As you may know, my family and I just moved to Amarillo a couple of months ago. I like the city a lot so far, but I'm beginning to learn that Amarillo has it's share of nuts just like most places. All you have to do is read today's edition of the Amarillo Globe News to learn this.
The first story concerns a man who shot himself accidentally with his own shotgun. He shot himself in the thigh. It seems that he had tucked a sawed-off 12-guage shotgun into his waistband, and it went off. You have to be a nut to tuck a loaded 12-guage into your waistband!
The second story concerns a would-be robber who got more than he bargained for when he tried to rob a dry-cleaning establishment at gunpoint. Evidently, he thought the dry-cleaners would be easy pickings. He was wrong. He was attacked by customers and employees, who grabbed not only the gun, but anything else they could get their hands on - including his shoes, shirt, pants and underwear. When he got loose and ran from the establishment, he left his gun and all his clothes behind, running outside butt-naked and jumped into his car. Serves him right! Maybe he should find a new line of work - he's not very good at this one.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
SMU Is Killing It's Own Reputation
As a graduate of a Methodist university (Texas Wesleyan University), I am saddened by the apparent "reputation suicide" being currently carried out by the administration of a sister school - Southern Methodist University (SMU).
Unlike many other religious schools, Methodist colleges and universities have generally established a reputation for open-minded academic excellence. While they are supported by a church monetarily, they generally have kept their religious beliefs out of the science and social science departments and shown a respect for academic freedom.
But evidently, an excellent academic reputation is not important to the current administration. They seem to prefer wallowing in the mud with the right-wing religious nuts.
It was bad enough that they aligned themselves politically with the failed presidency of George Bush, by wanting to house the Bush Library and it's neo-con policy institute. SMU would be a major producer of neo-con myth-making. Good-bye to the social sciences reputation!
Now they have gone even further, and launched an attack on their own science departments. To the dismay of their science professors and teachers, they are hosting a conference on "intelligent design". These are the people who would have you believe that evolution is only an unproven theory, that the earth is only about six thousand years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together. Good-bye to the science reputation!
Just as the neo-con myth-making is destroying conservatism, the creationists wish to destroy science. Both are simply propaganda efforts by right-wing nuts. They want to destroy centuries of human scientific and social progress, and impose their own weird religious beliefs.
Maybe it is time to replace the school's administration, before they can complete their reputation suicide. The alternative is too sad to contemplate.
Unlike many other religious schools, Methodist colleges and universities have generally established a reputation for open-minded academic excellence. While they are supported by a church monetarily, they generally have kept their religious beliefs out of the science and social science departments and shown a respect for academic freedom.
But evidently, an excellent academic reputation is not important to the current administration. They seem to prefer wallowing in the mud with the right-wing religious nuts.
It was bad enough that they aligned themselves politically with the failed presidency of George Bush, by wanting to house the Bush Library and it's neo-con policy institute. SMU would be a major producer of neo-con myth-making. Good-bye to the social sciences reputation!
Now they have gone even further, and launched an attack on their own science departments. To the dismay of their science professors and teachers, they are hosting a conference on "intelligent design". These are the people who would have you believe that evolution is only an unproven theory, that the earth is only about six thousand years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together. Good-bye to the science reputation!
Just as the neo-con myth-making is destroying conservatism, the creationists wish to destroy science. Both are simply propaganda efforts by right-wing nuts. They want to destroy centuries of human scientific and social progress, and impose their own weird religious beliefs.
Maybe it is time to replace the school's administration, before they can complete their reputation suicide. The alternative is too sad to contemplate.
Monday, March 26, 2007
SPLC Slams Guest Worker Program
Throughout all the debate over undocumented immigrants in this country, George Bush has said he would like to expand on the existing guestworker program. At the time, it may have sounded as though he was being altruistic toward the guestworkers - he wasn't.
He just wanted to supply his corporate buddies with the modern version of slaves to work their factories and fields. By importing these foreign "slaves", they could avoid paying either American or foreign workers a decent livable wage, and avoid benefits altogether.
The Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] has investigated the American guestworker program and issued a 48 page report on their findings. The SPLC says these workers are systematically abused. They are:
routinely cheated out of wages,
forced to mortgage their futures to obtain temporary, low-wage jobs,
virtually held captive by employers who seize their documents,
forced to live in squalid conditions,
and denied medical benefits for injuries.
Mary Bauer, head of the SPLC's Immigrant Justice Project, says, "The current program is shamefully abusive in practice, and there is almost no enforcement of worker rights. Guestworkers are usually poor people who are lured here by the promise of decent jobs. But all too often, their dreams are based on lies, their hopes shattered by the reality of a system that treats them as commodities. They're the disposable workers of the global economy. Guestworkers don't enjoy the most basic protections of a free labor market - the ability to change jobs if they are cheated or abused by their employer."
This is what Bush wants more of - the ability to abuse more immigrant workers. He feels that because they're foreigners, they should not have any worker rights. This is just like his belief that the foreigners in Guantanamo shouldn't have any legal rights.
He is too stupid to understand that the rest of the world is judging us by how we treat the less fortunate among us. Is it any wonder that the rest of the world no longer sees us as a beacon of freedom and justice? Far too often, all our government has to offer is violence, injustice and economic slavery.
