From Great Expectations to Low

Here are some reasons for no posts in a long time: health issues, both emotional and physical; new pup in the house along with the elderly pup; too much heat and humidity.

But here is the really big reason: Cynicism.
From that follows Frustration.

a feeling of dissatisfaction, often accompanied by anxiety or depression, resulting from unfulfilled needs or unresolved problems.

(one definition)

Below are my exact feelings about my "fellow 'Murcans", mostly the ones here in the so-called heartland:

—Synonyms
1, 3. Cynical, pessimistic, sarcastic, satirical imply holding a low opinion of humanity. Cynical suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives

(Ref.)

I am sure I'll get over it, again. But each time I go through this it takes longer to have great expectations or even positive expectations.
Tao

Authoritarians

For this post let's reframe our questions. (The questions that were originally raised in this post)
This site gives you a better definition than I could for reframing.
Looking back at last week's post we see the questions really are:
Why are some people so easily led while others will do anything to be leaders.
Why do some people still believe things that are disproved by facts.
Why are some people so aggressive in the name of moral or political values or is it something else entirely?
Why do some people fear, in the extreme, change?
Why do some people fear those different from themselves?
Why racism? Why homophobic fears? Why fear other religions?

In these next posts, I want to give you some beginning information from two books. One is political while the other is more about the social behaviors and actions found in studies of authoritarians.

Here we need to define a few things:
Why the books Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean and Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. free here I chose to read the two books simultaneously as they are very interconnected. In an interview I saw on UCTV, John Dean talked about the studies on Authoritarianism and recommended the other book. His interest peaked my interest. Mostly however, I will be writing about The Authoritarians (Disclaimer: I am not necessarily a John Dean fan but find he can get my attention and I sometimes wondered about the reasons behind some of the chapters in Dr. Altemeyer's book. Guess I am not that easily led by “authorities.”)

Authoritarians Two kinds:
I had a hard time keeping my definitions of authoritarian out of my head at first.
My definitions were either about a form of government or a “bossy” person. But these are not quite appropriate.
Dr. Altemeyer explains that in his books on authoritarians he is mostly discussing extremely submissive “followers” of established authorities, “attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional.”
He lists 3 of the personality traits of the “followers”:

1)a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate, authorities in their society;
2)high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3)a high level of conventionalism.

(page 8)

Mr. Dean at one point describes authoritarianism as the behaviors and thinking of these personalities.

RWA Scale:
“The RWA scale is a personality test disguised as an attitude survey.”
the mid-point of the scale is 100. The higher the score the more the tendency to be an authoritarian follower.

Why the name “right-wing”:
The use of the word right as used here is “an adjective, right, lawful, proper, correct...”

Double Highs:
Social Dominators who also score high on the religion, fundamentalism, scale but the why is interesting. These people go to church more often than most but they go to “project a good image...”
and “It is more important to create a good image of yourself in the minds of others than to be actually be the person others think you are.”

Conservatives: Two kinds political and social: As Dr. Altemeyer explains you can have high RWA's even within the Communist party in a Communist country. Remember submission to “his” authorities and highly conventional. So keep in mind we are not always talking about political conservatives.
Though, if you will, take a look at the chart on page 203. I found it very enlightening and interesting.
I had forgotten about the “Southern Democrats”. Historically an interesting bunch.

I found so much about the people studied confusing-hard for me to get my head around all the seeming inconsistencies in logic as I call it but as pointed out in the book the compartmentalization of their ideas allows for some pretty interesting, conflicting, thoughts.

Now let's look for some answers to our questions. (I think we can actually lump our questions into fewer questions yet.)

1.Why are some people so easily led and hang on to false “facts”?
2.Why are some so aggressive...?
3.Why the prejudices?
4.Who are their authorities and why?


Question 1:

Dr. Altemeyer, as I do, doesn't get into the genetics of High RWA's but allows for it. He begins with parental guidance, then to “missed experiences”. They are not introduced to different groups and ideas.
“They got a “2 for 1 special deal on fear...they were raised by their parents to be afraid of others...”
They “traveled around on short leashes in relatively small, tight, safe circles all their lives.”
Their parents “try to send their kids to “safe” colleges.”

