This week James O'Keefe (the lying pimp from ACORN videos) and three other cohorts were caught in impersonating phone repairmen and recording it in Senator Mary Landrieu office in New Orleans. According to the New York Times O'Keefe's argument for doing this was that rumors were floating around that her office was not answering their phones to hear complaints about healthcare legislation. Landrieu's office reported that many people called in in waves and left voice messages for the Senator due to the fact her staff did not have the capacity to answer all the phone calls. O'Keefe's idea was that they would record the telephone men and record a tape of them unable to reach Landrieu's office. They were caught and arrested. All men in the group face a 250,000 dollar fine and up to 10 years in Prison.
Tampering with phone lines is not a new tactic, Nixon had men in July of 1972 to bug Democrat Headquarters. They were caught and it was called Watergate and led to the fall of Nixon. Those men’s' actions were perceived by the public as criminal actions. O'Keefe and his men followed in the spirit of Nixon's men and not in investigative journalism.
As American citizens, we need to call out the injustices perpetrated by people like O'Keefe.
29 January 2010
28 January 2010
Historian Howard Zinn dies at the Age of 87
Today historian Howard Zinn died from a heart attack at the age of 87. Zinn, known as a professor, author, and activist brought the plight of lower class Americans to the forefront. His crowning achievement was The People's History of the United States, a book that looked at the history of the United States through the eyes of women, minorities and lower classes.
Zinn has been an ally to the lower classes in civil rights movements and in anti-war movements. Zinn understood the horrors of war being a bomber pilot over Europe during World War II. In 2006, Zinn wrote in the Progressive anti-war articles showing his disagreement with the Bush administration and previous administrations with their use of killing civilians in the name of world peace. Reuters obituary for Zinn sums up this argument, "Once we decided, at the start, that our side was the good side and the other side was evil ... we did not have to think any more. Then we could commit unspeakable acts and it was all right."
Zinn also had some critical words to President Obama published in The Nation on January 13, 2010. He was not hopeful that President Obama would change the current system. Zinn is quite skeptical of any meaningful reform. Zinn said, "I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction."
Zinn's life goals were to raise the middle and lower classes of all backgrounds to have a voice and not be exploited by wealthy and the powerful. The empowerment that Zinn tried to provide citizens needs to be picked up by younger generations and carried into the next decades. Items like caring for all our neighbors around the world, fighting against true tyranny, working for a better standard of living for all world citizens, and not forget to condemn the exploitive deeds that have been done for human advancement. As a world community, we need to accomplish these goals for the betterment of the world society.
Zinn has been an ally to the lower classes in civil rights movements and in anti-war movements. Zinn understood the horrors of war being a bomber pilot over Europe during World War II. In 2006, Zinn wrote in the Progressive anti-war articles showing his disagreement with the Bush administration and previous administrations with their use of killing civilians in the name of world peace. Reuters obituary for Zinn sums up this argument, "Once we decided, at the start, that our side was the good side and the other side was evil ... we did not have to think any more. Then we could commit unspeakable acts and it was all right."
Zinn also had some critical words to President Obama published in The Nation on January 13, 2010. He was not hopeful that President Obama would change the current system. Zinn is quite skeptical of any meaningful reform. Zinn said, "I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction."
Zinn's life goals were to raise the middle and lower classes of all backgrounds to have a voice and not be exploited by wealthy and the powerful. The empowerment that Zinn tried to provide citizens needs to be picked up by younger generations and carried into the next decades. Items like caring for all our neighbors around the world, fighting against true tyranny, working for a better standard of living for all world citizens, and not forget to condemn the exploitive deeds that have been done for human advancement. As a world community, we need to accomplish these goals for the betterment of the world society.
26 January 2010
Bauer's Comments Shows the Lack of Caring by some People of the United States
Thursday, at a town hall meeting Lt. Governor Andre Bauer made some comments about some people's dependency of people on government assistance. These comments were in very poor taste. In the Washington Post AP writer Seanna Adcox leaves us with this quote from Andre Bauer.
As good Americans, we need to look out for the less fortunate citizens and help them. We should not destroy social programs that help fed 31 million (2000 est.) Americans. Political rhetoric like Bauer's comments should not be accepted in American society. We as a nation need to stand strong, because we are as strong as our weakest link.
