GWB says the Union is strong, then proceeds to use "terror" innumerable times, his sacrosanct 9/11 references, and that he ought to spy on you. Are you skeered yet?
I could probably add a lot more, but I think you ought to. Comment button is for use not decoration.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Non-Article Comments & News of Note
There are things you'll want to have a say about that aren't covered in Articles, use the Comment in this Article. It will be moved to the top periodically and I'll keep track of postings and post as attributed Articles anything that jumps out to me. This will avoid the email lag for things you want on quickly without burying a Comment in an unrelated Article. Comments will be deleted after their relevance is past, for house keeping purposes.
If you're not registered with Blogspot as a "Blogger" use "Other" name and fill it in.
If you're not registered with Blogspot as a "Blogger" use "Other" name and fill it in.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Civil Liberties v. Security
The post about NSA spying offers up some interesting arguments to be made to the President's supporters. It would seem logical to ask how warrantless spying for security's sake, in the face of the Fourth Amendment, contrasts with curbs on the Second Amendment. How logical is it to say that the 4th is disposable for safety and that the 2nd is not? The argument that the curbs on the 2nd have not been realistic falls in the face of FISA as an essentially rubber stamp body. It would be pointless to suggest that Pres Bush in unable to hold two mutually exclusive points of view, he's demonstrated that capacity many times, but he's not the issue. His supporters are the issue, if he loses these folks, he loses the very thing he and Republicans in Congress can't afford to lose, the frightened middle vote.
A link to "Myths About Wiretapping" http://www.bordc.org/threats/nsamyths.php
There's a huge warning for anyone who wants to use such an argument, it's a very slippery slope to get on. The outcome of making such an argument is that you find yourself standing for all civil liberties and that they are not disposable for "safety." Politicians of all stripes do not find it hard to pursue legislation or other actions that contradict this point, and yet they all seem to have "favorite" civil liberties that cannot stand with such behavior.
For any of you who think these actions by Pres Bush are something new, you simply have not been paying attention for the last 40 years (and more). At one time there was a very narrow standard was considered to be required for curbing civil liberties, essentially it was that there needed to be a universally inevitable severe harm involved in the exercise of the liberty. A common example : yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Convenience and fear have broadened the standards until now even calling them standards is an exaggeration. Political actions do not occur in a vacuum, toleration of this trend has encouraged it.
If you don't like what President Bush and Congress is up to with The Patriot Act, Habeas Corpus, and the NSA; then you'd better start yelling at your representatives every time they propose actions that run counter to a very narrow standard, and work to reverse the existing infringements, whether they directly affect you or not. These infringements will eventually work their way to your sacred cow.
I'm sure somebody has something to say about this or knows of an elected official that does this, use the "Comment" link.
A link to "Myths About Wiretapping" http://www.bordc.org/threats/nsamyths.php
There's a huge warning for anyone who wants to use such an argument, it's a very slippery slope to get on. The outcome of making such an argument is that you find yourself standing for all civil liberties and that they are not disposable for "safety." Politicians of all stripes do not find it hard to pursue legislation or other actions that contradict this point, and yet they all seem to have "favorite" civil liberties that cannot stand with such behavior.
For any of you who think these actions by Pres Bush are something new, you simply have not been paying attention for the last 40 years (and more). At one time there was a very narrow standard was considered to be required for curbing civil liberties, essentially it was that there needed to be a universally inevitable severe harm involved in the exercise of the liberty. A common example : yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Convenience and fear have broadened the standards until now even calling them standards is an exaggeration. Political actions do not occur in a vacuum, toleration of this trend has encouraged it.
If you don't like what President Bush and Congress is up to with The Patriot Act, Habeas Corpus, and the NSA; then you'd better start yelling at your representatives every time they propose actions that run counter to a very narrow standard, and work to reverse the existing infringements, whether they directly affect you or not. These infringements will eventually work their way to your sacred cow.
I'm sure somebody has something to say about this or knows of an elected official that does this, use the "Comment" link.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Oregon's Jim Crow
So you thought that died out in the South a long time ago, nope, it's alive and well in Oregon. It's called Legislative Compensation. So you didn't know that there is an Economic Qualification to serve in the Oregon Legislature? How many Oregonians do you know that can afford to quit working and go to Salem for $1400 per month? Retired or wealthy or both. That would work out to be a rather unrepresentative group of people.