(Also remember the group thing, individuals into the group Venn diagram)

The compartmentalization of their ideas allow for holding conflicting ideas at the same time and can lead to confusing justifications for various actions and decisions.
The high RWA has not further developed or “thought through their ideas as much as most people have...”
In Chapter three How Authoritarian Followers Think, “...a high RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas rattling around in various boxes in his brain and never notice it.”
Dr. Altemeyer gives the usual disclaimer so do we all have “inconsistencies in reasoning” then:
“...research reveals that authoritarian followers...exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and ...a ferocious dogmatism (see definition 2) that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds.

...they do not in general have a very critical outlook on anything unless the authorities in their lives have condemned it for them.”

Thus they are easily led and easily become apprehensive, or fearful.

What about hanging on to false “facts”:
One example given concerns the Iraq war. The compartmental mind had no trouble in “believing that America stands for international cooperation and the peaceful resolution of conflict on one hand, while on the other hand insisting it has the “right” to attack whomever it wants...”

After all, in the ethnocentric mind “We are the Good Guys and our opponents are abominations”...

Will some of these people ever change their minds? Dr. Altemeyer believes some will by revising their personal histories. Others? “petrified by their dogmatism” never. (99)


I have given you a only a few of the explanations found in the book The Authoritarians for the first question. Partly because there is so much information and partly because I have a hard time compartmentalizing. I see so much about the high RWA conflicting and yet interconnected.

But there we have the beginnings of my studies.

I hope you learned something as I did and still do from this book.

Next post will look at the Dr. Altemeyer's book for some insight into aggression and if I can keep more focused, so much information, hopefully question 3.

I Just Can't Keep Quiet.

OK I know I should be working on the next post about psych. and social movements.
I couldn't let a couple of things go by.
First is this: Krugman. The hook, first sentence and the following paragraph are great. You know how I love sarcasm.

Then there was the NYTimes/CBS poll this week. Whole poll.

I read the Times article, the synopsis, and listened to a few news broadcasts concerning the poll. I have not heard any one mention much about a couple of things that stuck out to me.

These people fear and just don't like Pres. Obama. I think the man could hand out 10,000 cash to them and cut the deficit by 1/2 and they still would disapprove of him.

Now look at questions 95 and 96 on page 35. Hello world.

No more to say.

Frank Rich Again

As I still have much research and thought to go on social movements, I have a short thought or two on Frank Rich' column this past weekend.

It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Obama!

...Remnick returns repeatedly to the notion that Obama is a “shape-shifter,” with a remarkable ability to come across differently to disparate constituencies. Some of that reflects his agility at shifting rhetorical gears...

Let us face facts. We have a President who is excellent at “shifting rhetorical gears”. I enjoy it.
And there may be some “racism” from the left:

He (a friend of Mr. Rich) theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been. In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”

Probably not as indicated here though race may have played a partial roll in President Obama's election. I believe Some white Democrats and Independents voted for him to show the world the nation would elect a black President.

As far back as 2004 — when Obama was still in the Illinois Senate — a writer at The Chicago Tribune, Don Terry, framed what remains the prevailing Obama takeaway to this day. “He’s a Rorschach test,” Terry wrote. “What you see is what you want to see.”

As for this far left but pragmatic Socialist Democrat, I see what I expected to see as this President works-a very pragmatic person. He is like his “health reform” law-the best we can get. He is much more centrist than I would like to see but he is certainly better than the other offerings. And even though I am very far left of center I am pragmatic.
I do admire his new found energy and almost always enjoy listening to him whether in an interview or giving a speech. Of course after what we had in the White House, just having one “rhetorical gear” is something to behold.

And not a moment too soon. The speed with which Obama navigates out of the recession, as measured by new jobs and serious financial reform, remains by far the most determinative factor in how he, his party and, most of all, the country will fare in the fractious year of 2010. If he succeeds in that all-important challenge — or, for that matter, if he fails — the enigmatic, Rorschach-test phase of Obama’s still young relationship to the American people may rapidly draw to a close. It will be the moment of clarity that allows us to at last judge him, as we should all presidents, on what he’s actually done rather than on who we imagine he is.

As far as his ability to produce jobs, I hope he can. But I do not expect miracles.