The Guestworker program doesn't need to be expanded. It needs to be abolished! Slavery was abolished in this country over a century ago. We cannot let Bush, Cheney and their greedy corporate masters re-institute it through the guise of a "helpful" government program.
He just wanted to supply his corporate buddies with the modern version of slaves to work their factories and fields. By importing these foreign "slaves", they could avoid paying either American or foreign workers a decent livable wage, and avoid benefits altogether.
The Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] has investigated the American guestworker program and issued a 48 page report on their findings. The SPLC says these workers are systematically abused. They are:
routinely cheated out of wages,
forced to mortgage their futures to obtain temporary, low-wage jobs,
virtually held captive by employers who seize their documents,
forced to live in squalid conditions,
and denied medical benefits for injuries.
Mary Bauer, head of the SPLC's Immigrant Justice Project, says, "The current program is shamefully abusive in practice, and there is almost no enforcement of worker rights. Guestworkers are usually poor people who are lured here by the promise of decent jobs. But all too often, their dreams are based on lies, their hopes shattered by the reality of a system that treats them as commodities. They're the disposable workers of the global economy. Guestworkers don't enjoy the most basic protections of a free labor market - the ability to change jobs if they are cheated or abused by their employer."
This is what Bush wants more of - the ability to abuse more immigrant workers. He feels that because they're foreigners, they should not have any worker rights. This is just like his belief that the foreigners in Guantanamo shouldn't have any legal rights.
He is too stupid to understand that the rest of the world is judging us by how we treat the less fortunate among us. Is it any wonder that the rest of the world no longer sees us as a beacon of freedom and justice? Far too often, all our government has to offer is violence, injustice and economic slavery.
The Guestworker program doesn't need to be expanded. It needs to be abolished! Slavery was abolished in this country over a century ago. We cannot let Bush, Cheney and their greedy corporate masters re-institute it through the guise of a "helpful" government program.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
A Few Honest Conservatives !
Sometimes I am amazed at the actions taken by American conservatives. It is almost as if they are incapable of learning from experience.
One of the oldest conservative organizations has just taken such an amazing action. The American Conservative Union has just appointed Tom DeLay to their 33-member governing board. Never mind that he resigned from Congress in disgrace. Never mind that he still has felony charges pending against him in the state of Texas. Never mind that he was one of the reasons that voters turned against Republicans in the last election.
These guys still think it is a good idea to associate themselves with Tom DeLay. Democrats have to be laughing all the way to the next election. Why would they do this? DeLay is about as popular with today's voters as the Bubonic Plague was in the middle ages. Maybe they like his uncanny ability to attract a ton of illegal money.
This remarkably stupid move by conservatives gives Democrats exactly what they wanted. It had looked for a while like DeLay was yesterday's news, but now Democrats can point to DeLay and say, "This is what a conservative looks like!"
But there are a few honest conservatives left, who don't wish to associate themselves or their beliefs with the slime of Tom DeLay. Four members of the governing board of the ACU have resigned in protest of his appointment. They are Robert Luddy, Marc Rotterman, Tom Pauken and Craig Shirley.
Luddy said, "He was part of a congressional leadership that oversaw a massive expansion of the government, which conservatives opposed. It is one thing to call yourself a conservative, but you have to act on it."
Rotterman said, "Conservatives looked to Tom DeLay to cut government not grow it. He was complicit in the largest expansion of government in recent times."
Pauken, a fellow Texan, adds, "I just think we need to break loose from what was happening with the Republican Party in the post-Reagan era."
But it's only four out of 33 board members who seem to remember what conservatives say they believe in. The rest seem happy to associate themselves with the Texas criminal. I have to wonder what the rank-and-file believe. Are they also ready to abandon their beliefs to embrace DeLay?
One of the oldest conservative organizations has just taken such an amazing action. The American Conservative Union has just appointed Tom DeLay to their 33-member governing board. Never mind that he resigned from Congress in disgrace. Never mind that he still has felony charges pending against him in the state of Texas. Never mind that he was one of the reasons that voters turned against Republicans in the last election.
These guys still think it is a good idea to associate themselves with Tom DeLay. Democrats have to be laughing all the way to the next election. Why would they do this? DeLay is about as popular with today's voters as the Bubonic Plague was in the middle ages. Maybe they like his uncanny ability to attract a ton of illegal money.
This remarkably stupid move by conservatives gives Democrats exactly what they wanted. It had looked for a while like DeLay was yesterday's news, but now Democrats can point to DeLay and say, "This is what a conservative looks like!"
But there are a few honest conservatives left, who don't wish to associate themselves or their beliefs with the slime of Tom DeLay. Four members of the governing board of the ACU have resigned in protest of his appointment. They are Robert Luddy, Marc Rotterman, Tom Pauken and Craig Shirley.
Luddy said, "He was part of a congressional leadership that oversaw a massive expansion of the government, which conservatives opposed. It is one thing to call yourself a conservative, but you have to act on it."
Rotterman said, "Conservatives looked to Tom DeLay to cut government not grow it. He was complicit in the largest expansion of government in recent times."