The folks who are there frequently have to hire family members as staff to supplement that meager stipend, nepotism is the result. Nepotism is the practice of hiring of family or friends regardless of whether or not they are qualified. This isn't to say that all family staffs are inept, but the inevitable consequence of forcing this on legislators is that some will be. Considering that I have to live with the laws and policies passed by these legislators I'd really prefer that their hiring was done on the basis of qualifications rather than on economic need.
The idea that we're going to get good representation for $16,000 per year average salary is ludicrous, it turns representing Oregonians into a hobby, the kind of hobby that attracts people like Karen Minnis. Sure we have some really able and dedicated legislators, from both Parties, but it doesn't take many hobbiests who get seniority to get to where we're at now. Most people who work for a living discover that working together is required, has anybody noticed a lack of that in the Oregon House? Not being the Majority Party would, in any case, limit the Democrats legislative clout, but a situation where a member can exercise dictatorial powers to ride her hobby horse, whatever the consequences to Oregonians, can only arise when sufficient nitwits can afford such a hobby as opposed to a serious job.
So what can DPO do about this? I'd say that for the legislators to make a real push for compensation that allows the general public to afford serving would be political poison. My idea is that DPO could sponsor an Initiative addressing this issue. A properly framed argument could succeed, which would benefit Oregonians in general and the consequences for DPO might be significant. Any initiative that shows electoral promise generates media attention and successful ones create a perception of power. see Bill Sizemore. It is the case that the DPO has more members and more capital than Bill, with sufficient interest by DPO members it would be unnecessary to pay signature gatherers, which could be noted, and there are other Oregon organizations whose capital might be attracted to such a venture. Another consideration is that realistic compensation would make it much easier for DPO to solicit candidates who share DPO's vision to run. The pool of potential candidates is so restricted that a Party that is not run for the benefit of the wealthy has a problem getting strong candidates and it takes a strong candidate.
Annual sessions would be a good adjunct to such a project if it could be addressed in the same initiative. I've previously proposed that a salary number could be attached to a standard like US Dept of Health and Human Services' calculation of Oregon Median Income Family of Four, about $64000 per year and pro-rated for length of sessions. That's my proposal and argument in its favor, I don't have the legal resources to research it and I don't know what the level of DPO interest is. So, pile on DPO, let's discuss it and see where it leads us. The comment key is available.
The folks who are there frequently have to hire family members as staff to supplement that meager stipend, nepotism is the result. Nepotism is the practice of hiring of family or friends regardless of whether or not they are qualified. This isn't to say that all family staffs are inept, but the inevitable consequence of forcing this on legislators is that some will be. Considering that I have to live with the laws and policies passed by these legislators I'd really prefer that their hiring was done on the basis of qualifications rather than on economic need.
The idea that we're going to get good representation for $16,000 per year average salary is ludicrous, it turns representing Oregonians into a hobby, the kind of hobby that attracts people like Karen Minnis. Sure we have some really able and dedicated legislators, from both Parties, but it doesn't take many hobbiests who get seniority to get to where we're at now. Most people who work for a living discover that working together is required, has anybody noticed a lack of that in the Oregon House? Not being the Majority Party would, in any case, limit the Democrats legislative clout, but a situation where a member can exercise dictatorial powers to ride her hobby horse, whatever the consequences to Oregonians, can only arise when sufficient nitwits can afford such a hobby as opposed to a serious job.
So what can DPO do about this? I'd say that for the legislators to make a real push for compensation that allows the general public to afford serving would be political poison. My idea is that DPO could sponsor an Initiative addressing this issue. A properly framed argument could succeed, which would benefit Oregonians in general and the consequences for DPO might be significant. Any initiative that shows electoral promise generates media attention and successful ones create a perception of power. see Bill Sizemore. It is the case that the DPO has more members and more capital than Bill, with sufficient interest by DPO members it would be unnecessary to pay signature gatherers, which could be noted, and there are other Oregon organizations whose capital might be attracted to such a venture. Another consideration is that realistic compensation would make it much easier for DPO to solicit candidates who share DPO's vision to run. The pool of potential candidates is so restricted that a Party that is not run for the benefit of the wealthy has a problem getting strong candidates and it takes a strong candidate.