A Really Important Speech

I just watched a great speech. Please take time to watch it. If you can't please read the transcript.
Even if you don't have much time watch the last 4 or 5 minutes.
It is in those last 4 minutes I am reminded why HEALTH CARE is so important.
So I ask you to watch or read the speech and think, really think, why something must be done.

I admit to concern about the aftermath. Republicans are already having lawyersgear up for court cases. I knew they would but not even a little break.

Here's a little prayer that we do the right thing and that many in need improve because of what is done.
If that is a religious, socialist, conspiracy; so be it.
NYT

We want but ...

One very long rant here.
Let's see the Neo-cons are back; the Glen-Beck nut-cases are out in force; Limbaugh is still mouthy; Bohner wants to be Speaker of the House; Left Progressives are not happy we didn't just leave the wars; the jobless want jobs; the greedy Bankers want less regulation; big Pharma is sorry it wasted its lobby money; Insurance companies want to insure many more people but without losing any money; we do want the Federal Government to be responsible for making jobs; we do want the Feds to do something about the deficit; we don't like Federal debt; we don't want foreign governments taking our jobs; we don't want foreign corps to own everything; we want security from terrorists both foreign and domestic; we want the right to carry anywhere; we want tougher law enforcement; we want Gitmo closed; we don't want trials “in the homeland” for the terrorists, so-called; we don't want our schools closed; we want a better education for our kids; we want our health care; we want corp. greed punished; we want free speech for all and we do mean all; we want the biggest military-industrial complex in all the world; we want to sell weaponry but we don't want it used; we don't like Social Security unless we are at or near retirement; we need to “fix” Medicare; we want a cleaner environment; we don't want to spend on energy research; we want credit but we don't want big banks to get bigger; we want to get rich on Wall Street. After the fiasco of Greenspan, with his belief in Ayn Rand's separation of economy and state, people are reading Ayn Rand for guidance. (Congressional testimony)( Rand follower ) Oh I know he wasn't a true objectivist. He tried to apply the theory from within. Well, maybe he still is. He did say he saw a flaw but he didn't know how important the flaw or how long it would last.

We want a lot but we don't want taxes raised in any form to pay for anything. We don't even want to cut back on what we already take from the environment. We don't even want to admit that we are responsible for any environmental changes this old world is suffering; that population growth, therefore energy needs grow, is causing some of it. We want bankers, corps, and the fed punished in some way but we want to give all organizations extra free speech. We want Congress to quit taking money for elections from all the interest groups but we want the CEO's able to run ads against or for them and able to threaten them more than they already do. We don't want to give $5 each for election campaigns to lessen the impact of the organizations. We want Congress to pass laws but we don't want our party to give to the other party. We don't like Wall Street investment firms or banks but we want to get our share first. We want to invest but we don't want to know that great investment is financing wealthy foreign corps. We want balanced budgets in our cities, states, and federal government but we don't want to pay more taxes when so many are unable to pay their share. We value families but we want the other guy to work longer hours and more days so he can't spend time with his. We want a great army but no draft. We want people to quit going to ER for the things they should just be going to the Dr.'s office but we don't want to pay for it either.

And when all is said and done we want to throw the bums out because they can't do all these things on nothing. We want to throw the bums out for taking lobby money or the promise of future jobs but we don't like to give them pay raises. We want to throw the bums out for not working together but my congressman/woman needs to be tough, code for stand up for my point-of-view, because I am a conservative, libertarian, progressive, or liberal. We don't like them adding “pork” except for my state. Just what new bums will you believe when they tell you they are going to change Washington. Seems we have heard that before.

This new President too needs to be tough or not depending on who you are. He should or should not talk about the facts from the previous administration. The mess is his now. He should be positive not tell us the truth, We Will have to give some and pay more. If he is really tough maybe he will have to inform us that he tried something and failed. FDR, in the eyes of many, did some great things but he did have to try different ideas and some got knocked down right or wrong. He made some grave errors.
President Obama tried to learn from past Presidents. He let Congress try to put together it's own health care reform. Wasn't that supposedly partly what went wrong with the Clinton health care bill-he didn't let Congress have more say so. Wasn't the Executive Branch out of hand in the previous administration? Didn't that administration get called “the Imperial Presidency”? Weren't there times President Bush was called “King George”?
The new Attorney General needs to quit trying to be a guy who believes in the law until he figures out how to be more political. The Treasury Secretary needs to go because he is too familiar with all that went wrong. No way can he use that information to find a better way. He can wait like others then acknowledge his mistake in believing less regulation was the way to go The head of the Fed. Needs to relinquish power to someone else-but who? The Treasury, the FDIC, who should take the regulation on? Congress?