My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that.Bauer has half-heartedly apologized for the comments equaling poor people to stray animals. His lack of compassion shows how out of touch politicians are to reality sometimes. I am reminded of attending lectures done by the former Senator from South Dakota George McGovern and his crusade to end hunger. What McGovern found out from his travels is that if you want people to go to school, which a meal was provided, that there would be higher attendance at the school. This includes an increase of attendance from boys and girls, which means a more educated populous. They would have a better job outlook. This will in the end lessen the dependency, and prove Bauer's comments wrong.
As good Americans, we need to look out for the less fortunate citizens and help them. We should not destroy social programs that help fed 31 million (2000 est.) Americans. Political rhetoric like Bauer's comments should not be accepted in American society. We as a nation need to stand strong, because we are as strong as our weakest link.
25 January 2010
Obama Wants Help Students with Loan Repayment and Republicans say No
With President Obama speaking today on his plan to help the Middle Class, he emphasized a new cap program for college loans. In Nick Anderson's piece from the Washington Post explains it pretty well.
The counter of this view is that this is a waste of money and that the American people do not want this plan. They argue that it is a waste that creates a higher deficit and people showed their distrust in Obama's ideas by voting for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In David M. Herszenhorn's blog The Caucus, Republican representative John A. Boehner brought the counter argument.
Under the proposal, monthly payments on federal loans would be limited to 10 percent of discretionary income -- above a "basic living allowance" -- for qualified borrowers. That would be lower than the current cap of 15 percent in the income-based repayment program that began last summer. In addition, the administration said, certain borrowers could be eligible for loan forgiveness after 10 years in public service or 20 years in other fields of work.By capping to 10 perecent will allowing college students searching in the job market a little bit of breathing room. The breathing will help students and allow them to take jobs that do not provide with the money needed to pay back the loans. Federal service jobs and teaching jobs that come to mind when that are low paying, but need a four year degree. These people that take it upon themselves to do jobs that are extremely needed and are low paying. By having this plan enacted in a bill will allow highly qualified people into a field that needs highly quilified people.
The counter of this view is that this is a waste of money and that the American people do not want this plan. They argue that it is a waste that creates a higher deficit and people showed their distrust in Obama's ideas by voting for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In David M. Herszenhorn's blog The Caucus, Republican representative John A. Boehner brought the counter argument.
“Less than a week after the Massachusetts special election, the Obama Administration is vowing to ‘stay the course’ and double down on the same costly, job-killing policies that are leaving America’s middle-class families and small businesses high and dry.”
“This ‘stay the course’ approach doesn’t just apply to a government takeover of health care,” Mr. Boehner continued. “Out-of-touch Washington Democrats remain committed to all their costly, job-killing priorities, including more government ‘stimulus’ spending, a ‘cap-and-trade’ national energy tax and ‘card check.’”As it shown Boehner attacked the adminstration with a generic line. Boehner did not look at the what Obama said, but stuck to the generic line. He skipped the ideas of middle class tax breaks and the loan repayment plan for college students. The idea that Boehner did not come up with a counter argument or a counter plan he stuck to the Republican party line of disagreeing with the President. It would be in Republicans best interest to actually have a plan in place or an argument to counter President Obama's ideas. By not being flexable will hurt them in the long run.
22 January 2010
Polls and the Over Use by the Media (Lighter Note)
This week needs something light and happy with all the bad news that has happened in the last week. I was reading a comic done by Jorge Charm on January 20th from PhD Comics where he comments on how the media uses polling data incorrectly and claims it as fact. It is quite amusing and I suggest that you look at it.
Conservative Activist Judges Erase over 100 Years of Campaign Finance Reform Laws
Today in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that regulations can not be put on corporations or unions to limit their spending on campaigns. This allows corporations and unions to funnel money to candidates of their choosing without limits. Buying a vote from a candidate will be extremely easier after this ruling.
The case that brought up this measure was United Citizens v. Federal Election Commission. United Citizens produced a documentary, which attacked Hilary Clinton and wanted to release it during the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Commission declared that the "documentary" was an attack ad and not a documentary. They did not allow the film to be shown during the campaign. In the majority opinion Justice Kennedy argued that it was a violation of Citizens United's First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech that was violated.
