Quote: "I am fed up with being ripped-off by BGE; of the skyrocketing cost of health care; of corporate-sponsored politicians and lobbyist-written legislation; of gerrymandered districts designed to thwart political competition; of ‘two-party’ gridlock in Annapolis; of inadequate schools; of environmental degradation in Maryland; of a growing divide between the rich and the rest of us. I want honest government, a fair economy, and a just society. How about you?"
Dave Goldsmith was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1956. He attended Baltimore County Public schools (Woodmoor Elementary, Woodlawn Junior High, Milford Mill Senior High) and received a Bachelors Degree in History and a Masters Degree in U.S. History from the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC.) Since 1987 Dave has owned and operated a small computer consulting company (PC Hardware & Software, Inc.) in Baltimore County. Dave married Lisa Goldstein MA, DTR in 1996 and in 1999 their daughter Skye was born. In 2002 they purchased their house in Granite/Woodstock, Maryland.
Dave joined the Maryland Green Party (MGP) in 2000 and was a MGP spokesperson on local radio during the 2000 election; in 2002 he became the coordinator of the Baltimore County Green Party (BCGP.) Since the lead-up to the Iraq War, Dave has maintained a political weblog at www.usgreens.org and his political “Letters to the Editor” have been routinely published in the Baltimore Sun. This is Dave Goldsmith’s first time running for political office. This campaign is centered on: Public Ownership of Public Utilities (BGE), Single-Payer Universal Health Care, and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV.)
Endorsed by: MD Universal Health Care Action Network (MD UHCAN.)
I support: Voters For Peace
BGE/Energy: “Take Back BGE”— community ownership of public utilities; Promote conservation and alternative energy.
Education: Free, high-quality Pre K-College; Merit pay for teachers; Charter schools and homeschooling; Teach citizenship & nonviolence.
Public Funding for Campaigns: Public funding, free airtime, inclusion in debates for all ballot-access candidates; Verified Voting; Instant Runoff Voting.
Health Care: Universal Single- Payer Health Care system to promote prevention and reduce costs (MD UHCAN Plan.)
Housing: Affordable housing for renters & affordable home ownership for all; “Green" building construction; Hire union & worker-owned building contractors.
Redistricting: New districts developed by nonpartisan and independent experts from U. of MD Political Science departments.
Land Use: Plan based on recommendations developed by a non-partisan commission, a majority of whose members are conservationists.
Transportation: Fund expansion of mass transit, bike and walkways; Fund better upkeep of existing roads and bridges; Increase tax breaks for hybrid cars.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
September 28 - Proposed BGE-FPL Merger SHOULD Fail!
I welcome the news that the proposed BGE- FPL merger may fail because, unlike what is reported in the Sun, the merger does not offer a “promise of rate relief” for Maryland electric customers—it comes with a 72% rate increase! (“BGE merger in Danger, FPL warns”, 9-27.)
From what I can tell, leaders of both of the major parties have taken campaign contributions from BGE and, perhaps not coincidentally, they favor the merger that will cost Maryland electric customers millions of dollars.
Alternately, there are 18 candidates for public office in Maryland who are opposed to this “Enron-ization” of BGE and who call for the “Maryland-ization” of our public utilities, including: full public (community) ownership of our public utilities; the use of “eminent domain” to take back BGE; return of the “stranded costs” taxpayers have paid to BGE for decades; the creation of a Public Service Commission (PSC) that looks out after the interests of the taxpayers; making sure all Marylanders can afford the power they need to live; and moving Maryland to the forefront of the affordable, renewable energy and conservation movements.
On November 7, Marylanders who are sick of being ripped off by BGE should vote for Green Party candidates who will “Take Back BGE” from the fat cat CEOs and their political cronies in Annapolis.
From what I can tell, leaders of both of the major parties have taken campaign contributions from BGE and, perhaps not coincidentally, they favor the merger that will cost Maryland electric customers millions of dollars.
Alternately, there are 18 candidates for public office in Maryland who are opposed to this “Enron-ization” of BGE and who call for the “Maryland-ization” of our public utilities, including: full public (community) ownership of our public utilities; the use of “eminent domain” to take back BGE; return of the “stranded costs” taxpayers have paid to BGE for decades; the creation of a Public Service Commission (PSC) that looks out after the interests of the taxpayers; making sure all Marylanders can afford the power they need to live; and moving Maryland to the forefront of the affordable, renewable energy and conservation movements.
