Instant Digital Representative Democracy

I just read the article, below, and thought of something. We are in a digital age of immediate information. A growing number of people feel dissassociated from their representatives and the government. We vote to elect individuals, and if provided a referendum, vote on that. But otherwise, we have to resort to town hall meetings, blogs, e-mails, phone calls and other venues to try to vent and get our point across to our legislators - the people who are supposed to be trying to do what WE want, not what THEY want. When we vote them into office, we hope they make the right decisions based on their prior records and/or what they tell us at the time. But after that, it's practically a crap shoot. The sense is that they're in control and not us. I listen to the news media and think, I don't really care or want to know what the politicians think, I want to know what the American people think. There's a lot of chatter, but no metric.

Well, call me crazy, but why can't there be one federal website where the major issues of legislative debate are posted, and the entire American public can vote their will online? (The same can be done for States as well as municipalities.) It is a representative democracy, is it not? It would be similar to a gallop poll, or any other poll, but would be open to the entire country, and run on a controlled but reasonable timetable. All issues and results would be visible to everyone. It would certainly be easier to then compare which politicians are representing us, and which are representing themselves. This would also provide our politicians with our collective views before they vote on a legislative measure.

This is not meant to be partisan in any way.

Thoughts?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/republican-leaders-launch-outreach-initiative-revive-party-image/

Spinning The Torture Debate

The uproar over the release of Justice Department memos, detailing the Bush administration's torture policy, is being used to shift attention away from the clearly illegal action of the Justice Department, to a debate over the effectiveness of the prescribed torture.

Those successfully distracted from the central issue of whether our government is accountable, are given a generous dose of anxiety, to help digest the mantra that we cannot survive as a nation unless we torture.

Although it is entertaining trying to unravel the cross currents of we said/they said, and red herring is the catch of the day, the entire discussion is irrelevant. The end does not justify the means. Torture is torture, and we are not allowed to do it. They did it, and must be held accountable. The dubious and unsupported claims of torture having worked matter not at all.

Should Congressional enablers also answer? Most definitely - and this is the trump card that the torturers hope will immobilize the investigation - by making the pool of accomplices before, during, and after the fact, too big to prosecute [like banks that are too big to fail].

A word of warning to President Obama: Ford [as in Gerald Ford, who most assuredly would have been elected in 1976, had he not pardoned Nixon's crimes before he was even charged]. Nobody expects Mr. Obama to clean up the whole Bush economic disaster in just four years, and nobody is expecting miracles in the Mideast either, after eight years of botched military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and mangled diplomacy in Palestine. But if he lets down the many who took a chance on an inexperienced young man because he inspired the hope of a return to moral and ethical governance, he will not, and should not, be re-elected.

Bush Legacy of Torture and War Coming to Light

Two of the more egregious accomplishments of George W. Bush's administration are being examined in public forums lately: the legitimacy of the Iraq war, and the torture of suspected enemies. Still waiting in the wings are his domestic surveillance program, and assorted political retaliations, i.e. firing federal prosecutors, outing Valerie Plame etc.

Arguments were heard in federal court in Newark yesterday, in a lawsuit claiming that the Iraq War is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are not seeking to unring the bell by halting the war in progress, but want a ruling on how the war powers are to be used in the future. Congress sought to evade responsibility in 2002, by writing Bush a blank check. In retrospect, that seems to have been a bad idea. This case could help us to get it right next time.

The American Civil Liberties Union succeeded in getting four memos released, which detailed the Bush administration's rationale for torturing people thought to have links to terrorism. This is the first step in what must be a comprehensive public exposure of the entire sorry mess. Cheney, and others seeking to cover their a$$, are loudly proclaiming the success of torture in preventing terrorist attacks, and issuing dire warnings to those who want to talk about it. There will be terrorist attacks, and an institutional torture program will not prevent them. Meanwhile, it's time to acknowledge our sins, and renounce future torture, to salvage our self respect.

There are many crises demanding immediate, decisive action by President Obama - to turn our economy around, and address international human tragedies in progress. There will be entrenched constituencies that will point to these demands, and attempt to derail efforts to hold those in the Bush administration accountable for their actions. The process to examine the Bush years must not be abandoned or allowed to wither. There were legitimate arguments against moving forward with impeachment during his presidency, one being that there would be time enough after he left office. Now it may be tempting to simply look ahead, and consign the whole sorry Bush mess to the dustbin of history. Such expediency would be negligent and irresponsible, and would impose dire consequences on our children and those of the next generation, who would be sent to kill and die in more unnecessary wars, or left to live under conditions of poverty, disease, discrimination and oppression also left unaddressed.