Here are a couple of anecdotal stories so you can more personally relate to the mess in which we find ourselves.
There is a large county here that is about to close many schools. Parents and non-parents attend meetings to try to stop their school from closing. Their reasons are good reasons. But they either can't or won't offer more funding. The Mayor of K.C., MO has said basically if you don't want some service cut then tell me what you do want cut. Smart man. Not popular for a lot of reasons, but he is “tough”.

Here is another state answer to budget problems.
“Mississippi’s governor is proposing to cut state aid to K-12 schools by over 9 percent, close four mental health facilities, and cut most other agencies’ budgets by 12 percent.” (ref here and pdf here ) The pdf file shows the rankings of “input”, money and the educational results therefrom.

So here we are. We want but don't want. We have our hands out but we don't want other people's hand s out. We want a balanced budget but we don't want to contribute any funds. We want seniors to take less Medicare now but we don't want to take care of them later either. They should help out their kids now or at least get out of the way but when they are in the last years who will pay for their care? Won't it cost more later? We don't like Social Security taxes because we might not get it but we forget it was a pay backwards system in the first place. Don't want your parents living with you from retirement or disability-then pay backwards. Trust me most parents don't want their kids living with them long term or vice versa. We are not the Waltons.

Now do you want to run for office on any level let alone be President. He will get most of the blame for anything not done, or done that someone doesn't like, and in the short term little praise for any small step forward.

Well, I guess he asked for it. I still think though there was probably a minute when he won election with all the newest messes breaking that he asked if there was any way out of the job.

The “beast” is starved and yet enlarged. Let's just hope our debtors are the kind who don't break legs when we can't pay our bills. And when all services are cut I hope you can stay home to take care of your family.
I hope you can educate your own kids, I hope you can nurse your sick, I hope you are in shape to raise your own food or within walking distance to your source of food. I hope your water wells or rivers are clean when you walk down with your water bucket and your dirty laundry-no droughts please. I hope you enjoy your outhouse or the ditch along the paths. Maybe you can barter for some paper to use instead of those rough leaves. Believe me this would not be a fun life. Been there done some of it.

Balanced News? Don't Ask Me

Preface
This started out to be a post on Congress and ineptitude. Then it was about Congress taking over too much power. Then I wanted to write about both parties in Congress saying no to the Exec. Branch. (Rants)
But the more I researched an article I'd read the more I saw another post all together. Then even that changed to what you find below.
Sorry, this is a very long post but I don't want to shorten it. I thought about making it two posts but I don't want to interrupt the flow. I am not really sure how to break it up either. Consequently, the post is extremely long and time consuming. Just what a post should not be. Time is a valuable commodity these days.


Even when you try to get truly balanced news, you end up in a conundrum. (More Circles of Confusion) How does one tell which coverage is balanced? Don't ask me. I don't know. I am actually asking you.

Let's agree for purposes of this post that over-the-air TV and the 24-hour, cable or satellite, coverage is generally short and sweet. But they may give you enough information to seek out more in other news venues. The morning talk shows, the cable, satellite, “news” shows, will sometimes give another little piece of information whether right, center, or left. Now you are on your own. So you read papers or you go on-line and you take a time to check a little more for yourself. Yet, how do you know which article or writing is even trying to be balanced? You may find as I did you'll end up reading an article, trying to find more by and about the author of the article, trying to figure out who his/her real boss is, trying to find out for what the boss really stands(mission statements, other outlets, etc.). Too there are the weekly news magazines and “news” shows but I don't think you want me to get into that.

