Vice President Cheney’s approval of “dunking a terrorist in water” is a chilling reminder of how shortsighted and amoral are some of the leading members of the Bush administration (“Cheney comment lands White House in hot water”, 10-27.)
I wonder if Mr. Cheney has really thought through the implications of his policies because history is replete with examples of leaders who, having created the machinery of state terror were later consumed by it.
And in a global war without end, even Mr. Cheney himself could conceivably be deemed an “enemy combatant” by some future President, and could face “extraordinary rendition” and its associated terrors.
I think Cheney should watch the 1966 film “A Man for All Seasons” and seriously listen to the speech screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Sir Thomas More: “This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Sunday, October 29, 2006
October 29, 2006 - Public Utilities Should Be Publicly Owned
I am frankly bewildered by Tony Ondrusek’s comment that the collapse of the Constellation Energy and Florida Power deal represents a “disgrace” to the residents of Maryland (“Democrats’ dithering doomed the merger”, 10-29-06.)
What I find disgraceful is the record-high profits of the oil and utility companies who are gouging consumers with record-high rates-- Constellation Energy recently declared a 75% increase in third-quarter profits, and even larger profits are expected as the 72% rate increase is phased in.
This is money coming out of the pockets of working people and going into the bank accounts of fat cat CEOs.
Far from being a disgrace, the failed merger represents the best opportunity Marylanders have to take back BGE and set affordable rates because public utilities should be publicly owned and run in the interest of the consumers.
What I find disgraceful is the record-high profits of the oil and utility companies who are gouging consumers with record-high rates-- Constellation Energy recently declared a 75% increase in third-quarter profits, and even larger profits are expected as the 72% rate increase is phased in.
This is money coming out of the pockets of working people and going into the bank accounts of fat cat CEOs.
Far from being a disgrace, the failed merger represents the best opportunity Marylanders have to take back BGE and set affordable rates because public utilities should be publicly owned and run in the interest of the consumers.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
October 22, 2006 - Bush HAS changed his stated goals for Iraq
President Bush claimed, “our goal hasn’t changed” in Iraq (“Bush willing to shift tactics to win in Iraq”, 10-21) but the truth is his administration’s stated goals have continuously changed.
First Bush said the goal was to rid Iraq of its (nonexistent) WMDs, then the goal was to remove Saddam and his sons, then the goal was to establish a demonstration model of Arab democracy, and most recently the goal seems to be the imposition of order and stability, perhaps by installing another “strongman” like Saddam!
On the other hand, Bush’s unstated goal probably hasn’t changed: To control Iraqi oil by establishing a huge permanent military presence near the epicenter of the world’s largest oil deposits.
Regardless of his stated and unstated goals, the wheels long ago flew off Bush’s foreign policy wagon.
In one sense this is a very good thing because no nation should ever benefit from a war of aggression.
First Bush said the goal was to rid Iraq of its (nonexistent) WMDs, then the goal was to remove Saddam and his sons, then the goal was to establish a demonstration model of Arab democracy, and most recently the goal seems to be the imposition of order and stability, perhaps by installing another “strongman” like Saddam!
On the other hand, Bush’s unstated goal probably hasn’t changed: To control Iraqi oil by establishing a huge permanent military presence near the epicenter of the world’s largest oil deposits.
Regardless of his stated and unstated goals, the wheels long ago flew off Bush’s foreign policy wagon.
In one sense this is a very good thing because no nation should ever benefit from a war of aggression.
October 22, 2006 - Who IS Michael Steele?
While I am sure the Sun’s recent article about Senatorial candidate Michael Steele will be decried by Republicans as another “hit piece”, it struck me as a much-needed and sobering reminder that after four years in the spotlight, Mr. Steele’s past, present and future plans are still largely unknown (“A personality for politics”, 10-22).
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
October 15, 2006 - Microcredit Can Work in Baltimore as Well as Bangladesh
It was inspiring and instructive to read about Noble Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, the pioneer of “microcredit” in which small loans “unleash the entrepreneurial talents of people who had historically been written off” (“Small-loan pioneer wins peace prize”, 10-14-06.)
I believe that in this new millennium, governments, institutions and corporations will be judged by how well they promote social justice, grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom and nonviolence.
The example of Yunus should be repeated elsewhere—even here in Maryland— as a practical method of finally breaking the recurring cycle of poverty amongst our own “permanent underclass.”
I believe that in this new millennium, governments, institutions and corporations will be judged by how well they promote social justice, grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom and nonviolence.
The example of Yunus should be repeated elsewhere—even here in Maryland— as a practical method of finally breaking the recurring cycle of poverty amongst our own “permanent underclass.”
October 15, 2006 - Four on the Ballot but Only Two in the Debate?
The Sun again neglected to mention that although there are four candidates on the ballot in Maryland for governor, only two of them were allowed into the debates Saturday (“Two rivals clash with two styles”, 10-15.)
