Cannibalizing or Cannibalized, Which Is It?

As mentioned in a previous post, see the September 30th post While Watching the Senate.., the Republicans are now taking care of Seniors and Medicare. Interesting how the same words get used by the same party but in different contexts.

In an exchange and surprisingly adult conversation on ABC Sunday Morning, Sen. Schumer (D of NY) and Sen. Cornyn (R. of TX)discussed and agreed on much. Then it came. Sen. Cornyn must have realized he hadn't used any Republican talking points. Someone flipped a switch and the Seniors on Medicare became the victims of... are you ready...hold on...here it comes; "cannibalization". here is the link watch all of it.

How do they do it with a straight face? One minute seniors are cannibalizing; the next minute they are being cannibalized. Law of the Jungle-eat or be eaten? Do you remember Judge Janice R. Brown? I do.

I remember she said that today's seniors were cannibals and wanted all the free stuff they could get. quote here Now I am sure we were aware she was speaking figuratively but my point is the use of the word cannibalize. Judge Brown has a very interesting history both life story and words spoken. More about the 2004 appointments and the arguments here
and see for a speech listing more of the Judges statements

Why did Sen. Cornyn use that particular word? Did someone in the Repub. party do a poll back in 2000 to see if it got significant reaction? Did they decide that seniors did react in disgust so let's use it again but to another advantage?
One more way to scare seniors away from health care reform?

Who knows. I do know I reacted in both cases. I really got incensed when the Judge used it and Sunday I was first surprised then angered by the way it was brought out of mothballs.

By the way if you want some real laughs about words and the way they are used and the way things change check out Pres. G.W. Bush's acceptance speech at the 2004 Republican Convention.here

Of particular interest to me:

...This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side....

Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable home in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say welcome to my home.

(Laughter here is allowed. Are we talking about tents? Actually the homes did get more affordable, or rather the "loans" did.)

Sorry, back to the speech:

...Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history...

"Mission Accomplished"

So yes, Politicians play with words. But, me thinks the Repubs. are the best at it.

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

A Moth to a Flame, Drawn in by the Media.

Well I have many thoughts about many things going on right now. For what that is worth.

Let's see the military-industrial complex is cooking right along. Read this one entitled Earmarks Fill Up Defense Spending Bill by Stephanie Condon.: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5169649.shtml

Here is another: House approves defense spending bill, cuts funding for F-22 fighter amid Obama veto threat by Ben Pershing/ Washington Post http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/07/house_approves_defense_spendin.htm

Then there is Health Care Reform. Or some mild form of regulation, some tweaking of the present system but not really health care reform. (Well unless you are an insurance company who will get to add lots of folks you probably threw out of the system back into the system with someone else paying for it.) According to the media “we the people” are torn between wanting something done and fearing to have something done. Now how could that be so? Maybe it is the monies being spent to stop any real reform?

Michael Winship, Truthout: "This week, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in the second quarter of this year alone, the pharmaceuticals and health product industries spent $67,959,095 on lobbying, and the insurance industry $39,760,477. Another $25,552,088 was spent by lobbyists for hospitals and nursing homes. That's a total of $133,271,660 in just three months, and that's not even counting the lobbying money spent to fight health care reform by professional associations like the US Chamber of Commerce."

http://www.truthout.org/080109Z?n

And to those who were so concerned about the rush to get something done this ought to be a fun month ahead for TV advertising budgets. I am sure the ads will be very informative and educational. You really don't need to attend any town hall meetings by your so-called representatives. Save gas. Look up their records and their donors and you will get the answers to your questions.

Also I ask you to remember the history of Health Care Reforms since who knows when. Always the same arguments. The only thing that may be different this time is the big boys such as Pharma and Insurance Companies are saying they are all for health care reform while sneaking around on The Hill. See Wendell Potter's blog for more much more on this one. http://www.prwatch.org/blog/35267

Or read about Mr. Potter here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change

Then let us think of the “media”. They seem to be thrilled that the President's poll numbers are dropping a bit. I guess anything to get excited about instead of trying to explain any of the above to us poor unfortunates. Let US Argue again.

