Here We Go Again, another Battle

Well, the President has officially announced the nominee for the Supreme Court.
I dreaded this moment because I knew no matter whom he nominated there would be a fight.

I was watching CBS and Bob Schieffer put it plainly. The process from here will be contentious not because of the nominee but because of the tough election year. And it is more about not agreeing with President Obama on anything.

That really is ridiculous. But explains anything that happens politically lately.

So I dreaded President Obama having another decision or another policy to try.
What kind of people are found in "our" Congress? Self perpetuating, they hope.
Are those jobs that much fun? No. Must be money and power-yep.
When will they decide to do the right thing, no matter the elections. I would hope someone helping to make our laws would just finally say I will do what is right no matter the elections. It isn't like they won't find other jobs or make more money on the pundit circuit.

So that is why I dreaded the announcement. I still think Pres. Obama must regret getting the job and probably late at night when he is alone,considers not running again.

Bragging Rights

Am I crazy?

Reports are that Massachusetts may well send a Republican, a "no to health care" and another photogenic Republican at that, to replace Sen. Kennedy. Here is NY Times Topics on Mr. Brown OK that is pretty in your face for the Republicans. They get bragging rights for even coming close. (By the way, don't Republicans hate lawyers?) I hate to hear it though as they won't admit it is because they are good at their jobs. Instead they will say it is because the people have spoken against this and this and ...

What I can't understand is how the state that has it's own health care "reform" gets to decide for the rest of us whether we will have "reform" or not. I may not like the bills as they are but I was hoping to wait and see what the final version looked like. Oh I will, but Massachusetts gets to decide if it matters or not.

Who is running the Democratic Party-nationally or in Massachusetts? Were they asleep? How could they lose with States Atty Gen. Coakley as their candidate? Her information as in NY Times
Wasn't there a way to keep track of the Republican campaign? When the guy compared himself in some round-a-bout way to JFK, where were the folks to call him on it?Someone needs to lose their job. Probably more than one someone needs to lose jobs.I know this is a recession, no that's over, jobless recovery, but some Democrat campaign manager needs to lose his/her job.

So shame on the Dems. and shame on the Repubs. and shame on us, the easily led, ignorant voters.

And here is the Mark Twain quote for the day:

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.

(Reference Site)

I hate to say this but maybe he got this one wrong.

As a post script here is quotation from an article about "Hardball" coverage of the two Massachusetts campaigns:

Beyond noting the obvious impact on health-care legislation, Matthews shed little light on the experience and policy positions of the two candidates. Instead, watchers of “Hardball” got to hear Coakley’s brief confusion over Schilling’s allegiance in the Yankees- Red Sox rivalry and learned that Scott Brown is a photogenic guy who travels around in a truck.

Matthews dispensed with the serious stuff. He had little interest in mentioning Coakley’s history as an aggressive prosecutor, her central role in winning settlements from contractors of Boston’s infamous Big Dig project and from Wall Street firms that engaged in deceptive practices, including $60 million from Goldman Sachs to settle allegations that it promoted unfair home loans...

Be Careful Who Decides for You

After reading a post at the foundation-wallace entitled: Cointelpro, I began to wonder about generational differences, historically speaking. Thomas is apparently much younger than I. Which then led to the definition of generation. demographics from the Census Bureau is very interesting. Basically though a generation is considered those being born within a 10-12 year time frame.

Back to Thomas' post. I did not know the term Cointelpro, but was certainly aware of much that happened. In particular the things that happened when the Director of the FBI was J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI bio.

I remember the TV show "I Led Three Lives" synopsis here. Many in my family watched it every week.
Even though it was based on a book about spying in the 40's, to me it was happening all around me. I was pretty young. Young enough to believe that the FBI was wonderful and anything they did was all right with me. By the 70's I would finally begin to wonder about civil rights for all. (What can I say, I was wrapped up in my own little life.)

Personally, I don't care whether Dir. Hoover was a cross-dresser, gay, black, or white. None of these types of things interest me until I run across someone who yells the hardest and attacks others for their personal preferences. The thing was that Hoover was black-mailing all kinds of "important" people to get power and to keep power. When he didn't have legitimate cause to go after someone he probably made it up. No one dared try to reign him in at all.

