Here is a great discussion about what we as liberals stand for.
Some excerpts (I reccomend reading the entire post):
Government is uniquely qualified to provide for certain needs of a society
One of government’s roles is the protection of minorities with regard to certain basic rights
Liberals are interested in expanding liberty... Liberals wanted to expand the franchise and conservatives resisted. In the U.S. the terms were most useful during the civil rights movement in the '50s and '60s. Everyone who believed African-Americans should have the right to vote was a liberal. Everyone who didn't was a conservative.
Liberals believe you should be able to do with your property as you please, unless you impinge on others
Liberals believe labor should have the right to organize into unions, just as capital organizes into corporations.
Liberals also understand that economic development sometimes destroys markets, leading to oligopolies and monopolies, and these must be regulated or commerce becomes extortion.
Liberals have also reluctantly concluded from the evidence that modern medicine has outstripped the privately financed, fee-for-service system, which now makes no more sense than private ownership of New York City streets.
Poverty is poor soil for liberty, so they favor unemployment compensation and other temporary relief measures for those with the capacity to adjust, and a Social Security system for the disabled, dependents, and the elderly, who cannot.
Liberals believe the public sphere should be governed by empiricism, which requires an intellectual discipline best developed through education and the free expression of ideas.
I guess liberals also believe that utility is more likely to lead toward good policy than abstract ideology.
society is a cooperative venture
Helping others is not charity and taxation is not theft: rather, it is a recognition that none of our achievements would be possible without the supporting background of cooperation; the multiple criss-crossing fibers of support and opportunity that society provides.
all actions (of government) should be taken with a view towards providing the broadest public good possible
government should favor the policy which produces the more equitable distribution of wealth
The weakest groups in society should be lifted out of their weakness, rather than blamed for it
Reason, empiricism and negotiation are far more important tools of public policy than moral outrage
We see the complexity of issues and honor differing perspectives in working toward solutions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7790823/#050510
5.10.2005
Feeling a Draft?
In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal for the third month in a row, short by nearly 2,800 recruits, or 42 percent off its target.
And for the first time in 10 years, the Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal for the last four months.
"Because the Army and Marines are too small and we're employing them in constant operations, our recruiting posture is now coming apart," says retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News analyst.
"This raises questions about whether the all-volunteer force can really cope with a long war," says military analyst Loren Thompson.
And for the first time in 10 years, the Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal for the last four months.
"Because the Army and Marines are too small and we're employing them in constant operations, our recruiting posture is now coming apart," says retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News analyst.
"This raises questions about whether the all-volunteer force can really cope with a long war," says military analyst Loren Thompson.
The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters
Some history of the filibuster and judges (by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell via the NY Times):
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.
In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."
Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.
They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.
Facts can be so inconvenient.
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.
In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."
Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.
They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.
Facts can be so inconvenient.
Electing progressives to Local Offices
Winnebago County Democratic Party * PO Box 1112 * Oshkosh, WI 54903
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2005
CONTACT:
Jef Hall
920.203.6883
jef@jefhall.com
Winnebago County Democratic Party Hosts Public Forum on ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices’
OSHKOSH – At this month’s General Membership Meeting, the Winnebago County Democratic Party (WCDP) will be hosting Nicholl Caruso of Progressive Majority (www.progressivemajority.com) to discuss ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices.’
Progressive Majority is a non-partisan organization dedicated to “recruiting the next generation of progressive champions,” and “building a formidable farm team of progressive candidates.” And “motivate them to become true champions in the fight for social change.”
The WDCP would like to extend an invitation to community members interested in electing progressive candidates to attend. While this is our normal monthly meeting, it is open to the public, for members or non-members. We encourage everyone to come and join the discussion.
The meeting begins at 7:00PM, Wednesday May 11th, at the Delta Restaurant: 515 N Sawyer; Oshkosh, WI 54901.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2005
CONTACT:
Jef Hall
920.203.6883
jef@jefhall.com
Winnebago County Democratic Party Hosts Public Forum on ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices’
OSHKOSH – At this month’s General Membership Meeting, the Winnebago County Democratic Party (WCDP) will be hosting Nicholl Caruso of Progressive Majority (www.progressivemajority.com) to discuss ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices.’