Annual sessions would be a good adjunct to such a project if it could be addressed in the same initiative. I've previously proposed that a salary number could be attached to a standard like US Dept of Health and Human Services' calculation of Oregon Median Income Family of Four, about $64000 per year and pro-rated for length of sessions. That's my proposal and argument in its favor, I don't have the legal resources to research it and I don't know what the level of DPO interest is. So, pile on DPO, let's discuss it and see where it leads us. The comment key is available.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Supreme Court Upholds Death With Dignity
Today the Supreme Court upheld Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, or more accurately, upheld the 9th Circuit's ruling on a permanent injunction against the Justice Dept. The Court held that the actions of AG John Ashcroft in issuing an Interpretive Rule under the Controlled Substances Act that the use of controlled substances to assist suicide was not a legitimate medical practice exceeded the scope of CSA and the AG's authority. The Act does not specify what legitimate medical practices are nor does it give the AG the authority to decide what they are.
"The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality." The text and structure of the Act do not show this. "Affirmed"
Thomas in his dissent is somewhat measured noting that CSA's broad reach and the AG's authority under it may be "troubling" it is "water over the dam" in view of Raich. Oddly enough he protests the application of the Commerce Clause in precendents and then goes along with GWB.
Scalia on the other hand has no qualms whatever, the AG has the authority to determine legitimate medical practice, what affects general health and safety, and that by parroting a section of an Act he can then essentially make law.
Roberts also dissented without opinion.
So GWB and the "Conservatives" who want nothing to do with activist judges praise and laud judges who create powers for the AG that Congress did not. Hmmmm....
The full decision and dissents can be found in pdf at
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/results_recent.asp , that is an underline between results_recent.
"The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality." The text and structure of the Act do not show this. "Affirmed"
Thomas in his dissent is somewhat measured noting that CSA's broad reach and the AG's authority under it may be "troubling" it is "water over the dam" in view of Raich. Oddly enough he protests the application of the Commerce Clause in precendents and then goes along with GWB.
Scalia on the other hand has no qualms whatever, the AG has the authority to determine legitimate medical practice, what affects general health and safety, and that by parroting a section of an Act he can then essentially make law.
Roberts also dissented without opinion.
So GWB and the "Conservatives" who want nothing to do with activist judges praise and laud judges who create powers for the AG that Congress did not. Hmmmm....
The full decision and dissents can be found in pdf at
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/results_recent.asp , that is an underline between results_recent.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Power and Politics
I've had some real good opportunities to take a look at the subject of power and politics recently. I've tried to put something fairly simple together to give some indications of our abilities.
I believe that political power derives from a perception of power, actual power is more likely to involve physical force of some kind, so being perceived as having power is huge. I know money figures largely in political power, but I believe it is drawn to perceived power, it is a secondary factor in political power. Perceptions can be tricky to evaluate, SCC Delegate Joe Schmoe may see DPO as a tremendous power, while Editor @ Oregonian may have an entirely different perception of DPO. For my purposes, here, I want to talk about perceptions in Oregon in general. Realism leads to good plans, decisions, and utilization of resources.
To evaluate DPO's political power we need to look at DPO's public face. Does DPO attract sufficient interest to pay it's rent and run some campaigns? Yes it does, and that, in comparison to some previous history, is a large improvement and laudable. How extensive is the interest in DPO? There we begin to run into some some less impressive results. How many DPO press releases or actions have attracted media attention? When Democrats take action to recognize the Second Amendment, we're noticed, but how much of that is simply novelty value, a "man bites dog" type of story? Does the DPO recruit candidates for office, and if it did would it be meaningful? Is the DPO a sought after source for information? Do organizations come to DPO for support in causes or issues? Do local Party events draw media attention and non-DPO attendees? Does the membership of DPO include a large percentage of Progressive Oregonians? If these things are not true on a regular basis then our power is very limited. Very limited power constrains our ability to be a force in Oregon politics. Catch22.