On November 7, Marylanders who are sick of being ripped off by BGE should vote for Green Party candidates who will “Take Back BGE” from the fat cat CEOs and their political cronies in Annapolis.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
September 15, 2006 - Bush's terror bill is bad idea
[Listen to mp3]
At his press conference today President Bush defended the use of torture by saying we must, "provide our military and intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect our country from another attack ("Bush urges Congress to back terror bill," 9-15-06.)
The bad news is that Bush is unable or unwilling to absorb the lesson about the inherent unreliability of “intelligence” gathered through torture from his experience with pre-war intelligence failures relating to Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs and nonexistent ties to Al Queda.
The other piece of bad news is that Bush also seems not to understand that U.S. intelligence agencies had gathered, evidently entirely through lawful means, all the information needed to prevent the 911 attacks, had Bush and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice thought that the looming danger in July, 2001 was worth delaying Bush’s month-long summer vacation to coordinate a response to.
The good news is that since, finally, senior Republicans like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell have stood up to Bush, Congress might actually be able to have a frank debate about at least one aspect of U.S. defense and foreign policy without opponents of the president being scared to speak their mind for fear of being accused of treason or of always “blaming America first!”
At his press conference today President Bush defended the use of torture by saying we must, "provide our military and intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect our country from another attack ("Bush urges Congress to back terror bill," 9-15-06.)
The bad news is that Bush is unable or unwilling to absorb the lesson about the inherent unreliability of “intelligence” gathered through torture from his experience with pre-war intelligence failures relating to Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs and nonexistent ties to Al Queda.
The other piece of bad news is that Bush also seems not to understand that U.S. intelligence agencies had gathered, evidently entirely through lawful means, all the information needed to prevent the 911 attacks, had Bush and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice thought that the looming danger in July, 2001 was worth delaying Bush’s month-long summer vacation to coordinate a response to.
The good news is that since, finally, senior Republicans like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell have stood up to Bush, Congress might actually be able to have a frank debate about at least one aspect of U.S. defense and foreign policy without opponents of the president being scared to speak their mind for fear of being accused of treason or of always “blaming America first!”
September 12, 2006 - Reducing terrorism is not a job for the military
President Bush’s five-year commemoration speech suggests he has learned nothing since 911, as he once again repeated the same fallacious arguments that have become the hallmark of his misguided presidency (“On somber day, Bush urges unity”, 9-12.)
Bush was wrong when he repeated the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein's regime "posed a risk that the world could not afford to take" because nearly the entire world was prepared to take the “risk” and the world was proven right. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam was contained, he had no WMDs or ties to Al Queda, but Bin Laden, the presumed mastermind of 911, was loose—and due in large part to Bush’s Iraqi misadventure, Bin Laden is still free five years after 911!
Bush was also wrong when he stated that the Iraq war will "set the course for this new century”. It is understandable that Bush would try to elevate to a central place in history an enterprise in which he was the central actor, but the dominant paradigm-shifting force of this century is not likely to the sweep of democracy throughout the Middle East, but rather something Bush is evidently still in denial about: global warming and its associated “disruptions.”
When compared to global warming, terrorism is a second-level threat. But terrorism can be effectively managed only after the American president admits that invading Iraq was a mistake, apologizes to the U.N. and the Iraqi people, and begins to earn the international trust and cooperation needed to capture terrorists and dry up the “sea” of discontentment in which terrorists now safely swim.
Finally, Bush got it all wrong when he stated, "Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country.” We simply will never be able to unite around a false premise—there is not and cannot be a war against a tactic (terrorism.) In short, regardless of what Mr. Bush says, reducing the threats from global terrorism is primarily a political and “intelligence” undertaking, and does not lend itself to military solutions or martial rhetoric.
Bush was wrong when he repeated the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein's regime "posed a risk that the world could not afford to take" because nearly the entire world was prepared to take the “risk” and the world was proven right. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam was contained, he had no WMDs or ties to Al Queda, but Bin Laden, the presumed mastermind of 911, was loose—and due in large part to Bush’s Iraqi misadventure, Bin Laden is still free five years after 911!
Bush was also wrong when he stated that the Iraq war will "set the course for this new century”. It is understandable that Bush would try to elevate to a central place in history an enterprise in which he was the central actor, but the dominant paradigm-shifting force of this century is not likely to the sweep of democracy throughout the Middle East, but rather something Bush is evidently still in denial about: global warming and its associated “disruptions.”