Pauken, a fellow Texan, adds, "I just think we need to break loose from what was happening with the Republican Party in the post-Reagan era."
But it's only four out of 33 board members who seem to remember what conservatives say they believe in. The rest seem happy to associate themselves with the Texas criminal. I have to wonder what the rank-and-file believe. Are they also ready to abandon their beliefs to embrace DeLay?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Poor Internet Service
When we lived in the DFW metroplex, we had cable internet and it was excellent. But since moving up here to Amarillo, we have had nothing but trouble.
We subscribed to SuddenLink when we arrived here. So far, in the nearly two months we have had the cable internet service, we have yet to go a full day without our internet service being interrupted at least once. Most days it goes down several times.
Personally, I think it's an abnormally weak signal. We have had two or three service calls, and each time they tell us they have fixed the problem. They haven't!
This last time they told us we could get a signal booster for an extra $50. We are already paying nearly $200 a month for cable TV and internet service. For that kind of money, I think we should be getting a decent signal without paying even more!
I have to wonder - is this just us, or do other residents of Amarillo have the same problem with SuddenLink? I would love to hear from others about this. Is there a better service here? How do you get your internet service?
If you have a solution, please tell me - we're starting to get desperate here, and SuddenLink doesn't seem to have a solution.
NOTE - We'll be out of town and away from a computer for the next couple of days. Hope to get back to posting when we get back - that is, if the cable is working then!
We subscribed to SuddenLink when we arrived here. So far, in the nearly two months we have had the cable internet service, we have yet to go a full day without our internet service being interrupted at least once. Most days it goes down several times.
Personally, I think it's an abnormally weak signal. We have had two or three service calls, and each time they tell us they have fixed the problem. They haven't!
This last time they told us we could get a signal booster for an extra $50. We are already paying nearly $200 a month for cable TV and internet service. For that kind of money, I think we should be getting a decent signal without paying even more!
I have to wonder - is this just us, or do other residents of Amarillo have the same problem with SuddenLink? I would love to hear from others about this. Is there a better service here? How do you get your internet service?
If you have a solution, please tell me - we're starting to get desperate here, and SuddenLink doesn't seem to have a solution.
NOTE - We'll be out of town and away from a computer for the next couple of days. Hope to get back to posting when we get back - that is, if the cable is working then!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Task Force Tried To Stop The Torture
There is an excellent article posted now on the MSNBC website about the torture at Guantanamo. It seems that this torture has been going on longer than most people realize.
Members of the Defense Department Criminal Investigation Task Force are now speaking out. They say the torture started as early as the first part of 2002, and had the blessing of the Defense Department.
The experienced investigators of the Criminal Investigation Task Force tried to convince officials as high as those in Rumsfeld's office that torture was not the way to go. The only response they got were accusations of not being patriotic enough.
Many of the Task Force's officers were experienced, and had gotten confessions from terrorists in the past by establishing rapport with the suspects. Colonel Brittain P. Mallow, commander of the task force from 2002 to 2005, said, "We had agents who knew how to do adversarial interviews, had sat across from bad guys. Interviews and interrogations are not about making someone talk. They are about making them want to."
But administration officials were not interested in what works to get reliable information. They turned inexperienced intelligence officers loose with virtually no restrictions on what they were allowed to do. It's like administration officials were more interested in revenge than information or justice.
Col. Mallow tried to explain there were five good reasons not to allow the torture of suspects:
1. It does not work.
2. It produces unreliable information, if any at all.
3. It is not legal, ethical or moral.
4. It can hurt you when it comes time to prosecute.
5. Sooner or later it will be discovered and embarrass the U.S.
He was right on all counts. You simply cannot believe the confession of someone who was tortured. They will tell you anything you want to hear, but it may not even be remotely connected to the truth.
Administration officials recently bragged about the confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after months of torture. It seems he confessed to being responsible to every act of terrorism for the last 14 years. It's obvious to any thinking person that he told them what they wanted to hear so the torture would stop. I'll bet he would have confessed to planning the Boston Tea Party if they wanted to hear that.
Ask yourself, could you convict someone on evidence of a confession extracted under torture? I know I couldn't. That kind of thing may have passed for justice in the middle ages, but we are supposed to be more enlightened.
I think our forefathers would be spinning in their graves over this kind of illegal, immoral and unethical behavior. They tried to prevent this kind of governmental behavior by giving us a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies have no interest in either of these documents.
With their approval of torture, the Bush administration has truly been an embarrassment to all decent Americans.
Members of the Defense Department Criminal Investigation Task Force are now speaking out. They say the torture started as early as the first part of 2002, and had the blessing of the Defense Department.
The experienced investigators of the Criminal Investigation Task Force tried to convince officials as high as those in Rumsfeld's office that torture was not the way to go. The only response they got were accusations of not being patriotic enough.
Many of the Task Force's officers were experienced, and had gotten confessions from terrorists in the past by establishing rapport with the suspects. Colonel Brittain P. Mallow, commander of the task force from 2002 to 2005, said, "We had agents who knew how to do adversarial interviews, had sat across from bad guys. Interviews and interrogations are not about making someone talk. They are about making them want to."
But administration officials were not interested in what works to get reliable information. They turned inexperienced intelligence officers loose with virtually no restrictions on what they were allowed to do. It's like administration officials were more interested in revenge than information or justice.