So here is a little research on the FBI under Hoover to get the next generation started.


Dir. Hoover probably did believe His Way was best for the country. This quote may be of interest to you:

"I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who has been hoodwinked and duped into joining hands with the communists..." Testimony of J. Edgar Hoover before HUAC - March 26, 1947

I found it Here.

From the same site on Dr. King:

J. Edgar Hoover's obsession with King is also well-documented in FBI files. These files show examples such as the FBI calling Marquette University in 1964 to tell them not to award an honorary degree to King. At Springfield College (Mass.) a month later, the FBI told the college that King's SCLC was "Communist affiliated". J. Edgar & Martin

Hoover's FBI mailed tapes of King's sexual affairs to his wife and tried to blackmail him politically; in an anonymous letter, encouraged him to commit suicide; and, among other disinformation successes, convinced Marquette University officials in 1964 to back out of giving King an honorary degree. [source]

Dir. Hoover appears to be certain he was protecting the country from the evil communists. He was a man of certainty. Speaking of certainty here is one of my spouse' favorite quotations, (probably next to "a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." Kipling) often called the certainty quote, which probably applies to Dir. Hoover and upon further thought humans:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

(Yeats, Wm. Butler)

Keep that quotation in mind when you are willing to give up some of your civil rights. Or put another way-when you believe that in order to be secure some civil rights must go out the window, who will decide which "little" rights you will give up and who will decide how far to go to protect your security. As we now see with some of the DNA analysis being done, many an innocent person has been found guilty.

Protests at Home and Abroad?

Robert Reich's Blog post of November 17th: Obama, China, and Wishful Thinking About American Jobs is very interesting. You can find it here

He quoted Pres. Obama: “We cannot go back...”
“...we're taking out a bunch of credit-card debt of home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them.” Dr. Reich is discussing here the wish that the many Chinese will become consumers of American goods and services.

He went on to describe one reason the Chinese government will not, cannot, let that happen. Why they are building more factories to produce more than they can consume. If they do not create more jobs for the poor that are heading for the factories, they face possible “massive disorder”.

Thus China wants American “know-how”. So in order to sell products in China, US companies must cut deals to make goods in China not in the US. He ends this blog post with the following:

Both societies are threatened by the disconnect between production and consumption. In China, the threat is civil unrest. In the U.S., it's a prolonged jobs and earnings recession that, when combined with widening inequality, could create political backlash.

Why is it that in the U.S. The fear is only of political backlash? Why isn't there more “civil unrest” here? Of course civil unrest here doesn't need to be the same as in China. We don't need to worry about deaths to the demonstrators. We don't need to worry about trials for the demonstrators. Well mostly we don't have to fear these reactions. Why?

There are many questions in that paragraph. Maybe you have some good answers? Here are a few of my thoughts.

Maybe we are getting older and lazier? Maybe we are too busy watching TV? Maybe we are just too depressed to march? Maybe we no longer feel we have any way to make changes- “Our government doesn't listen no matter what we do.” ? Maybe we don't have the money to make the trip to ...? Maybe we have so much going on, or not as the case may be, we are in a state of confusion? (Sometimes that is me) Too many groups asking you to email, write, call, or march about so many good causes?

As for the last Why: Maybe the government and the politicians have figured out that if you let people march in protest without a lot of push back they won't get much coverage and they will pack up and go back to their meager little lives after their little protests. Think about it.

With all these questions and the many answers, the vote becomes more important than ever. My idea is that maybe instead of dread and disgust with politicians and politics we should start to study them now.
Remember 2010 could get very interesting.
Don't forget Vote Smart. It is a good way to keep up to date and keep track.

Photo is an edited photo taken by my Baby Brother.

Can You Make a Difference? More on Word Play

While rereading parts of Dr. R. Reich's book, Locked in the Cabinet, I discovered a conversation Dr. Reich had with his wife, Clare, about living in Washington. (Washington here meaning the Federal Government Washington) Her take on Washington is not new.

