It's been a while since I poked my nose in here, but I just wanted to give my thought's about Bloomberg:
As a Long Island Ny'ker working in NYC, I (as many NY'ker's ) felt Bloomberg was a pompous, arrogant and condescending individual. However, that changed over time and once I (and many others) saw the changes he implemented, our feelings turned. When I look back at why I didn't like him, it was my ignorance which didn't allow meto see the forest through the trees...after all he had banned smoking in the city and that was just wrong because I was a smoker. And let's face it, ifya can't trust The Doctors and Santa, who can ya trust? In my opinion ya can trust Michael Bloomberg, that's who. While sitting back and letting my thought's flow through my slightly toasted brain cells, it dawned on me "the guy is doing a pretty good job in the city, and he's got a cool few billion, maybe he knows a little more than I do?". Well I have to make a Dr's appt. and start my Christmas list, so until next time kids I bid you farewell.
Over the past few months, the American people have seentheir government go into lockdown mode regarding information on their past andpresent activities. Frustrated by incessant stonewalling, one group has taken adifferent approach to breaking through and obtaining the information they need;namely, the Airline Industry.
In response to the 41 lawsuits filed by victims of theSeptember 11th attacks against the Airline Industry, American Airlines Inc.,United Airlines Inc., US Airways Group Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., ContinentalAirlines Inc. and The Boeing Co. haverepeatedly requested interviews with FBI and CIA investigators of the attack. Afterfailing to obtain information vital to their defense, they have now decided tosue.
In the , the companies asked to interview a"limited number of former and current FBI employees" who hadparticipated in investigations of al-Qaida and al-Qaida operatives before andafter Sept. 11, 2001.
Maybe this is the only approach left? Asking politicians totell the truth doesn’t work. Subpoenaing them to testify doesn’t work. Maybe weneed to start suing government agencies to compel them to come forward and tellthe truth!
PBS dropped a documentary for political reasons. 'Islam vs. Islamists' thatwas to air next week, was pulled from more that 300 PBS stations.
Subtitled Voices From the Muslim Center, Burke says his film"attempts to answer the question: 'Where are the moderate Muslims?' Theanswer is, 'Wherever they are, they are reviled and sometimes attacked' "by extremists.
"I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds," Burke said in a complaint letter to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supplied funds for the films.
Burke wrote that his documentary depicts the plight of moderate Muslims who are silenced by Islamic extremists, adding, "Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them."
"Key portions of the documentary focus on of
Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, anon-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism,constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state."
Why would a film showing that not all Muslims are terrorists bepulled?
The controversy involves a collection of documentaries financed with $20 millionin federal grants from the corporation, which conceived Crossroads in2004 to enhance public understanding of terrorism, homeland security and othercrucial issues in the post-9/11 era. Independent filmmakers submitted 430proposals. Full production grants were given to 21 of those, including Islamvs. Islamists, which received $700,000.
It appears that PBS has entered into the world of right wing propaganda.
A week-long wave of sectarian violence in Iraq has terrified civilians and escalated the continuing civil war. Overnight, Shiite pilgrims were targeted by a car bomb in the town of Kufa, which killed 12 and injured 37 civilians.
The most troubling part about this attack, other than the loss of life of course, was the fact that Kufa was mostly a peaceful town up until now, :
Police Capt. Salim Ghanim said 12 people were killed and 37 wounded, including several Iranian pilgrims visiting the holy area.
Kufa, 100 miles south of Baghdad, is in a relatively peaceful areaof Iraq and has seen few attacks during the rampant insurgency facingthe country. A mortar barrage hit the mosque in August 2004, killing 27people and wounding 63.
If I had a post for each bombing in Iraq over the last year, I probably would have written between twenty-drive and one-hundred posts each day. There are other blogs that focus completely on Iraq, which do not miss anything. But because I try to focus more on policy and political strategy, I tend to only report the events in Iraq that I find significant. This attack is one of them.
It adds credibility to those who I have recently spoken with in academia that suggest the Sunnis are once again isolating themselves from the political discourse. When that happens, new militant Sunni groups suddenly form out of nowhere and attack Shiite civilians in order to prove a point. Take early this week, for example, when claimed responsibility for last Saturday's car bombing in Baghdad. Sunni political leaders turn to these militia groups whenever there is a political setback.