Col. Mallow tried to explain there were five good reasons not to allow the torture of suspects:
1. It does not work.
2. It produces unreliable information, if any at all.
3. It is not legal, ethical or moral.
4. It can hurt you when it comes time to prosecute.
5. Sooner or later it will be discovered and embarrass the U.S.
He was right on all counts. You simply cannot believe the confession of someone who was tortured. They will tell you anything you want to hear, but it may not even be remotely connected to the truth.
Administration officials recently bragged about the confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after months of torture. It seems he confessed to being responsible to every act of terrorism for the last 14 years. It's obvious to any thinking person that he told them what they wanted to hear so the torture would stop. I'll bet he would have confessed to planning the Boston Tea Party if they wanted to hear that.
Ask yourself, could you convict someone on evidence of a confession extracted under torture? I know I couldn't. That kind of thing may have passed for justice in the middle ages, but we are supposed to be more enlightened.
I think our forefathers would be spinning in their graves over this kind of illegal, immoral and unethical behavior. They tried to prevent this kind of governmental behavior by giving us a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies have no interest in either of these documents.
With their approval of torture, the Bush administration has truly been an embarrassment to all decent Americans.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Bush Thinks Americans Are Stupid
The noose is tightening around Attorney General Gonzales regarding the unjustified political firings of eight Justice Department Prosecutors. It's starting to look like he will be the "Scooter Libby" of this scandel. Like Libby was, Gonzales will soon be tossed under the proverbial bus to protect others in Bush's White House circle - perhaps even Bush himself.
It's becoming obvious that although Gonzales pulled the trigger on the firings, Bush's White House cadre planned and ordered the whole mess. Now that this has become obvious, the Senate Judiciary Committee rightfully wants to question Karl Rove and others in the White House.
Bush knows he can't allow that to happen, or more heads would roll than just that of Gonzales. So what does he do in the face of increasing demands? He wants his henchmen to lie to Congress!
In a letter from his counsel to Leahy, Conyers and Specter, we find this very interesting sentence:
Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.
There is only one reason to hold the testimony in private without keeping a record and without the witnesses being sworn to tell the truth. Bush is planning on Rove and the others telling Congress a bunch of LIES, and he doesn't want it coming back to bite him in the ass.
Bush obviously thinks Americans are stupid enough to swallow these lies, or he would not even propose such an outrageous plan.
Congress should not fall for this Bush cover-up. His White House cronies should testify, and the testimony should be under oath and in public. If Congress accepts anything less, then they will be a party to the cover-up.
It's becoming obvious that although Gonzales pulled the trigger on the firings, Bush's White House cadre planned and ordered the whole mess. Now that this has become obvious, the Senate Judiciary Committee rightfully wants to question Karl Rove and others in the White House.
Bush knows he can't allow that to happen, or more heads would roll than just that of Gonzales. So what does he do in the face of increasing demands? He wants his henchmen to lie to Congress!
In a letter from his counsel to Leahy, Conyers and Specter, we find this very interesting sentence:
Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.
There is only one reason to hold the testimony in private without keeping a record and without the witnesses being sworn to tell the truth. Bush is planning on Rove and the others telling Congress a bunch of LIES, and he doesn't want it coming back to bite him in the ass.
Bush obviously thinks Americans are stupid enough to swallow these lies, or he would not even propose such an outrageous plan.
Congress should not fall for this Bush cover-up. His White House cronies should testify, and the testimony should be under oath and in public. If Congress accepts anything less, then they will be a party to the cover-up.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Cowboys To Honor Their #1 Fan
You could probably ask most Cowboys fans who Wilford Jones was, and I doubt if 10% of them could tell you who he was. And yet, any Cowboys fan worth his salt knew who this gentleman was - they just knew him by another name.
As long as there's been a Dallas Cowboys franchise, "Crazy Ray" has been there, wearing his cowboy outfit and cheering his beloved Cowboys on to victory. He was not only generally recognized as the Cowboys number one fan, he was recognized and loved by millions of other Cowboys fans. For many of us, it just won't be the same without "Crazy Ray" on the sidelines next season.
Wilford "Crazy Ray" Jones has died. On Saturday at 10:00am at Texas Stadium, the Cowboys organization is holding a memorial service for Mr. Jones. All Cowboys fans are invited to come and honor this man. I hope thousands will attend.
The Cowboys will also honor "Crazy Ray" and his wife Mattie with an on-field ceremony during halftime of a regular season game this coming Fall. I'm glad the Cowboys are doing this. "Crazy Ray" was more than just a fan - he was an institution. He will be sorely missed.
As long as there's been a Dallas Cowboys franchise, "Crazy Ray" has been there, wearing his cowboy outfit and cheering his beloved Cowboys on to victory. He was not only generally recognized as the Cowboys number one fan, he was recognized and loved by millions of other Cowboys fans. For many of us, it just won't be the same without "Crazy Ray" on the sidelines next season.
Wilford "Crazy Ray" Jones has died. On Saturday at 10:00am at Texas Stadium, the Cowboys organization is holding a memorial service for Mr. Jones. All Cowboys fans are invited to come and honor this man. I hope thousands will attend.