When compared to global warming, terrorism is a second-level threat. But terrorism can be effectively managed only after the American president admits that invading Iraq was a mistake, apologizes to the U.N. and the Iraqi people, and begins to earn the international trust and cooperation needed to capture terrorists and dry up the “sea” of discontentment in which terrorists now safely swim.
Finally, Bush got it all wrong when he stated, "Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country.” We simply will never be able to unite around a false premise—there is not and cannot be a war against a tactic (terrorism.) In short, regardless of what Mr. Bush says, reducing the threats from global terrorism is primarily a political and “intelligence” undertaking, and does not lend itself to military solutions or martial rhetoric.
September 10, 2006 - Negotiation, not war
In Michael P. DeCicco’s recent letter to the editor (“War makes progress by killing terrorists”, 9/9) the writer argued that, since “diplomacy and negotiations with terrorists don't work,” and despite the fact “Nobody really knows how many terrorists and radical Islamists have been exterminated,” Mr. DeCicco thinks that “when our commander in chief believes that we have killed a sufficient number” of terrorists, our soldiers can leave Iraq as victors because he “trust[s] President Bush's judgment on this matter.”
I think there are at least four major problems with Mr. DeCicco’s analysis.
Firstly, many countries have negotiated with terrorist organizations: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (himself a former member of the Irgun Jewish terrorist organization) negotiated a peace deal with Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO terrorist group; the British negotiated with Sinn Fein to end the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the U.K.; the GAM terrorist group signed a comprehensive peace accord with the Indonesian government; most recently, sanctions followed by British and U.S. diplomacy seem to have ended Libyan state-sponsored terrorism, etc.
Secondly, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a reckless act that turned Iraq into a major terrorist recruitment center and a proving ground for terrorist tactics that have already been exported elsewhere (Madrid, Afghanistan, Beirut, etc.) As with the mythical Hydra, the U.S. military may be creating two new terrorists for every one it kills, and at a price tag of perhaps tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per dead terrorist, eventually the “war on terrorism” could consume the entire American GDP!
Thirdly, and tellingly, Mr. DeCicco called for only “a sufficient number” of terrorists to be killed in the so-called “war on terrorism” instead of demanding total victory against terrorism. Could anyone imagine, for example, FDR declaring that WWII would be fought until “a sufficient number” of Nazis were killed? The question answers itself: there can be no “war on terrorism”; there can be no final “victory” against terrorism; terrorism cannot be defeated through violence; violence encourages more terrorism.
Lastly, I think Mr. DeCicco’s trust in President Bush is entirely unmerited: Bush has no honor, he is neither trustworthy nor competent, and it is hard for me to understand how anyone who has witnessed the disaster that is the Bush presidency (Bush v. Gore, reneging on the Kyoto Agreement, the longest presidential vacation in history followed by 911 and the appointment of ultimate-insider Henry Kissinger to head the 911 investigation, the appointment of ex-felon John Poindexter to head the “Total Information Awareness” citizen-surveillance program, the unsolved anthrax attacks and the dubious color-coded terror alerts, the cynically-named “No Child Left Behind” and "Help America Vote" and “Patriot” Acts and the establishment of the Nazi-sounding Department of “Homeland” Security, the Orwellian-named “Healthy Forest” and “Clear Skies” Acts, the war in Afghanistan and the escape of Bin Laden and the return of the Taliban, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the extraordinary renditions and the secret torture prisons, the false WMD allegations leading to the Iraq war and ensuing quagmire, the rejection of U.S. foreign policy by nearly the entire world, the warrantless wiretaps, the Medicare Drug Benefit bill sold to Congress with a false price tag, tax cuts leading to record budget deficits, the cowardly refusal to speak to Cindy Sheehan or to attend the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, the misguided Bernard Kerik and Harriet Myers nominations, support for Michael “Brownie” Brown and the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, the use of signing statements to circumvent Congress and the law, the Dubai Ports deal, the amnesty for illegal immigrants plan, the development of North Korean nuclear weapons and the ongoing Iranian nuclear program, the elevation of fear and faith and rhetoric over reason and science and reality, etc.) could place any faith in the man.
I think there are at least four major problems with Mr. DeCicco’s analysis.
Firstly, many countries have negotiated with terrorist organizations: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (himself a former member of the Irgun Jewish terrorist organization) negotiated a peace deal with Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO terrorist group; the British negotiated with Sinn Fein to end the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the U.K.; the GAM terrorist group signed a comprehensive peace accord with the Indonesian government; most recently, sanctions followed by British and U.S. diplomacy seem to have ended Libyan state-sponsored terrorism, etc.