Dr. Reich has his Page at Wikipedia if you are interested. Read the paragraph on this book there. Apparently he fictionalized some conversations.

Whether fictionalized or not her description of Washington is one to which many of us can relate.

It's always the same thing. Who's up? Who's down? Who's in? Who;s out?
It's a one-company town, Bob. Everyone works for the same company in
some way or other. Politicians, journalists, bureaucrats, lawyers, lobbyists.
And all that really counts is your rank in the company. Power, power, power!
No one cares about ideas, values, or even their families.

Robert B. Reich, Locked in the Cabinet, Alfred A. Knopf, NY,1997,Page 5

And while perusing a “blog of note”Meanderings in Hickville I came upon this: “Parks dedicated to liars should catch on in the states. Every politician will have their very own swing set. “ Under a picture in Italy of a park named for Pinocchio. Do Italians really love liars or just puppets that would be boys?

How many times have you heard politics or government described in similar terms. All my life I have heard people say things like: “they're all crooked”; or that voting is picking “the lessor of the evils”; or why should I “it won't make any difference”...

Now take a look at the N.Y. Timestoday. The front page, above the Internet fold, is stories of decisions being made in our names, or not, many of which are tied to money and money is, or buys, power. (Of course, I expect Dr. Krugman to write about money or banking or some parts of the economy.)

The article concerning the war in Afghanistan and the Taliban economy is well written but not really much new. What is striking are comments about how it is a bigger economy than was thought by a member of the House Representatives and that the decision to send more troops depends to some degree on Taliban economy. That decision is also dependent on whether there is an “legitimate” government of the country. The Karzai government is accused of fraud both in the election and in the governing of Afghanistan. The government is accused of ties to drug money, the same drug money the Taliban unofficially taxes.

Another article is on the lobbying of the climate change bill. The different energy groups are each trying to attack different parts of the bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars being spent. Who knows if these groups being split will help or hinder the passage of legislation but money is power.

There is an editorial concerning income tax evasion by the wealthy in various ways. This is one about the off-shore accounts and more on the Swiss Bank Accounts. It ends by saying maybe we can now get the wealthy to pay their taxes. (Dream on)

New arrests in hedge-fund scandals and again in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

There are two articles concerning us peons. One is really more about foreclosures causing stresses on the homeless shelters. The other is a slide show article on gardening and cleaning up a neighborhood in Flint, Michigan. In small ways people made a difference in one neighborhood.

Then read Dr. Reich's blog post on paying hush money and the health care reform. Big money therefore big power. No matter what people really wanted in the first place.

No wonder we all feel it is us versus them. Just look at the above articles as view of the spread of wealth. Maybe it is just life in a capitalistic society where money is power or the purchase thereof.

One big way for you to make a difference in the decisions made for you is if the “you” is a collective pronoun, sometimes replaced with “you guys” or “y'all”, not the singular pronoun. Then the “you” will become “we the people”. Nah, don't count on it. “We the people” will probably never totally agree with the “yous” of us. Yet opting out or “fence-sitting” is making a decision to allow others to decide for “YOU” the singular.

Another Word That Bothers Me in Its Present Usage

While checking some of the blogs I follow this morning, I stopped to read the blog of Southern Beale The Business of Dehumanization
Just click on the link in Blogs I Follow or here
The blog post this time has much on our educational system in its present state. The word "product" popped into my head. I remember not too many years ago when some in the US began to speak of our students as products. I hated it then and I still do. You may want to read the post from the foundation-wallace and really think about it. I also remember about the same time schools started "working with" corporations and businesses to find out what kinds of "products" they needed.
In the Southern Beale post there is a lament about civics no longer being taught. True. Several of my many old books are on teaching civics. I mean real civics, things like how your government works and how a voter has a duty to be educated. In fact some of the books teach how it is a "civic duty" to be educated and follow the government activities so you can vote.
Also along the educational trail I saw a report somewhere about a great school. They were getting the "products" physically moving because they realized that obesity is a problem. Why they were even exercising and had recess.
Let me tell you this little tale. One of my nieces' schools decided to drop recess because they just couldn't afford to pay someone to be on the playground with the little "products". Folks this was before the Recession hit.
I also remember President Kennedy's physical fitness program.link here