The Cowboys will also honor "Crazy Ray" and his wife Mattie with an on-field ceremony during halftime of a regular season game this coming Fall. I'm glad the Cowboys are doing this. "Crazy Ray" was more than just a fan - he was an institution. He will be sorely missed.
Support For Bush's War Still Shrinking
On the fourth anniversary of George Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq, support for the war is still shrinking. Today, Bush asked for patience and said even with his new infusion of troops, it could take months to turn around his abject failure in Iraq. Personally, I don't think he's got that much time.
Neither the Americans nor the Iraqis believe in the war anymore. When Bush first invaded Iraq, a majority of Americans supported his actions - probably because his lies had convinced them that Saddam actually posed a threat to the U.S.
But the truth has become obvious, and more Americans oppose the war with every passing year. Here are the numbers according to CNN/Opinion Research polls:
In 2003, 72% of Americans supported the war
In 2004, 48% supported the war
In 2005, 47% supported the war
In 2006, 40% supported the war
Today, only 32% still support Bush's war
More than two-thirds of all Americans currently oppose the Iraq war, including one-fourth of all Republicans. In Iraq, the bottom is falling out of support for the war also as the hard truth is setting in. ABC polled Iraqis, and the numbers are not pretty:
53% of Iraqis have had a friend or family member hurt or killed, and 86% worry that the violence will strike a loved one.
In 2005, 63% of Iraqis felt safe in their own neighborhood, but today that number is just 26%.
In 2005, 71% of Iraqis thought their lives were going well, but today that has dropped to 39%.
In 2005, 54% said their electric power was insufficient, but today that number has grown to 88%.
In 2005, 30% rated their economic situation as poor, but today that number has climbed to 64%.
In 2004, only 17% of Iraqis thought it was acceptable to attack U.S. troops. Today, 51% find it acceptable, and a full 78% oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq.
This does not sound like progress to me. This is a war that is losing support in both countries and accomplishing nothing for either country. Bush needs to listen to the people and get our troops out. It should be obvious by now that a military solution cannot be imposed in Iraq. Bush's continued efforts to do so will simply cost more American and Iraqi lives without coming any nearer to a solution.
Only the Iraqis can decide what is best for Iraq. America should withdraw and let them start to create their own solution. Keeping American troops in Iraq just prolongs the whole mess.
Bring our troops home - NOW!
Neither the Americans nor the Iraqis believe in the war anymore. When Bush first invaded Iraq, a majority of Americans supported his actions - probably because his lies had convinced them that Saddam actually posed a threat to the U.S.
But the truth has become obvious, and more Americans oppose the war with every passing year. Here are the numbers according to CNN/Opinion Research polls:
In 2003, 72% of Americans supported the war
In 2004, 48% supported the war
In 2005, 47% supported the war
In 2006, 40% supported the war
Today, only 32% still support Bush's war
More than two-thirds of all Americans currently oppose the Iraq war, including one-fourth of all Republicans. In Iraq, the bottom is falling out of support for the war also as the hard truth is setting in. ABC polled Iraqis, and the numbers are not pretty:
53% of Iraqis have had a friend or family member hurt or killed, and 86% worry that the violence will strike a loved one.
In 2005, 63% of Iraqis felt safe in their own neighborhood, but today that number is just 26%.
In 2005, 71% of Iraqis thought their lives were going well, but today that has dropped to 39%.
In 2005, 54% said their electric power was insufficient, but today that number has grown to 88%.
In 2005, 30% rated their economic situation as poor, but today that number has climbed to 64%.
In 2004, only 17% of Iraqis thought it was acceptable to attack U.S. troops. Today, 51% find it acceptable, and a full 78% oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq.
This does not sound like progress to me. This is a war that is losing support in both countries and accomplishing nothing for either country. Bush needs to listen to the people and get our troops out. It should be obvious by now that a military solution cannot be imposed in Iraq. Bush's continued efforts to do so will simply cost more American and Iraqi lives without coming any nearer to a solution.
Only the Iraqis can decide what is best for Iraq. America should withdraw and let them start to create their own solution. Keeping American troops in Iraq just prolongs the whole mess.
Bring our troops home - NOW!
Monday, March 19, 2007
Texas Should Move Up Its Primary Date
When was the last time that the Texas primary mattered in either party's choice of a presidential candidate? To be honest, I really don't remember it ever having much influence. That is because the race is pretty much over by the time Texans vote.
I remember in 2004 I was excited about a Democratic candidate for the first time in many years, and I was looking forward to supporting that candidate in the Texas Democratic primary. That candidate was Howard Dean. The only problem was that by the time Texas had its primary, Dean had dropped out of the race and Kerry was pretty much assured of the nomination.
I wound up not voting in that primary so I could sign the petition of Ralph Nader. At least he was a candidate I could respect. While I have never voted for a Republican, and probably never will, I cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate just because they're running as a Democrat. There are people running with the Democratic label who simply don't deserve support from true leftists (Joe Lieberman is a prime example).
To me, Kerry was one of these. During that election he seemed to be ashamed of his liberal roots, and if he was ashamed of me, why should I support him? And don't give me that "better of two evils" argument. A bad choice is still a bad choice, even when running against another bad choice.