In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates, voters in November will also see Green Party candidate Ed Boyd and Populist Party candidate Chris Driscoll’s names on the ballot.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if voters knew something about these candidates before they entered the polling booth—in other words, isn’t it the responsibility of the Sun to cover ALL of the candidates on the ballot?
I can only assume that Boyd and Driscoll were denied their just places beside Ehrlich and O’Malley because of the shellacking Green Party candidate for Senate Kevin Zeese gave Ben Cardin and Michael Steele at their first Senatorial debate.
The fact that third-party candidates may outclass their ossified competition is good reason for Republicans and Democrats to try to keep them out of debates, but it is a lousy reason for the Sun to decline covering these serious and exciting campaigns.
In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates, voters in November will also see Green Party candidate Ed Boyd and Populist Party candidate Chris Driscoll’s names on the ballot.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if voters knew something about these candidates before they entered the polling booth—in other words, isn’t it the responsibility of the Sun to cover ALL of the candidates on the ballot?
I can only assume that Boyd and Driscoll were denied their just places beside Ehrlich and O’Malley because of the shellacking Green Party candidate for Senate Kevin Zeese gave Ben Cardin and Michael Steele at their first Senatorial debate.
The fact that third-party candidates may outclass their ossified competition is good reason for Republicans and Democrats to try to keep them out of debates, but it is a lousy reason for the Sun to decline covering these serious and exciting campaigns.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
October 10, 2006 - Bush’s foreign policy blunders
Observing President Bush’s foreign policy is like watching an immanent train wreck: You can see looming disaster from a mile away but there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Critical observers knew that the reasons for war on Iraq were all lies and that the resulting invasion would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the U.S. and the Iraqi people.
Similarly, critical observers knew that Bush’s doctrine of military “preemption” coupled with Bush’s short list of countries ripe for “regime change” would accelerate Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.
And now, as predicted, we have North Korea announcing “publicly for the first time that it had nuclear weapons” (“Failed tactics leave U.S. policymakers facing ‘rough go’", 10-10.)
How is it that in the span of six years the U.S. has gone from being the “indispensable nation” to being a country that is reviled by its allies and disregarded by its enemies?
The short answer is that our chief executive is totally out of his depths with regard to foreign policy: The man is truly a “Bush league” president.
Critical observers knew that the reasons for war on Iraq were all lies and that the resulting invasion would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the U.S. and the Iraqi people.
Similarly, critical observers knew that Bush’s doctrine of military “preemption” coupled with Bush’s short list of countries ripe for “regime change” would accelerate Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.
And now, as predicted, we have North Korea announcing “publicly for the first time that it had nuclear weapons” (“Failed tactics leave U.S. policymakers facing ‘rough go’", 10-10.)
How is it that in the span of six years the U.S. has gone from being the “indispensable nation” to being a country that is reviled by its allies and disregarded by its enemies?
The short answer is that our chief executive is totally out of his depths with regard to foreign policy: The man is truly a “Bush league” president.
October 10, 2006 - Implement Instant Runoff Voting
Implementing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), would instantly eliminate the “spoiler effect” that has trapped many voters like Robert A. “Buzz” Kerr who said he “support[s] the views of the Green Party” candidate Kevin Zeese, but is likely to vote for Ben Cardin because he “think[s] it’s real important for the Democrats to take control of Congress” ("Running hard – uphill”, 10-9.)
Under instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates: a 'one' for their favorite candidate, a 'two' for their second favorite and so on. Votes are then counted for the top-ranked candidate on each ballot. After counting these ballots, if no candidate has a majority of the vote and thus no candidate had won, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots of that candidate's supporters are counted for their next (second) choice, etc. until a candidate wins with a majority of the vote.
Since IRV eliminates the spoiler effect, saves time and money by eliminating the need for a primary election, ensures that the winner of race has the support of a majority of the voters, and brings more voices and choices into the election, why hasn’t the Democratic Party- controlled legislature in Maryland enacted IRV?
The answer is simple: most Democratic leaders in Maryland are fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, not much has changed in this regard since the early 1900s, when Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman denounced the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.”
Under instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates: a 'one' for their favorite candidate, a 'two' for their second favorite and so on. Votes are then counted for the top-ranked candidate on each ballot. After counting these ballots, if no candidate has a majority of the vote and thus no candidate had won, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots of that candidate's supporters are counted for their next (second) choice, etc. until a candidate wins with a majority of the vote.
Since IRV eliminates the spoiler effect, saves time and money by eliminating the need for a primary election, ensures that the winner of race has the support of a majority of the voters, and brings more voices and choices into the election, why hasn’t the Democratic Party- controlled legislature in Maryland enacted IRV?
The answer is simple: most Democratic leaders in Maryland are fundamentally anti-democratic. In fact, not much has changed in this regard since the early 1900s, when Baltimore Democratic political boss Arthur P. Gorman denounced the possibility of third-party success as being “more objectionable even than Republican success.”
Friday, October 06, 2006
October 6, 2006 - Blame Both Parties for International Terrorism
I think Mr. DeCicco is wrong on a number of points in his letter that criticized former President Bill Clinton (“Democrats lack will to win war on terror”, 10-6.)