Secondly, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a reckless act that turned Iraq into a major terrorist recruitment center and a proving ground for terrorist tactics that have already been exported elsewhere (Madrid, Afghanistan, Beirut, etc.) As with the mythical Hydra, the U.S. military may be creating two new terrorists for every one it kills, and at a price tag of perhaps tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per dead terrorist, eventually the “war on terrorism” could consume the entire American GDP!
Thirdly, and tellingly, Mr. DeCicco called for only “a sufficient number” of terrorists to be killed in the so-called “war on terrorism” instead of demanding total victory against terrorism. Could anyone imagine, for example, FDR declaring that WWII would be fought until “a sufficient number” of Nazis were killed? The question answers itself: there can be no “war on terrorism”; there can be no final “victory” against terrorism; terrorism cannot be defeated through violence; violence encourages more terrorism.
Lastly, I think Mr. DeCicco’s trust in President Bush is entirely unmerited: Bush has no honor, he is neither trustworthy nor competent, and it is hard for me to understand how anyone who has witnessed the disaster that is the Bush presidency (Bush v. Gore, reneging on the Kyoto Agreement, the longest presidential vacation in history followed by 911 and the appointment of ultimate-insider Henry Kissinger to head the 911 investigation, the appointment of ex-felon John Poindexter to head the “Total Information Awareness” citizen-surveillance program, the unsolved anthrax attacks and the dubious color-coded terror alerts, the cynically-named “No Child Left Behind” and "Help America Vote" and “Patriot” Acts and the establishment of the Nazi-sounding Department of “Homeland” Security, the Orwellian-named “Healthy Forest” and “Clear Skies” Acts, the war in Afghanistan and the escape of Bin Laden and the return of the Taliban, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the extraordinary renditions and the secret torture prisons, the false WMD allegations leading to the Iraq war and ensuing quagmire, the rejection of U.S. foreign policy by nearly the entire world, the warrantless wiretaps, the Medicare Drug Benefit bill sold to Congress with a false price tag, tax cuts leading to record budget deficits, the cowardly refusal to speak to Cindy Sheehan or to attend the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, the misguided Bernard Kerik and Harriet Myers nominations, support for Michael “Brownie” Brown and the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, the use of signing statements to circumvent Congress and the law, the Dubai Ports deal, the amnesty for illegal immigrants plan, the development of North Korean nuclear weapons and the ongoing Iranian nuclear program, the elevation of fear and faith and rhetoric over reason and science and reality, etc.) could place any faith in the man.
September 5, 2006 - What do you mean ‘us’ Mr. Bush?
President Bush’s unintentionally revealing comment that “we get oil from some parts of the world and they simply don't like us," (“Bush touts alternative energy”, 9-4) reminded me of the old Bill Cosby joke about the Lone Ranger who, surrounded by hostile Indians, turns to Tonto and says, “This looks bad for us,” to which his sidekick replies, “What do you mean ‘us’, paleface?”
The top sources of US crude oil imports are Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, which are all countries where the majority of citizens like Americans generally, but despise Bush.
In fact Bush has placed himself in the unique position of not only being loathed by a majority of Americans, but also by the majority of the citizens in the countries that have long been America’s allies.
Having recently returned from Europe I can attest to the fact that it is not “us” they hate but Bush; its not “us” they are reluctant to partner with in order to solve international problems but the Bush administration which is widely perceived to be untrustworthy, unserious, corrupt and incompetent.
Neither Richard Nixon during Watergate nor Bill Clinton during his impeachment was reviled by as many people as Bush, and Bush evidently knows it.
It is rumored that Bush now pins his hopes on the favorable judgment of history. But at the rate he is going Bush will probably be remembered as being less like the unfairly maligned-in-his-time Harry Truman and more like Warren Harding—a frivolous man completely out of his depths: literally a “Bush-league” president.
The top sources of US crude oil imports are Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, which are all countries where the majority of citizens like Americans generally, but despise Bush.
In fact Bush has placed himself in the unique position of not only being loathed by a majority of Americans, but also by the majority of the citizens in the countries that have long been America’s allies.
Having recently returned from Europe I can attest to the fact that it is not “us” they hate but Bush; its not “us” they are reluctant to partner with in order to solve international problems but the Bush administration which is widely perceived to be untrustworthy, unserious, corrupt and incompetent.
Neither Richard Nixon during Watergate nor Bill Clinton during his impeachment was reviled by as many people as Bush, and Bush evidently knows it.