Back to the "corporate product" idea. My memory fails me. When did the big drive happen to turn out "products" for the use of corporate America? Hereis an interesting, very interesting, article on the state of the business of education. It is called The 500-Pound Gorilla. You will find paragraphs on a Business Task Force and how the needs of business must be used in the school curricula as a way to bolster the economy among other issues. I strongly recommend you read it.

With thanks to my spouse for the photo here.

While Watching the Senate on Cspan-2 one day...

While watching two Republican Senators on the floor of the Senate I just shake my head.
They are holding what is called a colloquy on the health care issues. A colloquy is a discussion. In the Senate, one Senator has the floor and is holding it, another Senator asks for a colloquy with the first and away they go. A colloquy is used while waiting on someone else to come to the floor or when the two involved have a scripted conversation and one has the floor time assigned to him or her.

These two just brought up a "fact". Seniors are against the health care bill thus far by 2 to 1 because they will lose some coverage under Medicare. These two, Republicans remember, are for the Seniors. Isn't the Republican party the one that not too many years ago was yelling about Seniors cannibalizing their children and grandchildren? Wasn't this the party that was wanting to do away with, fought against forever, Medicare? Isn't this the party that has had Medicare on their hit list since its inception?

But then there is this: These two are saying because the bill and the President want to cut the government subsidies to Medicare Advantage companies that is cutting Medicare. HUH? Please read this article from the Washington Posthere We, the taxpayers are subsidizing these companies.
Free enterprise? Capitalism at its finest? I think not? Government helping big business? I think.

My take on other articles I could find along with a little history of the Medicare Advantage program is that it started off saving then as with all these ideas to promote "outsourcing" the government to private contractors it now costs more than the government version. That too, is one of my concerns about a so-called "trigger" option for health care. The private sector insurers will keep costs down only as long as they have to do so.

Yes, and the two Senators want to put the bill up on the internet for 72 hours for the public to review and then 2 or so weeks for the public to comment back to them.
Isn't this the party that for the last 8 years did away with most of the Sunshine Law? Besides that little "fact", I really hope you will think about trying to read one of these bills. I often say I don't know how the Congresspeople do it. How does the staff for them do it? How does anyone do it? Well in the case of the Congresspeople they expect the staff to do it for them and fill them in on the fine print. The staff knows what the Congressperson, or the Party, wants to find or not find so that is what they get in their reports. Well, maybe not all staffers do it but my guess is most do-if they want the job for long.

More later, I must go check out the Senate,Circus Maximus, so-called debate now.
Later today I believe they will be debating Defense Spending.

Just found this

On Senator Edward Kennedy and Other Things

Sad moment for us liberals sure needed him for pushing the health care. now what will we get stuck with.

The above quotation is from a family member upon reading about Sen. Kennedy's death. Maybe he should have said; sad moment for all who are below the poverty level, without health care, those of us who, for many reasons need a champion.

Sen. Kennedy was human. No doubt about that. But politically, he was a champion for those in need.
During the coverage of the Senator yesterday someone said the Senator quoted from the new testament. “But of everyone to whom much as been given, much will be required;...”( Luke 12: 48) to explain his political causes.

I am sure we will be thoroughly exploring the life of this man, the terrible and the wonderful for the next few days. To some of us the Senator's death is the end of an era. I was just taking note of politics and government when his elder brother was elected President. I cannot say whether it was the speeches of the man or my age that was responsible for the change in my attitude. And I will say Senator Kennedy was not the best example of a champion, in his personal life, until we both got older. I believe when he decided to stay in the Senate he may have been much disappointed in himself for not being able to live up to the perceived heights of his older brothers nor what he knew to be the requirements of his father. But with time and with settling down he became the champion needed.