You could well spend a day or more doing all that investigation and determine you cannot find one person, place or thing that does not have an agenda, thereby a slant when covering the same news item. Of course I remember about psychological testing having, can't help but have, some subjective bias. With the use of statistics, use of large samples, and use of tests that can be replicated, the bias is lessened. However in reporting, writing, and editing, I figure there is bias-No matter how hard the people involved try to give balanced reporting. The reasons are many and the bias not always intended. The reader too comes to each article with a certain bias.

Now on with my search on a story about the Senate passing a bill on Iran Sanctions. The House had passed their version earlier. The two bills must be reconciled in the House-Senate Conference before going to the President.

While reading the NY Times on-line the other day, I saw this coverage: Senate OK's Sanctions on Iran's Fuel Suppliers. link Here is the first paragraph to get you started:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would let President Barack Obama impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline suppliers and penalize some of Teheran's elites, a move aimed at pressuring Tehran to give up its nuclear program.
(Note the use of the words “let President Barack Obama...”)
Please read the article further. At least read the other restrictions section near the end of the article.

I will give you one restriction as it pertains to some of the other articles I found:
Require the Obama administration to freeze the assets of Iranians, including Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are active in weapons proliferation or terrorism;
(Note the use of the words “Require the Obama administration...)

Remember these two quotations were found in the same news item.

Now look at this one from Baptist Press: Senate OKs tougher sanctions on Iran.
Here is the first paragraph:
The U.S. Senate approved increased sanctions on Iran's oil-related imports Jan 28 in a move intended to help prevent the extremist Islamic regime from developing nuclear weapons.

Further into the article :
The Senate's action came two days after Land and 45 other Christian leaders wrote to members of the body asking them to follow the example of the House.
(Land is Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. For further on the letter and those 45 others go here

From an articleYESHIVA WORLD NEWS: Schumer Announces Passage of Iran Sanction Legislation that Strengthens Efforts To Stop Iran From Getting Nukes
first paragraph:
Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 has unanimously passed the Senate. The Iranian regime has engaged in serious human rights abuses against its own citizens, funded terrorist activity throughout the Middle East, pursued illicit nuclear activities posing a serious threat to the security of the United States, the Middle East Region, and our allies. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act strengthens sanctions and supports the President as he pursues a dual track of engagements and sanctions. Schumer, in his role as a Banking Committee member, was instrumental in seeing the bill come to the floor for a vote. The House passed a much narrower sanctions package in December while the two bills now have to be conferenced, Schumer is vowing to fight to ensure the stronger Senate Language prevails.
(Note these words “strengthens sanctions and supports the President...”)

The article mentions a Sense of Congress on human rights and the like.

Turns out Sen. Schumer signs letters to the President also.
Two weeks ago, Schumer signed onto a letter from Senator Even Bayh urging President Obama to consider using sanctions on the books. (I think they meant to consider using the sanctions he had at hand)

You can read the whole letter at the end of the article.


Catholic press 
A very short one paragraph coverage by one of the Catholic press. Mainly it refers to Catholic leaders Bill Hudson and Bill Donahue, members of the above mentioned Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran, and they supported and will continue to work for a nuclear free Iran. They do get two links to articles they wrote on the subject.

At this point I looked for world-view items. HereAl Jazeera English had an older article.
First Paragraph:
The US lower house of congress has approved legislation to levy sanctions on foreign companies that help supply fuel to Iran, as part of efforts to punish Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Further on there are interviews with Congresspeople about the bill. Issues are raised about the “concerns” of “U.S. Trading partners and allies...” And an interview with “Afshin Rattansi, a journalist based in Iran, told Al Jazeera: "I think what is happening in the House of Representatives demonstrates yet again a complete lack of comprehension of what is happening in the Middle East.”

There are more interviews with “supporters” and more reporting on the world views as well as a little of the Iranian views of its “nuclear programme”. The article ends by naming some of the companies involved and how they are reacting.

IPS, Inter Press Service News Agency,-The Story Underneath, had a lengthy article.
US: Obama Losing Control of Iran Policy
Here is the opening paragraph:
In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refiner capabilities.

These paragraphs relate back to the words “let” and “require” as mentioned in the NY Times article:
The contents of the bill require the president to impose the wide-ranging sanctions, restraining the traditional presidential foreign policy waiver to a line-by-line exemption that forces Obama to spend political capital. ... Another aspect of the Dodd bill raising eyebrows is the codification into law of an embargo against Iran by Pres. Bill Clinton in the 1990's. The Dodd bill requires Congress to approve the lifting of the embargo.