The seeds of today's involvement in Iraq were planted during Vietnam, allowed to sprout during the '70's Mideast wars, were cultivated during Iran/contra, and flourished in the failure to root out terrorists in the 90's. The chain could have been broken through responsible and transparent statesmanship, but wasn't. Our disastrous response to 9/11 was another link in the chain, and we now have another opportunity to break it.

The 2008 election campaign illustrated the improper historical association of events such as 9/11 and Iraq, the folly of our country's attempts to conduct international affairs unilaterally, and our failure to confront the moral consequences of "American Exceptionalism".

Mistakes were made during the Bush years, and more will be made by Obama going forward. They are an inevitable result of leadership initiatives. But to shroud those mistakes under phony security concerns invites careless decision making and corrupt influences. Each time we are driven by fear to surrender our judgment, without benefit of the facts, our democracy is weakened.

We must insist on a transparent process for evaluating and reporting on the causes and effects of the disasters that comprised the Bush presidency. Neglect of this critical step would certainly insure a repeat of this process, as well as inhibit the rebuilding of America's moral stature in the world community.

A different approach to foreign policy

Alright. On the premise that Bush was evil, and the US a meddling imperialist, we're going to try a softer, friendlier, warm and fuzzy approach to foreign policy. Enter a Constitutional law professor with zero foreign policy experience.

Let's shake hands and chat over cocktails. Why can't we all just get along? Cumbaya...

I'm glad this is occurring because I think BO will get a fast lesson in world politics and history. It is naive to think that people like Chavez, Morales, Castro, Ahmadinejad and others, together with their constituents, who have harbored their anti-semitic, anti-US views for so long, are simply going to melt and transform into cute tribbles (Star Trek reference) upon the handshake of BO. They're not going to change at all. The Change we elected, is not the change they seek (unless our new national spending and debt outright crushes us.)
So now what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8008850.stm
In quotes: Ahmadinejad speech
Diplomats have walked out of a UN conference on racism during a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/20/concerns-brewing-obamas-warm-embrace-chavez/
Handshake With Obama Belies Chavez's Contempt for America
But some veteran diplomats said Chavez would wield the gracious grasp as an important symbol to help consolidate his growing power in Venezuela.
"What he's going to say is that what he has been doing in Venezuela now has the seal of approval of the United States," said Otto Reich, who was ambassador to Venezuela under President Reagan. "He sees it as a green light to continue dismantling democracy in Venezuela."
Reich said Chavez is already using the handshake as propaganda and called the summit a missed opportunity by the Obama administration.

Holy hell! And so it begins...

What the hell is this?!
http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Assessment
(U///FOUO) Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

I'm no fan of skin heads or the Tim McVey's of the world, but I've got 3 big points to make here:
1) Why is the government referring to this as "Rightwing Extremism"? How about just "Extremism", instead? After all, the notion of right wing is a political one, just like left wing. And left wing extremists have been known to be violent, also.
Does this mean that anyone who is left wing can never pose a threat?
I doubt the government knows, in fact, the political leanings of each person they're targeting, here. More importantly, that's not a dispositive factor in whether they can resort to violence. How about the left-wing abortion nuts that killed doctors? Are they excluded?
Its no coincidence that all opposition to BO has been labeled the "right wing", and now vilified. Note how they describe "Rightwing extremism" in the footnote on page 2.
Reverse McCarthyism anyone?
This is very disturbing.

2) In the document, the government admits that it has "no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence".
So what's the basis for all this? Suspicion? Or political opposition?

3) The Left Wing railed against "profiling" and "suspicion" by the government under Bush. Now the left is in charge, and profiling and suspicion are in vogue?

There are numerous articles being written about this. Here are some examples:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/protest-grows-report-right-wing-radicalization/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/

Michael Savage has even filed a lawsuit:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=95244

Folks, this is getting really scary, very quickly. I don't care if you're a Dem or Rep. You have to be getting worried about where this administration is heading. And incidentally, the recent Tea Parties included Democrat participants.