Moving Texas' primary up to a date where the decision has not yet been made would give Texas voters a real voice in who the party's candidate will be. This could bring many voters back into the primary process by giving them the vote when more than one or two candidates are still in the race.
I don't want to choose between candidates approved by other states. I want to make my choice from among all the candidates, whether anyone thinks my choice has a chance or not. Now that California has moved its primary up to February 5th, the stakes are even higher.
If Texas does not move its primary date up, the race will be over before it gets to Texas. Once again Texans will not get a voice in who the candidate will be. Now that California, with its huge number of delegates up for grabs, has joined the February 5th crowd, it is imperative that Texas also move to an earlier primary.
We must move our primary up to February 5th, or again be left out of the process.
I remember in 2004 I was excited about a Democratic candidate for the first time in many years, and I was looking forward to supporting that candidate in the Texas Democratic primary. That candidate was Howard Dean. The only problem was that by the time Texas had its primary, Dean had dropped out of the race and Kerry was pretty much assured of the nomination.
I wound up not voting in that primary so I could sign the petition of Ralph Nader. At least he was a candidate I could respect. While I have never voted for a Republican, and probably never will, I cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate just because they're running as a Democrat. There are people running with the Democratic label who simply don't deserve support from true leftists (Joe Lieberman is a prime example).
To me, Kerry was one of these. During that election he seemed to be ashamed of his liberal roots, and if he was ashamed of me, why should I support him? And don't give me that "better of two evils" argument. A bad choice is still a bad choice, even when running against another bad choice.
Moving Texas' primary up to a date where the decision has not yet been made would give Texas voters a real voice in who the party's candidate will be. This could bring many voters back into the primary process by giving them the vote when more than one or two candidates are still in the race.
I don't want to choose between candidates approved by other states. I want to make my choice from among all the candidates, whether anyone thinks my choice has a chance or not. Now that California has moved its primary up to February 5th, the stakes are even higher.
If Texas does not move its primary date up, the race will be over before it gets to Texas. Once again Texans will not get a voice in who the candidate will be. Now that California, with its huge number of delegates up for grabs, has joined the February 5th crowd, it is imperative that Texas also move to an earlier primary.
We must move our primary up to February 5th, or again be left out of the process.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Fund For Poor Misused By Legislature
Once again, the Texas Legislature is showing us that they simply cannot be trusted to keep their word. They now want to take money expressly raised to help the poor pay their electric bills and spend it for other purposes.
In 1999, when they were in the process of deregulating electricity in Texas, they passed a law that added about 65 cents to each electric bill. This money flowed into a state fund that was dedicated to helping the poor pay their electric bills. Since then the fund receives upwards of $150 million each year.
For the first four years, the money was spent as it was intended - to help the poor. In 2002-03, this fund provided for 17% discounts for over 700,000 households. That's not a huge discount, but in poorer households every penny counts and this was a big help.
But things changed in 2004 as Republicans solidified their hold on state government. They decided the poor were an easy target and diverted over half of this money to be spent on other things - even though electric bills were going up because of the deregulation.
In 2006-07, the Legislature leaves most of the money unspent. Instead, they use the fund in an accounting manuever to balance the state budget. By cutting thousands of children from the state's insurance fund (CHIPS), and not spending the money dedicated to helping the poor pay they electric bills, they balance the state budget on the backs of poorer Texans. At the same time, they give new tax cuts to richer Texans.
The fund now has over $400 million in it and will add another $300 million over the next two years. Texas currently has some of the highest electric rates in the nation. This $700 million could be a big help to the poor if it was used as it was intended to be used.
But it looks like the Legislature once again will use this fund as a "back door tax" on the poor, and use it to pay for other things. They are currently considering using less than a quarter of the fund as it was intended. This is just WRONG!
This is just another broken promise to the people of Texas. Even Gov. Perry, who is not known for championing the cause of poor people in Texas, agrees that the fund is being misused and called it "unconscionable". Perry spokesman Robert Black says the fund should be spent for its intended purpose or "the Legislature should figure out a way to give it back and do away with the fee. We need to spend taxes and fees that are dedicated to a specific purpose for that purpose. That's the deal we made with taxpayers."
The Texas Legislature needs to take a long hard look at itself. They are breaking their promise to the people of Texas. They are misusing funds meant to help the poor. And they are doing this at a time when we have a huge state surplus, most of which they will probably waste while ignoring the poor.
Once again, they should be ashamed of themselves.
In 1999, when they were in the process of deregulating electricity in Texas, they passed a law that added about 65 cents to each electric bill. This money flowed into a state fund that was dedicated to helping the poor pay their electric bills. Since then the fund receives upwards of $150 million each year.
For the first four years, the money was spent as it was intended - to help the poor. In 2002-03, this fund provided for 17% discounts for over 700,000 households. That's not a huge discount, but in poorer households every penny counts and this was a big help.
But things changed in 2004 as Republicans solidified their hold on state government. They decided the poor were an easy target and diverted over half of this money to be spent on other things - even though electric bills were going up because of the deregulation.