This writer, reporter, goes into more on the “human rights” debates. (I recommend you hunt that part.)
The article has much explanation of the maneuvering and has quotations from both Democratic and Republican Senators along with “neoconservative independent Joe Lieberman”. There are interviews with a member of the National Iranian American Council and other groups that support engagement with Iran.

So there you have it 6 articles from 6 different news agencies. Now you tell me which one we should declare as “fair and balanced”. (speaking of “fair and balanced”, I couldn't find much on the Senate passage subject on FOX news I found the AP item and so far 3 anti-Obama comments. If you find more feel free to comment.) I did not search the British news for this post. I am sure it would be interesting, but I really do have a little daily life.



(For a fun look at reporting from the BBC go to sobeale blog and watch the video posted on January 31.)

Hereis a serious look at the state of journalism.

Just as I Thought. They Did It

Me finding a hiding place


They Did IT

It is official a corporation is more of a person than you would think.
Sad but true.
All I can say is, I am not surprised.

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

(from the NY Times article)

I can see that the story says unions too. Oh joy. What about Lobbies? What about "citizens' groups"? Small and really small businesses? Let's all have at it! If you have lots and lots of money, have a good time. If you don't, well, sorry. (Not really, no one is sorry for the lack of power for the poor. They might actually have something to say.)
Well maybe the unions will pay attention to their members' wishes. That will be some balance to corporate spending. But, I fear with the loss of power and membership Unions won't be enough.
Maybe, just maybe, Congress will get busy and try again? Nah, they need all the money and future jobs they can get.
As you can probably tell, I don't like this one at all.

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.

Trying to Stay Positive and See the Steps Taken

Why haven't I written lately?
Several reasons actually. I just felt I had nothing to contribute.

Seems as though we, my family, have been somewhat in turmoil since September here. Nothing really major as far as that goes but just one of those spells. You know the spells I'm sure. One thing after another until we get worn out and then the small problems become large problems.

The roof is now done. (that even had its funny moments as well as the frustrating moments. another post?) There is some much needed reorganization done. Not nearly enough but some. I'm so tired I forget the progress made sometimes.
Some have mentioned the hectic Christmas season as the reason. Not in this case just on-going stuff and the times in which we all have been living taking their toll.

I enjoy Christmas and feel it has actually helped me get through some of this mess. I love "fluffy" Christmas movies and, some days, Christmas music. I love to watch parents that got to sneak off to shop for their kids and each other. This year I noted that people are smiling quietly. They are not laughing aloud nor are they arguing with the little kids as noted in the past. It is more low key. I really expected the stress levels to be higher but I think the bad times have been going on long enough that people are just deciding better ways to shop. I'll bet the debt levels of many families won't soar as in the previous 7-8 years.

Politically, I got very disgusted when "we" decided to send so many to Afghanistan.
I was already frustrated with the typical junk in the health-care "debate". I don't even read the NY Times right now. I just peruse the front page. I am sure many others feel the same. I had several days of "I give up" thoughts and living in a fairly red state doesn't help any. I grew up in this state and then came back years later. I have watched the changes for many years now and wonder what really happened. This is not the state for which I had such pride.
No I don't want to move out of state; I would have to move across country-politically speaking.
Not so sure the others in the family would go for it.

Another time but fun to read Mark Twain, as always, makes you smile. The site generally keeps me engrossed. I end up searching and reading with amazement at the brilliance of Mr. Twain. Thus I get lost in time. I hope you take time to read a little. My gift to you today.

Anyway, those are a few of the reasons I was not able or in the mood to post a thing.

I hope all who read this are having a good season, whether it be religious or just a beautiful December. Peace and quiet are my wishes. May all our problems be problems we can resolve by taking it one baby step at a time. I, for one, will try to remember the small positive steps we take and try to see the beauty of the world around us all. I am already forgiving myself for not getting everything done. To me, the Christmas season is a beautiful time even if I don't have cards sent or even the tree "up".
So...

Joy to you and yours,
Kanna

The photo is of a little Carolina Wren at the feeder.