It is rumored that Bush now pins his hopes on the favorable judgment of history. But at the rate he is going Bush will probably be remembered as being less like the unfairly maligned-in-his-time Harry Truman and more like Warren Harding—a frivolous man completely out of his depths: literally a “Bush-league” president.
September 3, 2006 - DO Abandon Iraq!
I think that Douglas Koerber’s recent letter to the editor (“Don't abandon Iraq before job is done”, 9-3) is wrong on almost every point.
When Mr. Koerber writes “If the United States continues to follow through, we will look back on this war a decade from now and see a free and stable democratic Iraq” he is guilty of promoting a faith-based foreign policy; in truth there is little reason to believe that “staying the course” for ten more years or even a hundred more years will force most Iraqis to acquiesce to the Christian (read “pro-Zionist”) occupation army on their soil.
When Mr. Koerber writes “the United States occupied West Germany for decades . . . Many Europeans . . .protested that presence” his comparison is hardly apt because not a single U.S. solider was killed by German resistors, insurgents, or “terrorists” during the entire postwar occupation.
Finally, when Mr. Koerber writes “If America were to withdraw from Iraq now, the deaths of our fallen heroes would be for nothing” he repeats the chestnut which is the last refuge for defenders a failed military adventure—if we heeded this advise the U.S. might still be stuck in Vietnam today!
When Mr. Koerber writes “If the United States continues to follow through, we will look back on this war a decade from now and see a free and stable democratic Iraq” he is guilty of promoting a faith-based foreign policy; in truth there is little reason to believe that “staying the course” for ten more years or even a hundred more years will force most Iraqis to acquiesce to the Christian (read “pro-Zionist”) occupation army on their soil.
When Mr. Koerber writes “the United States occupied West Germany for decades . . . Many Europeans . . .protested that presence” his comparison is hardly apt because not a single U.S. solider was killed by German resistors, insurgents, or “terrorists” during the entire postwar occupation.
Finally, when Mr. Koerber writes “If America were to withdraw from Iraq now, the deaths of our fallen heroes would be for nothing” he repeats the chestnut which is the last refuge for defenders a failed military adventure—if we heeded this advise the U.S. might still be stuck in Vietnam today!
September 2, 2006 - Extremism takes many forms
[Listen to mp3]
In his letter to the editor (“Islamic extremism takes many forms”, 9-2) Iver Mindel criticized “the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world who do not speak out vehemently against such [terrorist] violence and the targeting of innocent civilians, which is supposedly done in the name of Allah.”
I have no idea how many Muslims oppose terrorism but I do know that many Muslims live in countries where there is little freedom of speech-- including countries like Egypt which receives a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer’s money each year.
By contrast, Mr. Mindel lives in a country where freedom of speech is still allowed; does he exercise his right to speak out against the terror his own country creates?
Was Mr. Mindel among the millions of peaceful Americans who protested against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq, did he condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib, did he speak out against the rape and murders by U.S. soldiers in Mahmudiya, etc., all of which are done by supposed Christians?
Or, does Mr. Mindel find excuses for U.S. terror (“bad things happen in war”, etc.) just as some Muslims justify Islamic terrorism (“give us Cruise missiles and we’ll stop using suicide belts”, etc?)
In other words, as the Bible reminds us, it is so much easier to see the mote in your brother's eye than to see the beam in your own eye.
In his letter to the editor (“Islamic extremism takes many forms”, 9-2) Iver Mindel criticized “the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world who do not speak out vehemently against such [terrorist] violence and the targeting of innocent civilians, which is supposedly done in the name of Allah.”
I have no idea how many Muslims oppose terrorism but I do know that many Muslims live in countries where there is little freedom of speech-- including countries like Egypt which receives a billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer’s money each year.
By contrast, Mr. Mindel lives in a country where freedom of speech is still allowed; does he exercise his right to speak out against the terror his own country creates?
Was Mr. Mindel among the millions of peaceful Americans who protested against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq, did he condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib, did he speak out against the rape and murders by U.S. soldiers in Mahmudiya, etc., all of which are done by supposed Christians?
Or, does Mr. Mindel find excuses for U.S. terror (“bad things happen in war”, etc.) just as some Muslims justify Islamic terrorism (“give us Cruise missiles and we’ll stop using suicide belts”, etc?)
In other words, as the Bible reminds us, it is so much easier to see the mote in your brother's eye than to see the beam in your own eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