There will be many who will keep reminding us of the Senator's failures and his awful behaviors, but that is to be expected. The far right blogs will attack on many levels. I used to say we need both extremes for balance and Senator Kennedy was one side of the political teeter-totter while Senator John Warner was perhaps the other. (I didn't agree with Senator Warner's policies but I enjoyed watching him give speeches on the floor of the Senate.)

Senator Warner, retired, was an old style legislator. These two Senators knew how to give great floor speeches, perhaps in different styles, but both knew how without attacking the opposition on a personal level. Both knew how to work behind the scenes. Both knew how to compromise and wait. My concern now is that we are left with a Senate that at least in public is at odds with itself and the most of the Senators are using the same argumentative, nasty, style that some of us do when “discussing” important issues.

The fulcrum of the teeter-totter Senate now appears to be moved. Many so-called centrists are moving to the so-called center just to say they are above the fray, making them somehow superior.

My hope is that as a few more Senators get comfortable with themselves and their constituents, they will become the great legislators we don't now have. And, the center will really be the center. The balance will return at least to the Senate. We need the right and we need the left to take turns and therefore, keep us balanced but we need great orators and legislators who do their jobs because they really believe in what they are doing.

To Frank Rich August 16

Frank Rich wrote a very interesting column in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16rich.html
Here is a quotation from it.

It’s through this prism we might re-examine the raucous town hall eruptions this month. Even if they are inflated by activist organizations and cable-TV overexposure, they still cannot be dismissed entirely as made-for-media phenomena made-to-measure to fill the August news vacuum. Nor are they necessarily about health care. The twisted distortions about “death panels” and federal conspiracies “to pull the plug on grandma” are just too unhinged from the reality of any actual legislation. These bogus fears are psychological proxies for bigger traumas.

The column was about Mad Men, the 60's and 2009. I was too late to post a comment on the column so I post my thoughts here.

Wrong on bogus fears.
Yet right on bogus fears.

My husband and I sent links to a very funny blog, answers to health care questions, to many people we know. It was an extremely funny blog post. It was sarcastic irony at its best.
To our surprise, though why we were surprised I do not know, several people took it seriously. What has been and is wrong with our educational system? Or is it as a friend reminded me. “Just remember the average IQ is 100. Therefore about half the people are below the average.” (He was being sarcastic)

Many people do believe the “bogus fears” about pulling the plug on grandma and some government panel deciding who can have treatments for ailments. They already live with insurance companies doing some of this so the fear of government doing it is easy to accept. Grandma is told that she is sapping the younger generation, “your kids or grandkids”, by taking Social Security and Medicare. By the way, Grandma probably paid into the system for years and is helping support those "kids and grandkids". So Grandma may believe it is possible that some may well want to pull the plug. (Why is it Grandma and not Grandpa we talk about in this context?)

We have lived as if addicted to consumerism. Many of us who could afford it have not paid attention to our own health and expect a drug to “take care” of any problem that arises from it. More consumerism because of the constant barrage of drug ads. We are told over and over that our educational system is failing. Yet, there are no real answers forthcoming and most of us don't take time to demand real answers. And the kids in school hear that their schools are no good-so why stay in the system. We talk about our kids as products-consumerism mentality. Some of us buy things to learn how we too can be among the wealthy classes. We frantically purchase anything and everything. We now see programming on how to save money, yet keep spending, by purchasing things we don't need at discount stores or flea markets. We purchase goods from many of these discount stores that are made in China to undercut our own economy. At the same time we are told saving and investing is great, but then told by saving now we hurt the economy.

Yes, there are so many anxieties. Many of us are watching as the economy is in a mess. We fear, maybe it is a fear well-grounded in reality, the government is not paying attention to “we the people”. There is no government watching or regulating much of anything. It seems corporations and various industry coalitions have purchased control. Is anyone going to really do anything about “too big too fail”. Really do anything. The very air we breathe is in question. Yet, some of our government is saying we can't change now the economy can't take it. The debt to China is concerning at the least. The deficit and the debt are in numbers we cannot even picture or read. The TV media, and much of the print media, jumps quickly from “hard news” to the latest scandal from any sector-cultural or business or … Why? Because we, the consumers, want to forget all the anxieties we cannot control. And business wants us to keep watching and reading so they can advertise at us; therefore to keep us spending.