Some of the Blogs I Follow and Why.

Political blog posts at Southern Beale blog can be fun to read for some of us.
The last two concern local politicians and the Obama is out to get Fox News stuff.
Read them and have a little smile or maybe you will get angry.
Personally, I think we lefties should feel so sorry for Fox, poor things. Look up the meaning of Irony and you will see how they work. (See I am still hung up on words and word play) It must be hard to find ways to look at reality and write the opposite on every story or non-story day after weary day.
Also in one of the posts Southern Beale lists a few list-keepers all Repubs. I really had not thought of political party and McCarthyism in a while but there he is a Repub.
Really I am fairly positive that pols or their staffs have lists that build through the years but most are just memories in someone's head. Do some value their bad memories so much they write them down so they can drag them out and read them over and over while figuring ways to get even? We know of some that have done so. Are we electing children?

Now on another blog I follow, All The Things I Love, for a whole change of pace read the post on books
This post also has some beautiful photos to go with it. Anyone who knows me knows how much I appreciate books and the work that goes into each and every volume.
I am scan-reading two right now. (I generally find these days I scan rather than read whole books any more. Too much instant gratification other places, maybe.
But I still love books. They are fun to see, fun to handle, and even fun to hear.
Not only those senses are involved some books have odors,not just mold, but something inexplicable.)

I can relate to these two bloggers. They are very different in writing style and in subject matter covered. However they can both be of interest.

I am sorry to report that one of my followed bloggers had a mishap, actually sounds like more that just a mishap to me. Pat, of Pat's Poetry Musings, as you can read is "Out of Commission". Fell and messed up a typist's much needed shoulder and arm.
Get better soon.

Of course, I can always recommend you read Thomas' posts. Many varied interests and an inquiring mind he will stimulate your mind too. If you like cars, politics, candy, dogs, or just about anything; you will find something in Thomas' writings.


So here you are a partial list of blogs I follow with reasons why. Just wanted to write about a few so maybe people would find something new to enjoy.

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.

The Supreme Court Revisits Corporations as Persons

JUST SEE HOW THE COURT WAS IMPORTANT  BUT MAYBE NOT NOW.  Sept 3 2025 edit for fb post.  Thanks to Copilot for finding a way.

The Supreme Court will be hearing a very important case the 9th this month. They are going to revisit an old case. Why? Because The Right wants them to do so? No, because Roberts and Scalia want to do so.

At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. Re-arguments in the Supreme Court are rare, and the justices’ decision to call for one here may have been prompted by lingering questions about just how far campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold, may go in regulating campaign spending by corporations.

Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary by Adam Liptak, August 29, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com

The words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/1.html ).

I found this on wikipedia.org, in a case from 1886 Santa Clara County V Southern Pacific Railroad Company corporations Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

Now I know that there is a term "Legal Person" supposedly different than "natural person". But, I believe we have seen the lines blurring. I feel corporations, the boards, will keep attempting to blur those lines as it suits them to do so for personal gain,and personal political agendas, whether for profit or because they know they are more capable than the peon classes. Such as Insurance companies deciding what care you should receive, when you should receive it, and where you should receive it. (Oh but isn't that what the claim is against government run health care?)
Basically remember the first amendment is the free speech, religion, press, petition the government, and assembly amendment. The fifth amendment is, among other things, due process, double jeopardy, and compensation for properties seized for the public good.
According to other sources I read in the last few days, before this case The John Marshall Court had previously declared a corporation was a person. Since the Court likes to use precedent, when it suits a particular Court, maybe this is one precedent that needs revisited or thrown out. I believe it was really to do with business across state lines as well as state charters and taxation.
There are arguments that state the Court did not actually say the part about corporations being “persons” that the Court reporter actually inserted in a head note the part about corporations are persons therefore equal under the law to persons.
Since then Corporations have often sought their “persons” rights in various cases. http://money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person.htm The attempts result from some financial, profit, motive. In the case of a licensing issue in VA. And a N.Y. Insurance company, Paul vs. VA, the State Supreme Court basically said Insurance did not fall Interstate Commerce so often used by Congress to legislate. I believe that lasted until 1944. Insurance companies prefer to be under federal regs that lets them sell from and in state to state without meeting the state requirements imposed. How interesting is that? One moment corporate America is yelling about too much Federal regulation yet, when it suits them they want to be under Federal regulation. States rights or no states rights which shall it be? Strong, “invasive” Federal Government or States Rights?
Now I wonder when a corporation will also get the “right to keep and bare arms” as in the second Amendment. How would that play out? As individuals already have the “right to carry” would the corporation now buy the weapons. How will they apply for permits? Who will be the one checked? Or will all of the Corporation and its stockholders and employees have to apply? What if an employee would not normally get a permit? I wonder too why a corporation as a person cannot have its own religion and therefore a tax-exempt status. By the way did you know that some corporations and universities now own patents to some of your genes. Yep they really do.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode35/usc_sec_35_00000101----000-.html
Title 35 section 101.
Will we change the way corporations are taxed? As a person shouldn't they be taxed as individuals as well as a separate person. Believe it or not there are discussions about the very taxation problems.