Fascinating statistic from NJ

FROM the 04-16-09 New Jersey Law Journal's Daily Briefing e-mail:

N.J. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASES SLIGHTLY IN MARCH
New Jersey's labor market continued to tighten in March as employment fell for the 14th consecutive month, the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development reported Wednesday. The unemployment rate moved up to 8.3 percent in March, from February's 8.2 percent. According to preliminary estimates from a monthly survey of employers, nonfarm wage and salary employment in the Garden State decreased by 17,200 jobs in March, to a total of 3,956,100. All losses were in the private sector (-17,400) as public sector employment rose by 200. The largest contractions occurred in leisure and hospitality, including the casino industry (-5,900); professional and business services (-4,600); manufacturing (-3,700); and trade, transportation and utilities (-1,800). The 8.2 percent N.J. rate compared with a U.S. rate of 8.5 percent.

Wow. Conservative predictions comming true? Liberal plans beginning to work?
Maybe not? But if not, please provide a sound explanation, and prediction for the future based on current policies and trends.
Fascinating! (And a bit scary.)

I thought Change meant we weren't going to try to make everyone else like us anymore.

Afghans Throw Stones at Women Protesting Rape in Marriage Law
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515980,00.html
...
The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse — a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.
...
The government of President Hamid Karzai has said the Shiite family law is being reviewed by the Justice Department and will not be implemented in its current form. Governments and rights groups around the world have condemned the legislation, and President Barack Obama has labeled it "abhorrent."

Seems the Afghans have some major legal matters to contend with. Can you imagine the legislative process, debate and vote that was needed to create and then pass this law? This matter actually took up their legislative time. These people are serious.

Now the dilemma for Karzai is whether to keep the law, rescind the law; or amend the law. Why 4 days and not 2? Etc...

1) In the context of foreign relations, negotiations, etc., for anyone who still suggests that these societies (at least the law's proponents) are no different from other "Western" societies, here is yet another example of how wrong that thought is. As of 2009, we are not even in the same century with these folks.

2) Having said that, I thought it was the goal of the Dems with BO to stop butting our U.S. nose into everyone else's business, or trying to convert everyone to capitalism - which is why, it is believed, so many hate the U.S. We're on a mission of live and let live now. So WHY do we allow ourselves to criticize Afghans over this law? (President Barack Obama has labeled it "abhorrent.") A law that they were able to pass through their own legislative process. One could very well argue, as many of the Afghans do, that these are strictly internal Afghan national affairs that are not the business of any other country.
Indeed. What's wrong with that argument?
Seems that an appropriate Changed U.S. response today should be either to say nothing, or to support the Afghan government, but not criticize the internal laws they pass. Hmm?
But if we criticize, have our criteria for what to criticize changed? How far are we willing to take our position? Will it have any teeth? Would the international response or perception of the U.S. improve now? If so, why? And if we do no more than criticize, how will that be perceived? How is our present behavior different from the past?

The idea that the world is rapidly running out of oil is nonsense - Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193499/page/2

Despite all the fuss about growing demand for this scarce resource, the price of crude oil has gone lower and lower over the past 200 years, writes Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. "This long-term price decline is due mainly to the constant discovery of new fields and greater energy efficiency, making nonsense of the idea that the world is rapidly running out of oil."

Very interesting article that attempts to look beyond the trees, at the forest as a whole. It makes a lot of grounded points and observations, based on history, trends and common sense.

I'm not saying there should be no interest in green technology. But perhaps the energy hysteria, coupled with the hype for green, are being artificially inflated in this country. If this article has any merit (which it certainly seems to have) then perhaps the way to lower our energy costs immediately, and for the long term (even without relying on this article), is for us to open up oil exploration and processing, as well as consider relying more on our other traditional fuels, while providing incentives and not penalties or government mandates (such as prohibiting oil drilling, regulating fuel efficiency, legislating cap and trade) to develop newer, more efficient technologies.

On top of these arguably ill-advised bailouts, in the face of the monumental new debt that our government now wants to impart on us for all sorts of social programs, the least they can do is try to relieve the financial pressure elsewhere, and not choke the goose completely.