We do feel “Don Draper's disorientation”.

Getting Money Out of "OUR" Government, maybe

When you look at what is happening with the so-called health care reform maybe you are like me thinking why. Answer:There is a huge problem--the monies the lobbies and the corps spend. This problem seems to rear its ugly head issue after issue.

So what to do???
Maybe the answer lies in campaign reform.

Meanwhile, the states have been plagued by the same problems afflicting campaigns for federal office. As the costs of campaigning for statewide office and state legislative seats skyrocketed over the last few decades, legislators have begun to place greater emphasis on fundraising. PACs,

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml ,

and large donors have played an increasing role as sources of campaign revenue, and incumbents have been outspending challengers by larger and larger sums.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform

About the only way I can think of to change the balance is to challenge the way “our” elected officials get money for campaigns. But, what about the free speech issue and freedom of the press? http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-buckley-v-valeo And See: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court.html

Basically the courts say that candidates' must be given the right to opt in or out of any system of campaign finance. Maine is one state where the court upheld their version because it is voluntary.
The Maine law is a little different though:

Maine's campaign finance law, known as the Clean Elections Act is different from those in other states because those who agree to accept public funding must forgo any private contributions (beyond a small amount of "seed money" and qualifying contributions) and run an entirely "clean" campaign.
The law was passed by Maine voters in a referendum in 1996 and came into effect in 2000. Candidates who demonstrate citizen support by collecting a set number of $5 qualifying contributions from voters within their districts (50 contributions for a State House race, 150 for the state Senate, and 2,500 for a gubernatorial race) are eligible for fixed and equal campaign funding from the Clean Election Fund. To receive their money, candidates must agree to forgo all private contributions (including self-financing), and limit their spending to the amount from the fund.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-maine

Other states have “clean election” laws.

A Supreme Court decision in January 2000, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, was the court's first ruling on campaign contributions and free speech since Buckley v. Vale. In it the court essentially reaffirmed Buckley vs. Valeo, by allowing state limits to campaign contributions, but not spending, so long as the contribution limit was not "so radical...as to...drive the sound of a candidate's voice below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless." However, the decision did counter a trend whereby federal courts have recently been striking down contribution limits even above the $1,000 (per individual) permitted in Buckley v. Valeo.
As of 2008, five states have passed "clean election" laws, laws that provide public money for state election campaigns if a candidate agrees to strict spending limits.
Maine was the first state to enact such a law, by voter referendum, in 1996.
In June 1997, Vermont became the first state to pass a bill modeled after the Maine law through its legislature. Both laws served as models for the clean election initiatives passed by Arizona and Massachusetts voters in November, 1998. The Massachusetts law, however, was repealed by the legislature in 2003. Connecticut's legislature passed a clean election bill in 2005, and it was amended in 2006 to remove an unnecessary step for third party candidates.
New Mexico expanded the program to include candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of New Mexico in 2007.
New Jersey's legislature passed a clean elections pilot project in 2004, which put into place two legislative districts for the November 2005 election. Following its success, three more districts have been selected to be part of the 2007 Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Project.
Out of State Contributions
Out-of-state or out-of-district campaign contributions corrupt the political process because an elected official may become more beholden to these contributors than to the community she represents. Alaska and Oregon have adopted limits on out-of-state or out-of-district contributors. Both have been overruled by federal courts as violations of the First Amendment. While the Oregon law has been repealed, the Alaska law has been suspended and is on appeal in the Alaska Supreme Court.
Because these laws so well embody the principles of localism and republicanism, the New Rules Project offers them here as models that should be reinstated.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform

All this is really great but as long as it is voluntary, in the name of free speech, I am not sure what good it all is. (By the way another thought just occurred to me. Note the Out of State restriction on Alaska's law. Maybe this is why Palin left office early? Why wait for the Alaska Supreme Court to decide. Maybe you just run from another state?)