This brings me to underscore why Senator Joe Biden was correct in that maybe we should think of dividing up Iraq into a loose-knit confederacy consisting of three regions: Sunni, Kurd and Shiite. As long as the three factions of Iraq are together, the minority Sunnis will call upon these militia gangs whenever they want political leverage -- which as you can guess in no way helps Iraq build a healthy democracy.
However, I do not want to make it seem like radical Shiites pose the greatest threat to the stability of Iraq. They are just part of the problem. The situation involving radical Kurdish factions up around the border with Turkey holds huge ramifications, as do the Iranian Shiite leaders that are trying to influence politics in the south near Basra.
This all boils down to realism. Other than using it to help them win the 2004 election, the Bush Administration had no idea what they were getting into geopolitically by fighting this war. We have done all that we can militarily. Our soldiers have fought bravely. Now, in order for the political aspect of this counterinsurgency effort to run its course, we need to redeploy our troops to the periphery so that our occupation will not continue to be an added strain on the political process, while at the same time allowing our special force units to be ready just in case we need them to take our specific targets. This war is adding to the birth tax (National Debt) that our children and great grandchildren will have to pay off someday. I would like to see the Democrats back a plan that would cut the per-week cost of war in half by the end of this year, redeploy forces to the periphery, and begin pressuring the Iraqi government to divide itself up into a loose-knit confederacy.
With the birth tax (otherwise known as the National Debt, for those of you scoring at home) at a disturbing $8 trillion, my generation is looking for ways to offer advice so that we can solve this long-term problem that threatens future generations. , the National Debt is the highest it has been since the Reagan-Bush years. And before the Reagan-Bush years, it had not been that high since Eisenhower. Cuts are needed soon so we will not have to pay as much interest on the debt.
But where these cuts ought to come from underscores the honest difference that progressives have with conservatives. As far as fiscal policy is concerned, progressives believe that tax cuts for small businesses and the middle class, coupled with cutbacks on both Pentagon spending and subsidies for oil companies, leads to lower spending and is the best way to assure that consumers will spend more money to keep the economy moving. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that supply-side economics -- tax cuts for the rich and oil companies -- results in job creation. But growing the economy, even though I believe progressives have the edge on that debate, is very different than solving the debt problem.
If I were president, I would urge Congress to cut back on missile defense spending, bunker buster nuclear weapons, oil subsidies, and . I would also reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by redeploying them to the periphery, therefore cutting in half the $8 billion we spend per week in Iraq. In all, this plan would reduce the deficit by nearly $300 billion each year. Now you know why I want a Democrat in the White House!
What I would hesitate to do is eliminate farm subsidies. However, when you look at the facts, some of those farm subsidies are going to individuals without farms, :
Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence inthe heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphaltcontractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yetunder a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acresuburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," becauseyears ago the land was used to grow rice.
Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid atleast $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 toindividuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis ofgovernment records by The Washington Post.
Like I said, I am definitely pro-farming. But farm subsidies for non-farmers is just one example of some of the loopholes in our tax system that add to the National Debt each year.
If you are a conservative reading this blog, you are probably thinking to yourself, "A progressive talking about the deficit? Now that's a new one."
But with the budget nightmare that we have faced ever since President Bush came into office, my generation is very worried about our government's poor spending habits. We need a pay-as-you-go system. And whenever we generate a surplus, we need to reinvest it. Fixing these farm subsidy loopholes is just one part of solving the budget puzzle that we find ourselves in today.
The GOP have tried everything: the estate tax, gay marriage, flag burning, and gun safety locks. Still, nothing is exciting their base as we edge closer to the November election. So, with time running out and everything on the line, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will start rolling out the God-card. The Senate Republicans want to introduce an , which would force Evangelical conservatives to unite with their Republican lawmakers and the President on this issue, thereby increasing voter turnout this November. They want Democrats to go on record as killers of life -- as the GOP talking point usually goes. Under this strategy, funding for embryonic stem cell research would pass, and , which should help increase his approval among the pro-life crowd:
The bill passed the House last year and sponsors expect a broadbipartisan victory in the Senate, probably in July. However PresidentGeorge W. Bush has threatened to veto it.
The research would usestem cells derived from embryos leftover from fertility treatment butsome lawmakers who oppose abortion say the research is morallyunacceptable because it entails destruction of the embryos. Backers saythe research holds promise for numerous deadly or debilitating diseases.