Progressive Majority is a non-partisan organization dedicated to “recruiting the next generation of progressive champions,” and “building a formidable farm team of progressive candidates.” And “motivate them to become true champions in the fight for social change.”
The WDCP would like to extend an invitation to community members interested in electing progressive candidates to attend. While this is our normal monthly meeting, it is open to the public, for members or non-members. We encourage everyone to come and join the discussion.
The meeting begins at 7:00PM, Wednesday May 11th, at the Delta Restaurant: 515 N Sawyer; Oshkosh, WI 54901.
5.09.2005
Quote of the Day:
Krugman on Social Security: "to avert the danger of future cuts in benefits, Mr. Bush wants us to commit now to, um, future cuts in benefits."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?th&emc=th
More from a great article:
Now, about the image of Mr. Bush as friend to the poor: keep your eye on the changing definitions of "middle income" and "wealthy."
In last fall's debates, Mr. Bush asserted that "most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans." Since most of the cuts went to the top 10 percent of the population and more than a third went to people making more than $200,000 a year, Mr. Bush's definition of middle income apparently reaches pretty high.
But defenders of Mr. Bush's Social Security plan now portray benefit cuts for anyone making more than $20,000 a year, cuts that will have their biggest percentage impact on the retirement income of people making about $60,000 a year, as cuts for the wealthy.
These are people who denounced you as a class warrior if you wanted to tax Paris Hilton's inheritance. Now they say that they're brave populists, because they want to cut the income of retired office managers.
Let's consider the Bush tax cuts and the Bush benefit cuts as a package. Who gains? Who loses?
Suppose you're a full-time Wal-Mart employee, earning $17,000 a year. You probably didn't get any tax cut. But Mr. Bush says, generously, that he won't cut your Social Security benefits.
Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.
Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!
I'm not being unfair. In fact, I've weighted the scales heavily in Mr. Bush's favor, because the tax cuts will cost much more than the benefit cuts would save. Repealing Mr. Bush's tax cuts would yield enough revenue to call off his proposed benefit cuts, and still leave $8 trillion in change.
The point is that the privatizers consider four years of policies that relentlessly favored the wealthy a fait accompli, not subject to reconsideration. Now that tax cuts have busted the budget, they want us to accept large cuts in Social Security benefits as inevitable. But they demand that we praise Mr. Bush's sense of social justice, because he proposes bigger benefit cuts for the middle class than for the poor.
An Interesting Solution to a Problem Many Havent Thought of:
(Including me) What do we do with those people we are harming is a good indicator of the country we want to become.
"One of the paradoxes of global warming is that developing countries, which were not responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions that are changing the climate and did not reap the benefits of industrialization, will bear the brunt of the consequences. One of these consequences will be rising seas, which in turn will generate a surge of "climate exiles" who have been flooded out of their homes in poor countries. How should those of us in rich countries deal with this wave of immigrants? The fairest solution: allowing the phased immigration of people living in vulnerable regions according to a formula that is tied to the host country's cumulative contributions to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09byravan.html?th&emc=th
"One of the paradoxes of global warming is that developing countries, which were not responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions that are changing the climate and did not reap the benefits of industrialization, will bear the brunt of the consequences. One of these consequences will be rising seas, which in turn will generate a surge of "climate exiles" who have been flooded out of their homes in poor countries. How should those of us in rich countries deal with this wave of immigrants? The fairest solution: allowing the phased immigration of people living in vulnerable regions according to a formula that is tied to the host country's cumulative contributions to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09byravan.html?th&emc=th
5.06.2005
A Look at Education Priorities...
Being really good at "learning how to learn," as President Bill Brody of Johns Hopkins put it, will be an enormous asset in an era of rapid change and innovation, when new jobs will be phased in and old ones phased out faster than ever.
Thomas Friedman in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06friedman.html?th&emc=th
Thomas Friedman in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06friedman.html?th&emc=th
5.04.2005
CNN _ Most Americans Think the Iraq War Not Worthwhile (It's about time)
Poll: Most in U.S. say Iraq war not worthwhile
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 Posted: 0322 GMT WASHINGTON (CNN)
-- A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq, according to a national poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.
That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.
It's also the highest percentage of respondents who have expressed those feelings and triple the percentage of Americans who said that it was not worth the cost shortly after the war began about two years ago.