First of all, there is no “war on terror” and there cannot ever be a war against a tactic; Mr. DeCicco falls into a trap when he accepts this false premise.
Secondly, Mr. DeCicco got it wrong when he argued that Clinton was, “overly concerned about his sexual misdeeds.” In fact Clinton was regrettably cavalier about his sexual affairs before he was caught, and it was the Republicans who were, for purely political motives, fixated on Clinton’s sexual misdeeds after they came to light.
Thirdly, like many other “conservatives”, Mr. DeCicco seems to decry the “rewriting” of history but as every good historian knows, history is not a dead thing but must continuously be revisited in light of the appearance of new facts and changing perspectives.
An example of this “rewriting” principle is that now we can see there is plenty of blame to go around among both Democratic and Republican leaders for the advent of global terrorism. I for one chiefly blame President Jimmy Carter for allowing his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to talk him into the insane program of funding, recruiting, training, and arming young Islamic fanatics from all over the world.
It is important to remember that, from Carter through President George H.W. Bush, a majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the development of an international jihad against the West.
First of all, there is no “war on terror” and there cannot ever be a war against a tactic; Mr. DeCicco falls into a trap when he accepts this false premise.
Secondly, Mr. DeCicco got it wrong when he argued that Clinton was, “overly concerned about his sexual misdeeds.” In fact Clinton was regrettably cavalier about his sexual affairs before he was caught, and it was the Republicans who were, for purely political motives, fixated on Clinton’s sexual misdeeds after they came to light.
Thirdly, like many other “conservatives”, Mr. DeCicco seems to decry the “rewriting” of history but as every good historian knows, history is not a dead thing but must continuously be revisited in light of the appearance of new facts and changing perspectives.
An example of this “rewriting” principle is that now we can see there is plenty of blame to go around among both Democratic and Republican leaders for the advent of global terrorism. I for one chiefly blame President Jimmy Carter for allowing his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to talk him into the insane program of funding, recruiting, training, and arming young Islamic fanatics from all over the world.
It is important to remember that, from Carter through President George H.W. Bush, a majority of Democrats and Republicans supported the development of an international jihad against the West.
October 6, 2006 - Zeese Cleaned Cardin & Steele’s Clocks!
I want to thank the Sun for covering the first Senatorial debate (“Senate hopefuls launch tough talk”, 10-4.)
However, there are two important points that were missing from the report.
The first is that Maryland political history was made at the debate when Kevin Zeese became the first “third party” candidate to appear in a debate for a statewide office.
Secondly, I think readers who were not at the debate should have been informed that Zeese clearly won the debate, a fact acknowledged even by debate moderator Doni Glover.
If Zeese is allowed to participate in a statewide-broadcasted televised debate, and if he again routs Michael Steele and Ben Cardin as he did Tuesday night, then the Maryland senatorial contest really will become a three-way race.
In short, if Ben Cardin truly believes in democracy and agrees to another debate that includes Zeese, Maryland voters will be treated to one of the most exciting and widely covered races in the nation this year!
However, there are two important points that were missing from the report.
The first is that Maryland political history was made at the debate when Kevin Zeese became the first “third party” candidate to appear in a debate for a statewide office.
Secondly, I think readers who were not at the debate should have been informed that Zeese clearly won the debate, a fact acknowledged even by debate moderator Doni Glover.
If Zeese is allowed to participate in a statewide-broadcasted televised debate, and if he again routs Michael Steele and Ben Cardin as he did Tuesday night, then the Maryland senatorial contest really will become a three-way race.
In short, if Ben Cardin truly believes in democracy and agrees to another debate that includes Zeese, Maryland voters will be treated to one of the most exciting and widely covered races in the nation this year!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
October 3, 2006 - Marylander's Need to Vote by Mail
I agree with Dick Tatlow’s recommendations in support of Maryland adopting a vote-by-mail system in order to “increase voting, decrease fraud, [and] increase accuracy” (“Let everyone vote through the mail”, 9-28.)
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system has proven to be a success with 81% of Oregonians preferring it to voting at polling stations; Oregon has consistently higher voter “turnouts” than the national average; Oregon has evidently had no claims of fraudulent election results since they implemented their vote-by-mail system.
In addition to voting by mail, I also support two other voting reforms: automatic voter registration based on state income tax filings and drivers license registration, and the inclusion of representatives from all political parties with candidates on the ballot (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Populist, Republican, etc.) to monitor the counting of ballots at each county election board headquarters on election day.
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system has proven to be a success with 81% of Oregonians preferring it to voting at polling stations; Oregon has consistently higher voter “turnouts” than the national average; Oregon has evidently had no claims of fraudulent election results since they implemented their vote-by-mail system.
In addition to voting by mail, I also support two other voting reforms: automatic voter registration based on state income tax filings and drivers license registration, and the inclusion of representatives from all political parties with candidates on the ballot (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Populist, Republican, etc.) to monitor the counting of ballots at each county election board headquarters on election day.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