If that won't get the arguments started maybe race?

Let's see President Obama said the police acted “stupidly”. Probably right here. Dr. Gates probably was upset too. So now take a step back. If you are any color other than white in this country, you are very noticeable. Seriously think about it. If you drive a visually sporty car on a crowded highway, you are probably going to get watched harder and pulled over more often whether you speed or not. Now you have the police officer probably very proud of his work on racial profiling-professor Gates gets a little in his face. Dr Gates is preset to react. Can't say as I blame him. The officer now is indignant.-how could he, of all police officers, be accused of racial profiling.

But the point is really the media. I will grant that this is a terrible societal situation and I will say I am extremely glad I wasn't handcuffed and taken “downtown”. But the media enjoyed the leap from health care reform to racial profiling just a little too much. It had more argument appeal.

Seems as though I also recall the media coverage of the stimulus isn't working blah, blah, blah. The President polls are down, blah, blah, blah. Now note the media coverage of the stimulus may be having some effect after all. Some but not much. I did note someone mention Bernanke's name in a positive way but pragmatic President Obama got something about him trying to once again control expectations. I do love the media. Oh and the “Cash for Clunkers” success gets coverage about how it was running out of money then got more money but not much about it actually was working to stimulate the economy. I say again: I love the media. If there is a way to downplay successes and keep arguments going they will find it since Bush duped them and they find more money and audience in hype and “star-power”.

So there you are my many thoughts on many things. Twisted-maybe, angry-some, but they are my thoughts and that is the name of the blog after all. Now it is your turn, have at it.

Obama's Waterloo?

History is repeating itself. I refer to my previous blog. But the Republicans are making it even worse.
Now it is not just “Socialism or the Big Bad Government take-over. It is not even “growing huge deficits” or “tax and spend Democrats”. Now they are attacking a very personally popular President.
How smart is that?

(Let me again state I, lefty that I am, do not care for the Obama pragmatism before I go on here.)

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, gave Mr. Obama an opening to do just that the other day, and the president took it. Mr. DeMint called health care a “Waterloo moment” that could break Mr. Obama. The president struck back, declaring, “This isn’t about me.” But if Mr. Obama extends that line of attack to Republicans more broadly, and rams a bill through without their support, any claim he may have to bipartisanship will quickly evaporate.

(NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23obama.html?hp )

Maybe he should let go of that claim. They aren't really going to allow much bipartisanship anyway.
They are the party of “NO” too often.

Right-wing writer Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told Republicans on his blog Monday that they need to resist the temptation to work with Democrats to find a solution to our health Care crisis. “This is no time to pull punches,” he wrote “Go for the kill.”

(from dscc.org email)

And a more direct quotation of DeMint from the same dscc.org email:

On Friday, Republican Sen. Jim DeMInt of South Carolina ginned up his troops with this line: “If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

I also read somewhere that “Newt the Scoot” was another instigator of this stuff.

Now several questions occur to me.
Do I want the support of these guys on any bill? I will wonder why they support anything.
Do they understand that this President is still very popular personally? Do they understand how many American's will support an underdog or a perceived personal attack on a popular President? Duh!
Many of us were stupid enough to support G.W., and still do. Because we don't like personal attacks on our Presidents even when they are true.

The same holds true for Blue Dog Democrats. Not to mention if all these so-called Democrats are worried about is getting reelected, they might consider how even I am thinking about donating to get rid of them. Just because they irritate me. See even a lefty can have selfish moments without saying, “Well, maybe they have a point.”

I know it is nice to have Democrats control two branches of the Government at once but the Blue Dogs are not true Democrats to me. I voted for one here but I am wondering why I did. Yes, I do really know -lessor of the evils. Also, Supreme Court Judges are what the long-term is really about here so their votes are needed for that. Let's just hope they don't start pulling stuff with that too.