What this allows now from this ruling is an unregulated flow of money from corporations and unions to help influence elections. With the items stripped from all the legislation dating to 1907 with the Tillman Act. The Tillman Act prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing to federal election campaigns. Campaign finance reform does not come back into the picture until 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act, which barred labor unions and corporations from making contributions from toward federal campaigns. The next major action came from a Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 in which the court argued that contribution limits were legal, but expenditure limits were restricting free speech. This was upheld in 1980 with the Supreme Court ruling of Republican National Committee v. FEC. In 2002 the McCain Feingold Act also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), came into power. This bill eliminated corporations and unions to use soft money to funnel into federal campaigns. The other major item that came from this act was the limits put advocacy ads that supported a candidate. Suggestive ads could not be ran with sixty days or less on the campaign. These laws were shoring some of the corruption problem in the Untied States.
The previous paragraph thanks to the Supreme Court ruling is now void. With the 5-4 decision, banks, corporations, and unions can put as much money into a campaign as they want. They can produce ads for the candidate that they favor and run them all the way to election day. Their major contributions can influence our members of Congress to a greater extent then they do now.
The alternative opinion of this is a victory for the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is expanded in this ruling. This opens up to First Amendment to corporations. Justice Kennedy wrote, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers." He continues, "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."
Although the expansion of the First Amendment this will hurt the American people. This ruling allows corporations the same rights as United States Citizens. Corporations based in the United States, but controlled by foreign interests will have a say in U.S. politics. The ruling presented by the Supreme Court today was extreme. President Obama and some members of Congress say that they are working to stop the ruling by the Supreme Court, but if taken to trial the Supreme Court will declare the laws unconstitutional. We need our voices to be heard and to support measures to curb this ruling.
Two major populous hurt by this ruling are youth and people in poverty. These voices will have an even smaller say in the U.S. political spectrum. In turn will disenfranchise many of these new voters, which will give politicians more reasons to follow the influence of corporations than their constituents.
There are ways to fight back Alan Grayson a Democratic Representative from Florida has a petition out to fight this ruling. Call your representative to show your distain to the Supreme Court ruling. Being vocal on the internet or in any public forum is necessary to show that the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the people.
Like always the links are at the bottom.
Washington Post Article "High court shows it might be willing to act boldly"
FEC Short History
Alan Grayson Petition Link
NPR "Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws"
NPR Campaign Finance Reform Timeline
The case that brought up this measure was United Citizens v. Federal Election Commission. United Citizens produced a documentary, which attacked Hilary Clinton and wanted to release it during the 2008 primaries. The Federal Election Commission declared that the "documentary" was an attack ad and not a documentary. They did not allow the film to be shown during the campaign. In the majority opinion Justice Kennedy argued that it was a violation of Citizens United's First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech that was violated.
What this allows now from this ruling is an unregulated flow of money from corporations and unions to help influence elections. With the items stripped from all the legislation dating to 1907 with the Tillman Act. The Tillman Act prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing to federal election campaigns. Campaign finance reform does not come back into the picture until 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act, which barred labor unions and corporations from making contributions from toward federal campaigns. The next major action came from a Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 in which the court argued that contribution limits were legal, but expenditure limits were restricting free speech. This was upheld in 1980 with the Supreme Court ruling of Republican National Committee v. FEC. In 2002 the McCain Feingold Act also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), came into power. This bill eliminated corporations and unions to use soft money to funnel into federal campaigns. The other major item that came from this act was the limits put advocacy ads that supported a candidate. Suggestive ads could not be ran with sixty days or less on the campaign. These laws were shoring some of the corruption problem in the Untied States.
The previous paragraph thanks to the Supreme Court ruling is now void. With the 5-4 decision, banks, corporations, and unions can put as much money into a campaign as they want. They can produce ads for the candidate that they favor and run them all the way to election day. Their major contributions can influence our members of Congress to a greater extent then they do now.
The alternative opinion of this is a victory for the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is expanded in this ruling. This opens up to First Amendment to corporations. Justice Kennedy wrote, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers." He continues, "The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations."
Although the expansion of the First Amendment this will hurt the American people. This ruling allows corporations the same rights as United States Citizens. Corporations based in the United States, but controlled by foreign interests will have a say in U.S. politics. The ruling presented by the Supreme Court today was extreme. President Obama and some members of Congress say that they are working to stop the ruling by the Supreme Court, but if taken to trial the Supreme Court will declare the laws unconstitutional. We need our voices to be heard and to support measures to curb this ruling.