Arguments for and Against Corporations as Persons
According to proponents, in a capitalistic society the government is not a regulator of corporations but has a duty to protect the rights of corporations. They may also argue that forming a corporation is an inalienable right. On the one hand the corporation is made up of individuals with the rights of the individuals. (Opponents argue that the corporation gets rights of an individual and the individual has rights thus now the individuals involved are no longer individuals but get the rights of two people.) On the other hand it is argued that the investors are only liable to the extent of their investment. That the stockholders should not be held responsible for decisions they do not make but that are made for them by the boards, CEO, managers, and employees. That is awfully close to saying the voters should not be held responsible for the decisions made for them by their elected officials. If that were true, the voter should pay no more than the initial investment. The voters are held responsible for paying the bills and paying for the wars decided for them in an ongoing fashion. The soldier is certainly held responsible by the use of his or her very life. Now I begin to see how some could use these arguments as a way to avoid paying taxes.
Other proponents of corporations as “legal persons” do say that the corporation is only entitled to parts of the 1st and 5th amendments. They only mention the right to speak on Commercial Matters, the right to privacy of trade secrets and internal corporate decisions, the right to be paid for government confiscated properties, and the right to do business without undue regulation. Who decides? Judges and lawyers. Let us hope they are fair and uninfluenced. If that is true then why the revisit to a case from the 90's.
Other proponents of corporations and their place in a capitalistic society believe that in regulations come stagnation. That regulation is the block to creativity and drive in the business sector. Yet I am sure of stories of large corporations buying small businesses that would offer competition only to keep the new ideas from seeing further light of day. I give you the purchase and dismantling of public transportation systems by a certain auto-manufacturer by any means. http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm Now many urban areas are struggling to come up with the funding and the votes to build systems that is pretty much an expanded versions of the same system again. I think corporations themselves often times stifle creativity and drive.
When speaking or writing against corporations as “persons” one is reminded that a corporation is given infinite life, reside in more than one country, and though officers may, corporations cannot go to jail. Also it is argued that corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. Some corporations use their rights to deny rights to others. (Insurance companies?)
So much to learn so much to take in and understand. I believe I will put these issues on my “keep researching” list for future reference. I have a feeling by the time I begin to get the full scope, pros and cons, everything or nothing will change. Depending on what corporations want. Sorry, I really feel our capitalistic society has gone a little far.
If you know of some great or not so great information on campaign reform or corporations as persons let us all in on it. Though I doubt anything will be done especially under the Robert's Court.
And this my friends is why I voted for a Democrat-The Supreme Court. We are stuck with Bush appointees for years, Chief Justice Roberts is only 54. Justices stay pretty much for life but hopefully keeping a few not-so-liberal-liberals on the court will help. Sotamayor, to me, is another of Obama's pragmatisms. If this President gets to appoint another Justice, I hope he puts a “lefty” up but then he has been warned by the Right that he will not get far with that. The Right will control whether they are in the majority or the minority.

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.

A Good Article on Why the Status Quo Must Go.

Dying for affordable healthcare — the uninsured speak

In a week of claim and counter-claim about the merits of healthcare provision in the US and UK, Ed Pilkington travelled to Quindaro, Kansas, to see how the poorest survive

Here is another reason the status quo must go. Guardian

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

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.