I really do hate“Out of State Contributions”. It lets any big group, or its lobby, to select even your state and local candidates for you. Suppose you are big Energy and there is a reliable Energy candidate in some state-you will put your money where their mouth is. Now I realize too that the reverse may be true, Green Energy may like a candidate in your state or local government so they can back them.
But shouldn't each state's population be deciding their own government therefore their own laws and taxes spent. Maybe that wouldn't work either. Some would just move from a red state to a liberal blue state somewhere. Or the conservative would move to a nice red state. Actually this is happening on a small scale already. Well, one thing about it when the media draws its election forecast maps it would be easier. Or would some pay somebody else to move into the opposite view state. Hey this has the makings of a great movie or short story.
So just as the health care laws are difficult and hard to write, I can imagine the nightmare of election reform. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy and laws are, or at least should be, difficult to write. But, it may be the only chance we have to get at least some money out of the system.

For those who love charts and statistics here is an interesting site. http://www.cfinst.org/data/VitalStats.aspx

Here is a link to a “working paper”, for a forthcoming book, on campaign finance “after Obama”. The beginning sentence is an attention grabber about the total collapse of public funding for Presidential campaigns. http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PresidentialWorkingPaper_April09.pdf

I highly recommend you visit Vote Smart to take a look information on Congresspersons. It is an excellent site. I thought about volunteering to work for them years ago. Very fair-minded site. http://www.votesmart.org/ I couldn't get their widget added but will try again. Also this group may be one to consider a donation if you can.

Then too maybe we just need to redefine corporations as entities when it comes to the Constitution. This will be the next post.

P.S. Note the italics on the section about the "Oregon law". I stand corrected by Dan(please see comments section). He states it is not a law it is an amendment to the Oregon Constitution and has not been repealed. Also see where they were working to change http://www.afd-pdx.org/E-mails/2009_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_REFORM-1.html

Transparency, A New President, and Just War

Transparency in Government, a phrase we now hear and see, was absent without leave for 8 years. The present administration may not be as transparent as we would like but now we can read white papers on-line or in the papers; we can check the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on-line; we can examine the US Budget on the White House website; we can check the OMB website for another view of the Budget; we can communicate with the administration through the Office of the Public Liaison; we can check the finances and donations of our congress people; and on and on. Of course it all takes time and energy but transparency has really started to make a comeback.

We can even read articles on how this President and his advisers communicate. How his decisions are informed by others.

We have a President giving us a “virtual” town hall meeting. Did you participate? We have a President who can speak on many levels on many subjects. We have a President who understands the value of all venues for communicating with his constituents and uses those venues even though some, mainstream media maybe, don't like it.

If this President can keep this communication with the public going and leave behind a legacy of transparency, he has done great things already.

The latest white paper, easily found on-line, was an Inter-agency policy paper on Afghanistan and Pakistan. How great is that?

Yet, it is easy to please us for the very fact that we had no transparency at all for many years makes us easy. Still skepticism abounds-what are they not telling us...Are there or have there been secret energy task force meetings or secret government-within-the-government meetings to feed the President what he wants to hear in order to lead him down some path or the other?

The white paper on new Afghanistan and Pakistan policy suggestions led also to these thoughts on this war or any other war.

The President had such a different tone when he made his announcement on the new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even when read the tone is more serious, and more somber than most of his speeches or talks. Not to say he is not often serious but this time there is a real difference, as should be.

Going over his speech, announcement, again leads to thoughts of "just war", if there is such a thing, he even used the word "just" at one point. “...a cause that could not be more just.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/) This statement makes you wonder if he grappled with his own conscience or is he just soothing ours. If you read the announcement in its entirety, you may find much with which to agree and can even see signs for hope that we, the US, won't be there forever or just leave a mess and quickly withdraw one day when people will take no more. But when is a war ever really, honestly now, just?

When is it just to ask a mother to give up her child to protect mine? When is it just to tell a mother the child she lost as a result of an error in intelligence or an error in a guidance system was a sacrifice for the greater good? When is it just to spend all that money on destruction instead of on building whether it is in the US or abroad?