Two major populous hurt by this ruling are youth and people in poverty. These voices will have an even smaller say in the U.S. political spectrum. In turn will disenfranchise many of these new voters, which will give politicians more reasons to follow the influence of corporations than their constituents.
There are ways to fight back Alan Grayson a Democratic Representative from Florida has a petition out to fight this ruling. Call your representative to show your distain to the Supreme Court ruling. Being vocal on the internet or in any public forum is necessary to show that the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the people.
Like always the links are at the bottom.
Washington Post Article "High court shows it might be willing to act boldly"
FEC Short History
Alan Grayson Petition Link
NPR "Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws"
NPR Campaign Finance Reform Timeline
20 January 2010
Obama Adminstration Wants to Protect us from the Large Banks
Hot off the press from the Wall Street Journal reportersDamian Paletta and JonathanWeisman report that President Barrack Obama will propose new regulations on banks that are too big to fail. The goal of these regulations would be that banks would have to put up barriers between divisions inside the banks. The goal of this is to make sure that money that is Federally insured by FDIC is not being used for speculative investments. This means though that there will be a separation from the bank that a citizen takes out a loan or deposits money, and from the bank that sells securities on the open market. For banks this is not a good item because a majority of the big banks made most of their profit from the speculative investment part and minor part from deposits and loans.
The idea of this plan comes from the Glass Steagull Act of 1933 which separated depository banks from investment banks. This was the law of the land until 1999 when Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act became into law. This took out the teeth of the Glass Steagull Act of 1933 and help caused the market meltdown in the last decade. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 passed the full Senate with a 90-8 vote.
The Obama administration does not want to pass regulations to reenact Glass Steagull, but to set limits for banks to make sure they do not get too big to fail. This idea might find bipartisan support. A Bloomberg News article from Alison Vekshin on December 16, 2009 Arizona Republican John McCain and Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell wanted to reinstate Glass Steagull. President Obama is not the only one that wants bank reform.
Sam Brown winning the election in Massachusetts last night and the Democrats have lost their 60 seat majority in the Senate. The idea of passing healthcare reform is stalled and will not likely pass, but with the outcry of the American people for tougher reforms on the banking system allows politicians to gain political capital. Democrats and Republicans can work together on this in a bipartisan way to fix a system that failed the nation. We hope that politicians will do what is best for the country instead of political positioning.
Tighter reforms are needed on the banking system. They help our economy move forward and provide us with the capital needed to due business in the United States. We need to protect our banking system from excessive risk. It is important that our banks do not cause the nation harm by schemes that make them money, but hurt American People. Here at the Common Civic Good we support implementing ideas of Glass Steagull Act back into the legislation.
Like Always the links are at the bottom.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575015910344117800.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/glass_steagall_act_1933/index.html?offset=0&s=newest
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aQfRyxBZs5uc
The idea of this plan comes from the Glass Steagull Act of 1933 which separated depository banks from investment banks. This was the law of the land until 1999 when Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act became into law. This took out the teeth of the Glass Steagull Act of 1933 and help caused the market meltdown in the last decade. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 passed the full Senate with a 90-8 vote.
The Obama administration does not want to pass regulations to reenact Glass Steagull, but to set limits for banks to make sure they do not get too big to fail. This idea might find bipartisan support. A Bloomberg News article from Alison Vekshin on December 16, 2009 Arizona Republican John McCain and Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell wanted to reinstate Glass Steagull. President Obama is not the only one that wants bank reform.
Sam Brown winning the election in Massachusetts last night and the Democrats have lost their 60 seat majority in the Senate. The idea of passing healthcare reform is stalled and will not likely pass, but with the outcry of the American people for tougher reforms on the banking system allows politicians to gain political capital. Democrats and Republicans can work together on this in a bipartisan way to fix a system that failed the nation. We hope that politicians will do what is best for the country instead of political positioning.
Tighter reforms are needed on the banking system. They help our economy move forward and provide us with the capital needed to due business in the United States. We need to protect our banking system from excessive risk. It is important that our banks do not cause the nation harm by schemes that make them money, but hurt American People. Here at the Common Civic Good we support implementing ideas of Glass Steagull Act back into the legislation.