The Religious Right in the Republican Party (I'm sorry, it's a great example) did not start out with piles of money and politicians paying lip service to their agenda. What they started out with was networking, putting together agreed upon ideas and then pushing forward with them. They pushed into political areas that were outside their norm and that attracted attention. Every success their agenda had was news about them, because they were it's driving force. This is why there is a generic name, Religious Right, for the many different organizations composing it. There are a bunch of factions there that have much that is not in common and yet they are a recognized political force and you bet they attract money. There are things in their operation to be learned from and there are also warnings. When they over-reach, they alienate. Politicians, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy are the final expression of political power and require regard.
I suggest that we protect and enhance DPO and the way to do that is to think about our allies as if they were allies and then move outside that arena. Continuing to support Democratic candidates maintains our base, but to increase our reach we need to think and act on a wider basis. I have suggested that the Initiative Process creates an opening for DPO activity and I'm sure there are more ideas out there. Changing our frame of view can lead us to change the perception of DPO, it can put us in a position to really influence the political landscape of Oregon. I'd like that.
I believe that political power derives from a perception of power, actual power is more likely to involve physical force of some kind, so being perceived as having power is huge. I know money figures largely in political power, but I believe it is drawn to perceived power, it is a secondary factor in political power. Perceptions can be tricky to evaluate, SCC Delegate Joe Schmoe may see DPO as a tremendous power, while Editor @ Oregonian may have an entirely different perception of DPO. For my purposes, here, I want to talk about perceptions in Oregon in general. Realism leads to good plans, decisions, and utilization of resources.
To evaluate DPO's political power we need to look at DPO's public face. Does DPO attract sufficient interest to pay it's rent and run some campaigns? Yes it does, and that, in comparison to some previous history, is a large improvement and laudable. How extensive is the interest in DPO? There we begin to run into some some less impressive results. How many DPO press releases or actions have attracted media attention? When Democrats take action to recognize the Second Amendment, we're noticed, but how much of that is simply novelty value, a "man bites dog" type of story? Does the DPO recruit candidates for office, and if it did would it be meaningful? Is the DPO a sought after source for information? Do organizations come to DPO for support in causes or issues? Do local Party events draw media attention and non-DPO attendees? Does the membership of DPO include a large percentage of Progressive Oregonians? If these things are not true on a regular basis then our power is very limited. Very limited power constrains our ability to be a force in Oregon politics. Catch22.
The Religious Right in the Republican Party (I'm sorry, it's a great example) did not start out with piles of money and politicians paying lip service to their agenda. What they started out with was networking, putting together agreed upon ideas and then pushing forward with them. They pushed into political areas that were outside their norm and that attracted attention. Every success their agenda had was news about them, because they were it's driving force. This is why there is a generic name, Religious Right, for the many different organizations composing it. There are a bunch of factions there that have much that is not in common and yet they are a recognized political force and you bet they attract money. There are things in their operation to be learned from and there are also warnings. When they over-reach, they alienate. Politicians, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy are the final expression of political power and require regard.
I suggest that we protect and enhance DPO and the way to do that is to think about our allies as if they were allies and then move outside that arena. Continuing to support Democratic candidates maintains our base, but to increase our reach we need to think and act on a wider basis. I have suggested that the Initiative Process creates an opening for DPO activity and I'm sure there are more ideas out there. Changing our frame of view can lead us to change the perception of DPO, it can put us in a position to really influence the political landscape of Oregon. I'd like that.
NSA Spying
Just caught KATU News (our local Portland ABC affiliate station) An employee of NSA has come forward and said that the US under Presidential order, has illegally spied on MILLIONS (not thousands) of Americans. This man (I believe his name is Tice) has been dismissed because of his disclosures. NSA had him sign a paper ordering him not to go to Congress with his info. He went anyway, and they are now in the process of trying to take legal action against him.
Evidently the reason for warrantless searches would not involve FISA, since no foreign intelligence was involved. Evidently the President is using NSA to go after his political enemies.
Posted by Bill Eagle
Evidently the reason for warrantless searches would not involve FISA, since no foreign intelligence was involved. Evidently the President is using NSA to go after his political enemies.
Posted by Bill Eagle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)