In 2006-07, the Legislature leaves most of the money unspent. Instead, they use the fund in an accounting manuever to balance the state budget. By cutting thousands of children from the state's insurance fund (CHIPS), and not spending the money dedicated to helping the poor pay they electric bills, they balance the state budget on the backs of poorer Texans. At the same time, they give new tax cuts to richer Texans.
The fund now has over $400 million in it and will add another $300 million over the next two years. Texas currently has some of the highest electric rates in the nation. This $700 million could be a big help to the poor if it was used as it was intended to be used.
But it looks like the Legislature once again will use this fund as a "back door tax" on the poor, and use it to pay for other things. They are currently considering using less than a quarter of the fund as it was intended. This is just WRONG!
This is just another broken promise to the people of Texas. Even Gov. Perry, who is not known for championing the cause of poor people in Texas, agrees that the fund is being misused and called it "unconscionable". Perry spokesman Robert Black says the fund should be spent for its intended purpose or "the Legislature should figure out a way to give it back and do away with the fee. We need to spend taxes and fees that are dedicated to a specific purpose for that purpose. That's the deal we made with taxpayers."
The Texas Legislature needs to take a long hard look at itself. They are breaking their promise to the people of Texas. They are misusing funds meant to help the poor. And they are doing this at a time when we have a huge state surplus, most of which they will probably waste while ignoring the poor.
Once again, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Israel Should Negotiate With Palestinians
The Palestinian people finally have a new government. It is a government made up of a cross-section of Palestinian political parties, including rival parties Fatah and Hamas. It has broad support among Palestinians and probably comes closer to representing all Palestinians than any of their previous efforts.
Even more encouraging is the fact that this is a government that is willing to negotiate for an end to the violence and a Palestinian homeland made up of lands seized by Isreal in 1967. By negotiating for a homeland made up of these lands, they are implicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist.
One would think this is a positive step in the right direction, but Israel is saying they will not negotiate with this government. The Israelis, along with the United States and Great Britain, still want to pick and choose which Palestinians they are willing to negotiate with.
Israel says it won't talk with this government until they explicitly recognize Israel and renounce the use of violence (even though Israel has itself been quick to use violence to get what it wants). This is like telling your enemy that if you give up and do what we want, then we'll talk to you. That's not negotiating - that's a demand for surrender, and it will not happen.
You cannot choose only to negotiate with people that you like. That will result in a settlement only with those people, and your enemies will continue to cause trouble. A real negotiation must include representatives of all the Palestinian factions, and that is what this new government offers. Anything else is doomed to failure.
Israel would like Palestinians to recognize their right to exist and stop the violent terrorist actions. Palestinians would like a homeland of their own and for Israel to stop the violent military actions. These are the things that must be negotiated - not the preconditions to negotiations.
There will never be peace in the Middle East until these things are negotiated and settled. The Palestinians have a unity government willing to talk. It is time for Israel to set aside its demands and signal its willingness to talk.
Even more encouraging is the fact that this is a government that is willing to negotiate for an end to the violence and a Palestinian homeland made up of lands seized by Isreal in 1967. By negotiating for a homeland made up of these lands, they are implicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist.
One would think this is a positive step in the right direction, but Israel is saying they will not negotiate with this government. The Israelis, along with the United States and Great Britain, still want to pick and choose which Palestinians they are willing to negotiate with.
Israel says it won't talk with this government until they explicitly recognize Israel and renounce the use of violence (even though Israel has itself been quick to use violence to get what it wants). This is like telling your enemy that if you give up and do what we want, then we'll talk to you. That's not negotiating - that's a demand for surrender, and it will not happen.
You cannot choose only to negotiate with people that you like. That will result in a settlement only with those people, and your enemies will continue to cause trouble. A real negotiation must include representatives of all the Palestinian factions, and that is what this new government offers. Anything else is doomed to failure.
Israel would like Palestinians to recognize their right to exist and stop the violent terrorist actions. Palestinians would like a homeland of their own and for Israel to stop the violent military actions. These are the things that must be negotiated - not the preconditions to negotiations.
There will never be peace in the Middle East until these things are negotiated and settled. The Palestinians have a unity government willing to talk. It is time for Israel to set aside its demands and signal its willingness to talk.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Clinton and Obama Still Don't Get It
It looks like Hilary Clinton still wants to sit on the fence when it comes to withdrawing our troops from Iraq. A lot of progressives want her to admit she made a mistake by voting for the Iraq war. I personally don't care about that. A lot of Democrats at the time were either duped by Bush's lies, or were too gutless to stand up against a stupid and unneccessary war.
But that is all water under the bridge now. What bothers me about Clinton are her current views on Iraq. She still doesn't seem to know which side of the fence she wants to be on.
On one hand, she says we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Then she turns around and says she would leave some U.S. troops in Iraq PAST the year 2009. She doesn't seem to understand that taking the middle road on this war will not get votes from both sides - it will lose votes from both sides.
Pulling most troops out and then leaving a smaller force still in Iraq is a sure prescription for disaster. We are barely holding our own with the number of troops that are there now. A smaller force would not even be able to defend itself, let alone fight terrorists as she is suggesting.
There are only two options that have any kind of political viability - send more troops or pull them all out. Her plan smacks of Bushism - that is, trying to do too big a job with too few troops.