Like Always the links are at the bottom.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575015910344117800.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/glass_steagall_act_1933/index.html?offset=0&s=newest
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aQfRyxBZs5uc
19 January 2010
The Misrepresenting of History
This post is late in the terms of the comment, but it is still important item to bring up. Evangelical Pat Robertson in a comment about Haiti said,
Robertson does not have any information on his claim. I pulled out my old College World Civilization and Latin American History textbook to find the true story. The Latin American textbook argues that Haitian independence came from the French Revolution. The idea for a people to revolt for independence came from the mother country. The leader of this revolt Toussaint L'Ouverture a mulatto was an ex-slave. Even though L'Ouverture led the revolt it was not him who declared independence, but his lieutenant Jacques Dessalines who declared independence from the French in 1804.
Robertson’s comment on the ruler of Haitian Independence is not Napoleon III, but Napoleon. There were not any pacts with the Devil in Haitian Independence. The hope that people see that an impoverished country needs help and not for the short term. We as Americans need to help people of Haiti instead of coming up with reasons why the disaster happened.
Like always links and cites are at the bottom.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/13/robertson-haiti/
Philip J. Adler, World Civilizations, 3rd ed., (Belmont CA, Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2003) 178.
Benjamin Keen, and Keith Haynes, A History of Latin America, 7th ed. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,2004) 159.
ROBERTSON: [S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you get us free from the prince.” True story. And so the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.” They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.
But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle, on the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island.
They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.
Robertson does not have any information on his claim. I pulled out my old College World Civilization and Latin American History textbook to find the true story. The Latin American textbook argues that Haitian independence came from the French Revolution. The idea for a people to revolt for independence came from the mother country. The leader of this revolt Toussaint L'Ouverture a mulatto was an ex-slave. Even though L'Ouverture led the revolt it was not him who declared independence, but his lieutenant Jacques Dessalines who declared independence from the French in 1804.
Robertson’s comment on the ruler of Haitian Independence is not Napoleon III, but Napoleon. There were not any pacts with the Devil in Haitian Independence. The hope that people see that an impoverished country needs help and not for the short term. We as Americans need to help people of Haiti instead of coming up with reasons why the disaster happened.
Like always links and cites are at the bottom.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/13/robertson-haiti/
Philip J. Adler, World Civilizations, 3rd ed., (Belmont CA, Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2003) 178.
Benjamin Keen, and Keith Haynes, A History of Latin America, 7th ed. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,2004) 159.
16 January 2010
American's at their Best.
Due to the recent events in Haiti, the American people have stepped up and showed a united front. Americans have work together and donate money and supplies for the survivors of the earthquake. American corporations have donated about 48 million dollars. According to the St. Joseph News from St. Joseph Missouri, the Red Cross by the end of Friday they have raised 37 million dollars in donations. Red Cross is hoping to raise 100 million dollars for the Haiti effort. The need for giving is very important for the ability Haiti and to show an united front in support.
Although the united front of support, there are people putting politics and prejudices in front of helping other people for the common good. One of the major people in this position is Rush Limbaugh. His comments help fuel hate and misdirection. Rush's most recent comment sparked a fire and is an insult to the American people who have done the right thing and helped people in need. Rush said,"“Everything this president sees is a political opportunity, including Haiti, and he will use it to burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion."
This statement by Limbaugh is false. Americans are known to help people in need. People that do not believe that Haiti is not a justified cause for our support forget how how America became an influencial nation. Support the organizations that support the people in Haiti.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D8FHBO0.htm
http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2010/jan/16/donations-haiti-pouring-red-cross/?local
http://commongoodpolitics.wordpress.com/
Although the united front of support, there are people putting politics and prejudices in front of helping other people for the common good. One of the major people in this position is Rush Limbaugh. His comments help fuel hate and misdirection. Rush's most recent comment sparked a fire and is an insult to the American people who have done the right thing and helped people in need. Rush said,"“Everything this president sees is a political opportunity, including Haiti, and he will use it to burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion."
This statement by Limbaugh is false. Americans are known to help people in need. People that do not believe that Haiti is not a justified cause for our support forget how how America became an influencial nation. Support the organizations that support the people in Haiti.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D8FHBO0.htm
http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2010/jan/16/donations-haiti-pouring-red-cross/?local
http://commongoodpolitics.wordpress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)