Obama Wants to Control the Banks

There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

Now this is Alex speaking:

During the election I told you I was scared of this guy.  I'm no Englishman but I came from Russia and lived in Venezuela.  So I also know class warfare very well.  I made paralells with Hugo Chavez who is the king of class warfare.  A quote from an article in Bloomberg.com "The only indication of a possible slowdown by Chavez involves plans announced in July to take over Banco de Venezuela, the country’s third-biggest bank and a unit of Spain’s Banco Santander SA. Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez, who declined to respond to questions sent via text message about delayed payments, said last month the government is reconsidering the idea."  The article talks about Chavez' money crunch due to plunging oil prices. "

A Few Good Mothers

The rather small turnout of war protesters at Saturday's march down Manhattan's Broadway to Wall St. could be attributed to the blustery weather, the precedence the flagging economy demands of our attention; or perhaps that the stated intentions of our new President, to resolve the military misadventures of the previous administration, have led many to regard the wars as essentially over.

One small segment of our community knows all too well that the end is not at hand: families whose sons and daughters are, or have been, over there. Several local military mothers and fathers joined up with some of their counterparts from New York, Connecticut, and even Baltimore, and marched among the hodgepodge collection of students, health care unions, aging would-be anarchists, veterans groups from several wars, and various street performance troupes.

Four mothers carried a banner near the front of the procession, bucking a stiff head wind, making their way along the lane isolated from Broadway traffic by police barricades, toward the financial district and Battery Park. One National Guard mom, marching in only her second protest, worries every day about her son, who is due back from Iraq in May. She requested her name not be used, for fear that her son could suffer the effects of any publicity. Pam and Michelle, whose son and daughter returned from the war several years ago, and are since discharged from active duty, easily empathize with her dread at hearing each report of violence from Iraq. They, and the fourth mother, Anna, have been marching to protest the Iraq war, in New York, Washington, and South Orange/Maplewood, since before it began.

Anna's son arrived back in the US just a few days ago. He will be on leave next week, and will get to hold his four month old son for the first time. This having been his third tour in Iraq, Anna seems a bit weary of a routine that, in many ways, defines her life; yet she carries on, rarely missing a rally or vigil.

There had been discussion, during the wait to step off, about the point of all this marching. The advertised purpose for this march through Wall Street, to link the enormous costs of waging war to the economic turmoil now engulfing the country, seems unlikely to be advanced. The demonstrators may have been outnumbered by the support contingent - the police escorts, event marshals, and photographers. The New York media is unlikely to take notice, and onlookers will more likely be entertained by the giant puppets than inspired to ponder the economic connections intended by the organizers. All of the participants already oppose the wars, although for a broad range of reasons, so there will be no new converts to the cause.

The chief benefit for many military families lies essentially in being there for each other. A validation of emotion and experience at odds with that of the typical Americans they encounter in their daily lives. Their public expression of frustration at the duration of the wars, and support of each other, recharges them for the ride home on the Midtown Direct - and a return to their other reality.

Injecting Sanity Into Bailout Mix

President Obama, acting as our chief steward, wisely put conditions on the truckload of cash being shipped to Detroit. Too bad the cash pumped into the flat tire we call the financial system was not similarly encumbered. We might be able to see where it went. Businesses SHOULD be leery of accepting bailout funds [and are not being forced to do so]. Business needs to be careful not to trade away autonomy for cash. If the government buys a stake, they have investor rights - for better or worse.

Does the stake in large companies held by our government equate to socialism? Does it represent an erosion of capitalism? Are we asking the right questions?
Capitalism is not a structure subject to erosion - but merely a tool used to accomplish projects on a scale impossible for individuals. Likewise, socialism is not an all-consuming beast about to devour all of our creative souls - but merely a tool to assure basic access that individuals are unable to attain on their own. Both tools provide benefits to society, and both, like all tools, must have guards to prevent accidental injury, and instructions for productive use. In clumsy hands, or used in the wrong application, either would be damaging. Also, one tool cannot produce all that's needed.

Since Reagan, capitalism has been overused and underregulated in our economy. This has produced a lot of wealth, but you can't eat wealth. The auto industry, like many in the US, operated with its primary goal to maximize shareholder return; a laudable intent, but this should have been lower as a priority than building the best automobiles. The capitalist tools were used to make poor quality, inappropriate, but high profit cars and SUVs. This short-sighted strategy was accomplished by investing in lobbying, to excuse the industry from efficiency [and sometime safety] standards; advertising, to create demand for these vehicles; and financing, to smooth the buying process. Lack of vision [supposedly the great benefit of capitalism] and unwillingness to keep focused on their market, is what left these hulks so vulnerable in the current recession.