Blackwater USA, as its cofounder with another ex-Navy SEAL, Gary Jackson (Blackwater's current president). Prince serves as Blackwater's vice-president.
And we wonder why Blackwater gets a seemingly free ride with the administration, or why it makes billions for its work, in the name of the United States government?
Blackwater is a private mercenary army that operates around the globe, and here in our own backyard. They provide the "security" in New Orleans and are building a huge "training camp" in California. This is a truly scary organization, and the fact that they are being legitimized by the United States government and directed by far-right Christian fundamentalists only makes them even more scary.
I remember reading last year sometime (I forget where) an editorial in which it was proposed that the neocon element of the Republican party had highjacked the religious right for their own purposes. That made alot of sense to me. At the time, and still, the dominant thought is that it is the religious extremists have highjacked the Republican party. I think it's some of both.
What is so disturbing about this? Well, a little background on the ADF and more importantly, who is bankrolling it.
Much of the ADF's funding comes from some very powerful (and rich) far-right sources.
“Some of the major donors include the Covenant Foundation, financed by the ‘Granddaddy’ of the Texas Christian Right, business mogul James Leininger, and the Bolthouse Foundation, which is underwritten chiefly with profits from Bolthouse Farms, a family-run California company whose products are often seen at organic markets and Whole Foods. Bolthouse requires recipients of its grants to pledge adherence to a statement of faith that includes the declaration that ‘man was created by a direct act of God in His image, not from previously existing creatures’ and a belief in ‘the everlasting blessedness of the saved and the everlasting punishment of the lost', and various members of the Amway-Prince Automotive empire, including the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation"
First of all, remind me not to shop at Whole Foods anymore!
I specifically want to focus on the Amway-Prince Automotive folks. Erik Prince, son of Edgar (who co-founded the Family Research Council, a leading right-wing Christian group)and Elsa Prince, is vice-president of the Foundation, while his sister, Betsy is wife to Amway magnate, right-wing financier, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Richard DeVos. Erik, a former Navy SEAL and right-wing, born-again Christian, served as an intern in the G.W. Bush Whitehouse. A major Republican contributor, multimillionaire Prince is well-known for something else. As indicated by the title of this post, Erik Prince is tied directly to Blackwater USA, as its cofounder with another ex-Navy SEAL, Gary Jackson (Blackwater's current president). Prince serves as Blackwater's vice-president.
And we wonder why Blackwater gets a seemingly free ride with the administration, or why it makes billions for its work, in the name of the United States government?
Blackwater is a private mercenary army that operates around the globe, and here in our own backyard. They provide the "security" in New Orleans and are building a huge "training camp" in California. This is a truly scary organization, and the fact that they are being legitimized by the United States government and directed by far-right Christian fundamentalists only makes them even more scary.
I remember reading last year sometime (I forget where) an editorial in which it was proposed that the neocon element of the Republican party had highjacked the religious right for their own purposes. That made alot of sense to me. At the time, and still, the dominant thought is that it is the religious extremists have highjacked the Republican party. I think it's some of both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)