Keep in mind that George W. Bush has since becoming president. It looks like his first veto, if this does happen, will be against science.
Back to the whole strategy aspect of it all. As far as fundraising goes, the Republicans need Bush's approval rating to be much higher. It is currently suffering because of depreciated support within the GOP base for some of his domestic policies. The more that conservative base voters support him, the more cash he can bring in for Congressional candidates running for reelection this November. So in order to get his rating up, he needs to appear like he is standing up for Evangelical Christians in this veto against embryonic stem cell research.
How do I know this? Being a political science and history student for the last four years, I have learned a lot about . And this one is so easy to sniff out. The Republicans are desperate during this election cycle. They are not going down without a fight -- even if that means smearing the Democrats more than they smeared John Kerry in 2004.
What can the Democrats do? Stand on principle and support embryonic stem cell research. Consistent with Al Gore's global warming theme, we want to be thought of as the pro-science political party. Everyone knows someone that has either died or suffered from cancer. This is not a winning issue for the Republican Party. That will not stop the GOP from trying. Like I said, being that Republicans are down in the polls, they are desperate.
Barring a terrorist attack or an offensive against Iran, many would agree that the only thing standing in the way of a Democratic Congressional landslide this November are guns and religion. Judging from the month of June alone, gay marriage and flag burning had almost no effect as far as rallying the conservative base. Even though the estate tax repeal is , Republicans need something else to jump-start their usual voters. Expect the GOP to very quickly intensify their pandering on gun safety and church and state related issues.
Late on Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives launched the opening phase of a sustained effort between now and November to -- which they think will help win their party more votes this November:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to overturn arecently enacted law requiring safety trigger locks on all hand gunssold in the United States.
The Republican-controlled House handed a victory to opponents of gun control by a vote of 230-191.
...Last fall, President George W. Bush signedlegislation giving gun makers broad protections from civil lawsuits,but that law contained the mandatory trigger lock provision.
Aside from the strategy aspect of this bill, many wonder about the impact that this will have on the safety of our children nationwide. Groups , which has helped distribute 35 million gun safety kits nationwide, will have to work extra hard to encourage more Americans to get safety locks for their guns.
Personally speaking, the action by the Republican House last night demonstrated how radically conservative that body of representatives really is. Even President Bush, a gun rights advocate, . This attitude of dangerous indifference towards local communities all across the country says a lot about Republican priorities. Substantively speaking, yesterday's bill about safety locks had absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing debate about the right to own a gun. Instead, at stake was the right of innocent, well-intending American families to walk freely in public without the fear of someone accidentally dropping or mishandling a firearm nearby without a safety lock. Of course, anyone even questioning this bill about safety locks would be labeled as opponents of gun rights. So much for an honest, substantive debate beforehand -- not that I ever expected one from the GOP majority in an election year.
John Edwards is looking more and more like a candidate for president. , enabling him to focus completely on his personal and political ambitions. He leads all possible 2008 candidates in the state of Iowa, the first stop in the 2008 primary season, .
On top of all that, the former North Carolina Senator gave a major speech this week on the issue of poverty. that would effectively reduce poverty by a third over the next ten years, and end poverty within 30 years:
But mostly he talked about setting a national goal to eradicatepoverty over the next 30 years. He proposes to end it not with a rehashof the "Great Society," President Lyndon Johnson's string of federalprograms in the 1960s, but by ushering in what Edwards called his"Working Society."
"This is all about creating tools that would allow people to be able to help themselves," Edwards said.
Among the tools he called for:
_A minimum wage bump to at least $7.50 an hour.
_One million new housing vouchers to allow poor families to "votewith their feet" by moving to better neighborhoods with good schools.
_One million "stepping stone" jobs in parks and community centers for people who can't find work.
_"Second chance" schools, possibly at community colleges, that would help high school dropouts who want to get back on track.
_"A real chance" for all workers - especially low-paid service workers in hotels and elsewhere - to organize labor unions.
He said helping the poor wouldn't be a one-way street; they'd be expected to work and to be responsible parents.
All this would cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion a year, Edwardssaid. He'd pay for it by repealing some of President Bush's tax cuts,keeping the estate tax - which hits rich families - and cutting 1,500jobs as part of "radical reform" of the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development.