It is this. There is a blog I follow and on which I sometimes comment where the same person just comments that all who disagree are stupid idiots and the like. Except it is “STUPID IDIOTS!!!”. It ends the conversations basically for a few hours but many just go elsewhere to research-so it backfires.

So here I will resist calling the “Waterloo” Republicans stupid idiots or worse because it backfires.

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?

A Birthday to Forget or Maybe Not

Happy Birthday? March 19th

It has been six years to the day since we woke to “SHOCK and AWE”. I remember it well, it is my birthday too. Though I am just a tad more than 6.

In that six years, more than 4200 US troops have died and who knows how many Iraqis have died. Millions of Iraqi citizens displaced. US troops killed in Afghanistan somewhere around 600-700. The trust of American Citizens in their government is low. Hope is high but mistrust is still ever present. Yet, we search for someone to keep our hopes up.

Whether it is a right-wing radio talk show host or a left-wing newsletter, we still want someone or something to trust and in which to hope.

We can't trust our our own senses: eyes, TV or newspapers; ears, radio. The media will give us what they think we want. So now we don't trust ourselves either. We research and we seek more information but who or what can we trust in our research. By reading or watching and listening to many sources we can hope to make a judgment.

A few days ago a picture ran in the NY Times newspaper showing a pipeline diverting water to a mine in one extremely dry place in Chile where the towns and villages are “drying up”, people leaving. On the same front page was the article about AIG paying those bonuses. There was greed in both picture and text. Actually greed did not seem a strong enough word anymore. (NY Times, Mar 15, 2009)

Then too we have the radio entertainer getting paid hundreds of millions to complain about how high the cost of replacing some part in his private jet while he tells his audience the government is raising his taxes and theirs. And they hope. The audience listens and hopes because they are still convinced they will be one of the very wealthy too. This audience has worked hard and they deserve to be rich. If the government will just stay out of their way, they will be in the top income percentages soon. They haven't made bad decisions they deserve to be rich.

We have young people with no health insurance unless not so rich parents, or sometimes grandparents, can pay for it: we see tent cities in the US: we see long lines of people seeking jobs, any job; we see the working-poor losing their homes or close to it. People are hungry here in the US. Actually people have been going hungry in the US for quite a while but not so many as to get any real attention. People have been living in cars and on the streets for years but they must have made poor decisions.

All the while our Congress argues about increasing Americorps, argues about changing bankruptcy laws to cover residences not just vacation homes. Congress continuously argues about who is to blame for what problem. Congress legislating after the fact and never trusting themselves or us. Deregulation was not really about trust. Absence of regulation is not the presence of Trust. There will always be greed.

Perhaps all we can do is try and hope. If you are a religious person, maybe you pray. If you are a spiritual person maybe you pray. Though our religious institutions are in doubt. We heard things from political leaders about praying and God talking to them. A President of the US said God told him to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We heard from some religious leaders about the coming of the end or not. Some religious leaders told us it is OK to kill in the name of God. Of course this was not the first time religious leaders told people or rulers it was OK but that was history and this is the 21^st Century surely not the same. Surely we have come further or have we?

Read these documents http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp and http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf for partial answers. The first two are different explanations of “Just War”. The third is a file of American War and Military Operations Casualties prepared for Congress and last update shown was 2008.

The past 6 years have been interesting but let's find other interests, please. It is spring maybe we can try gardening or birdwatching. There are so many beautiful things still in this world let us look around. That is all it takes and maybe we can help others see the beauty too.

We can take pictures. We can paint pictures. We can write poetry. We can make movies. We can write music. We can write stories. We can talk. We can teach. But we don't need to use “Shock and Awe” to get a point across.

So just a Birthday to you Iraq War, “Iraqi Freedom” ? (and me too) I hope I don't ever awaken to another birthday like that one 6 years ago. And I wish everyone a better year.