Sadly, the other Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, agrees with Clinton. He has also come up with a plan to withdraw most troops, but leave a small force there. These two just don't get it. This is not the time to continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq.
Fortunately, there are a couple of candidates who do understand the situation, and are not afraid to say we should get out of Iraq and not prolong the disaster. They are Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. I am on the Richardson bandwagon, but I must give Kucinich his due - he was one of the few who opposed the war from the very beginning.
If you are an anti-war Democrat, perhaps it is time to give up on Clinton and Obama and find a candidate who agrees with you.
But that is all water under the bridge now. What bothers me about Clinton are her current views on Iraq. She still doesn't seem to know which side of the fence she wants to be on.
On one hand, she says we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Then she turns around and says she would leave some U.S. troops in Iraq PAST the year 2009. She doesn't seem to understand that taking the middle road on this war will not get votes from both sides - it will lose votes from both sides.
Pulling most troops out and then leaving a smaller force still in Iraq is a sure prescription for disaster. We are barely holding our own with the number of troops that are there now. A smaller force would not even be able to defend itself, let alone fight terrorists as she is suggesting.
There are only two options that have any kind of political viability - send more troops or pull them all out. Her plan smacks of Bushism - that is, trying to do too big a job with too few troops.
Sadly, the other Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, agrees with Clinton. He has also come up with a plan to withdraw most troops, but leave a small force there. These two just don't get it. This is not the time to continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq.
Fortunately, there are a couple of candidates who do understand the situation, and are not afraid to say we should get out of Iraq and not prolong the disaster. They are Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. I am on the Richardson bandwagon, but I must give Kucinich his due - he was one of the few who opposed the war from the very beginning.
If you are an anti-war Democrat, perhaps it is time to give up on Clinton and Obama and find a candidate who agrees with you.
jobsanger Is One Year Old Today
Today we celebrate our first birthday here at jobsanger. It was on March 16th of 2006 that we made our first post. It's been an eventful year for us.
We've met a lot of people and made some new friends. We've made it on the blogrolls of some blogs we really respect - not just in Texas, but also in places like Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and even in the United Kingdom. We appreciate all of our new friends, no matter where you live.
We haven't always toed the party line. I think we made a lot of progressives mad when we backed Kinky Friedman for governor instead of the Democratic candidate. Fortunately, most of them realized that we had a lot in common - more than our few differences. After all, progressives are thinking people, and you'll never get thinking people to agree on everything!
There have even been some unbelievable times - like getting a shoutout from Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, or being quoted by the Columbia School of Journalism's blog.
But most of all, We appreciate the readers. Whether you have been with us for a while or you just discovered us, we love you all.
Today, we start our second year, and we hope to have many more. Below I have reprinted our original post. It may not be our best, but it was our first:
March 16, 2006
Hello out there! This is my first blog and my first attempt at blogging, so if you do accidently drop by and read the blog, cut me some slack. I hope to get better over time.
This is not meant to be a news blog. This is an OPINION blog. This is my place to gripe, whine or blow my top when I get disgusted with politics, religion or culture in general. I am a left-winger who is not afraid of the "s" word. If you prefer to call me a socialist, that is fine with me.
I am not a religious person, but I believe all people should be free to practice whatever religion they wish or none at all. I don't get upset until you start pushing it down other people's throats.
I am a political Independent, since I see both the republicans and democrats as being corporate owned. Although I am male, I am pro-choice and consider myself to be a feminist. I believe in EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE [no exceptions].
That should give you some idea of where I'm coming from. If you do read this blog, I hope you enjoy it and come back from time to time. Thanks!
We've met a lot of people and made some new friends. We've made it on the blogrolls of some blogs we really respect - not just in Texas, but also in places like Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and even in the United Kingdom. We appreciate all of our new friends, no matter where you live.
We haven't always toed the party line. I think we made a lot of progressives mad when we backed Kinky Friedman for governor instead of the Democratic candidate. Fortunately, most of them realized that we had a lot in common - more than our few differences. After all, progressives are thinking people, and you'll never get thinking people to agree on everything!
There have even been some unbelievable times - like getting a shoutout from Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, or being quoted by the Columbia School of Journalism's blog.
But most of all, We appreciate the readers. Whether you have been with us for a while or you just discovered us, we love you all.
Today, we start our second year, and we hope to have many more. Below I have reprinted our original post. It may not be our best, but it was our first:
March 16, 2006
Hello out there! This is my first blog and my first attempt at blogging, so if you do accidently drop by and read the blog, cut me some slack. I hope to get better over time.
This is not meant to be a news blog. This is an OPINION blog. This is my place to gripe, whine or blow my top when I get disgusted with politics, religion or culture in general. I am a left-winger who is not afraid of the "s" word. If you prefer to call me a socialist, that is fine with me.
I am not a religious person, but I believe all people should be free to practice whatever religion they wish or none at all. I don't get upset until you start pushing it down other people's throats.
I am a political Independent, since I see both the republicans and democrats as being corporate owned. Although I am male, I am pro-choice and consider myself to be a feminist. I believe in EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE [no exceptions].
That should give you some idea of where I'm coming from. If you do read this blog, I hope you enjoy it and come back from time to time. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)