The public's response to Hurricane Katrina proved, Edwards said,that the American people care about poverty, even if Washington doesn't.
John Edwards is quickly solidifying himself as the labor candidate in 2008, a role that he split in 2004 with Dick Gephardt.
Also, Edwards advocated during the speech for an .
A few questions need to be asked though. How specifically does Edwards' plan to fight poverty ensure that only those who work hard will get these benefits? Most Americans don't want that money going to people who aren't motivated and could care less about their own future. The $20 billion per year that he proposed needs to be spent wisely. How do we know that his plan will work? Edwards needs to be sure to outline better why this plan is pro-labor, and not pro-socialism. Overall, it is about time someone like Edwards focused on dealing with the increased cost of living issue. The Republicans are ignoring that issue each day, especially with their .
--------------------------------------------
Other blogs are writing about this issue: , , , , .
New York Senator Hillary Clinton has realized, with all the latest buzz about and possibly running for president, that the Democratic base is second-guessing her as a likely national candidate. Her speech this week that rejected the idea of a troop withdrawal drew large , as well as resentment from the blogosphere.
So in an effort to re-energize her support among the progressive base, Clinton is unveiling a piece of legislation that would set up a . For the reasons above, she chose a liberal justice group called the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy as the venue to announce this legislation:
"Modern life makes many things easier and many things easier toknow, and yet privacy is somehow caught in the crosshairs of thesechanges," Clinton said in a speech to a left-leaning legal group.
Clinton's speech on protecting consumers from identity theft andcitizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talksbilled as "major addresses" by aides. Previous speeches were on energyand the economy.
Part of the bill would also consist of creating a cabinet level post in the White House that would protect privacy and report back to the President.
In my view, the great part about this bill is that it would help . As far as warrantless NSA wiretaps are concerned, an issue that is at the forefront of debate, it is not clear as of now how far the bill will go to protect Americans in that regard. It seems like the Privacy Rights and Oversight for Electronic and Commercial Transactions Act of 2006, which is what Hillary's "privacy bill or rights" is actually called, is more concerned with and not from wiretaps.
Hillary Clinton put out her own about what the bill contains.
The death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi offers a great opportunity for the Democrats to do a better job outlining to the American people in this election year exactly what their foreign policy strategy really is. Senator Russ Feingold is onto something. Here is an excerpt from his column that was posted on the Huffington Post web site thie morning, where he calls for to fight terrorist cells across the globe:
The first step in creating a strong national security policy isrecognizing that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our nationalsecurity. Our Iraq-centric policies are diverting resources andattention from other places around the world where terrorist networksthat threaten the U.S. are operating. We need to redeploy troops fromIraq so that we can focus resources on global terrorist networks andthe conditions throughout the world that allow them to take root andthrive. I have repeatedly called for our troops to redeploy from Iraqby the end of 2006, and have filed an amendment to the Department ofDefense authorization bill - which the Senate will be taking up nextweek - that would give that deadline the force of law.
It's time to return to our true national security mission in thewake of 9/11 by crafting a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism.Our approach must be global, taking into consideration that our enemiescan move easily in places with little or no governance, and can use21st century technology to communicate, plan, and even execute attacksagainst us. This strategy must focus on developing strong partnershipswith countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Mali, focused notonly on security assistance, but on the development of a strong rule oflaw, respect for human rights, and fighting corruption.
A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also addresscountries like Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breedinggrounds for terrorism and instability. We know that this East Africancountry is home to a range of terrorist and criminal networks thatoperate throughout the region. Yet, the U.S. government currently hasno strategy to eliminate the conditions that allow these terrorists totrain, equip, rest, and plan. Our budget for programs to counter theseconditions is a mere $2 million per year, excluding food aid. That'sroughly $1.6 billion less than we are spending on Iraq every week.
Some vision is always better than no vision at all. Russ Feingold, John Murtha, John Kerry and Wesley Clark have been the only Democrats to offer a comprehensive plan, as opposed to merely trashing the status-quo. If you think that the Administration and their Republican counterparts do not offer a strong long-term national security strategy, then say so and critique what is wrong about it. But in the end, be sure to lay down an alternative -- not just because it would help the Democrats in an election year, but more importantly because the United States is at a point where it needs a clearly defined set strategy to combat worldwide terrorism in this fast-paced information age.
Recent Comments