The new poll question, asked by telephone on April 29-May 1, had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Asked how things are going for the United States in Iraq, 56 percent said "badly" or "very badly," up from 45 percent in March.
Forty-two percent said "well" or "very well," down from 52 percent in March.
The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Americans appeared evenly divided over whether the decision to send U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, with 49 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no. The sampling error was plus or minus 5 points.
On Tuesday, House and Senate conferees agreed to an $82 billion supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That pushes the total cost of the Bush administration's war on terror to more than $300 billion, according to The Associated Press. (Full story)
In March 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a House panel that Iraq, with its oil resources, "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Such forecasts proved to be off the mark. Oil revenues have been lower than predicted partly because the industry's infrastructure was in bad shape. Overall reconstruction costs also have been higher than expected.
White House claims that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq also failed to materialize.
Early Tuesday, the U.S. military found the body of a pilot from one of two missing Marine Corps F/A-18 jets that Navy officials believe collided while flying in operations in Iraq. (Full story)
The number of U.S. troops who have died in the Iraq war stood at 1,585 as of Tuesday, according to the Pentagon.
A poll conducted in February showed that the Iraqi elections January 30 produced a bump in President Bush's approval rating. In that poll, 55 percent of Americans said the Iraq war was not a mistake. (Full story)
Political negotiations since then have delayed the formation of a new government in Iraq.
But on Tuesday, Iraqi politicians were putting the finishing touches on a new Cabinet, with Shiite Arab leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari sworn in as prime minister.
More than 100 Iraqis, most of them security forces and civilians, have died in insurgent attacks since last Thursday, when Iraq's transitional National Assembly approved a partial Cabinet list.
In a prime time news conference last week, Bush said the United States is "making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society."
"A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of spreading peace," he said. (Full story)
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 Posted: 0322 GMT WASHINGTON (CNN)
-- A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq, according to a national poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.
That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.
It's also the highest percentage of respondents who have expressed those feelings and triple the percentage of Americans who said that it was not worth the cost shortly after the war began about two years ago.
The new poll question, asked by telephone on April 29-May 1, had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Asked how things are going for the United States in Iraq, 56 percent said "badly" or "very badly," up from 45 percent in March.
Forty-two percent said "well" or "very well," down from 52 percent in March.
The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Americans appeared evenly divided over whether the decision to send U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, with 49 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no. The sampling error was plus or minus 5 points.
On Tuesday, House and Senate conferees agreed to an $82 billion supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That pushes the total cost of the Bush administration's war on terror to more than $300 billion, according to The Associated Press. (Full story)
In March 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a House panel that Iraq, with its oil resources, "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Such forecasts proved to be off the mark. Oil revenues have been lower than predicted partly because the industry's infrastructure was in bad shape. Overall reconstruction costs also have been higher than expected.
White House claims that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq also failed to materialize.
Early Tuesday, the U.S. military found the body of a pilot from one of two missing Marine Corps F/A-18 jets that Navy officials believe collided while flying in operations in Iraq. (Full story)
The number of U.S. troops who have died in the Iraq war stood at 1,585 as of Tuesday, according to the Pentagon.
A poll conducted in February showed that the Iraqi elections January 30 produced a bump in President Bush's approval rating. In that poll, 55 percent of Americans said the Iraq war was not a mistake. (Full story)
Political negotiations since then have delayed the formation of a new government in Iraq.
But on Tuesday, Iraqi politicians were putting the finishing touches on a new Cabinet, with Shiite Arab leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari sworn in as prime minister.
More than 100 Iraqis, most of them security forces and civilians, have died in insurgent attacks since last Thursday, when Iraq's transitional National Assembly approved a partial Cabinet list.
In a prime time news conference last week, Bush said the United States is "making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society."
"A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of spreading peace," he said. (Full story)
5.01.2005
Tony Palmeri Ends Chance for Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV)
During a discussion at the Winnebago Labor Council’s Workers Memorial Day Dinner Saturday night, Rep. Mark Pocan stated that an Assembly Republican-sponsored IRV bill was pulled due to the results of the 54th Assembly race.
The pull was blamed on the results of 2004’s 54th Assembly contest. In this, the Republican, Gregg Underheim was re-elected by less that 50%.
Many, myself included, said that the fact that the liberal/progressive vote was split is the main reason for Underheim’s re-election. In fact, I made the comment that because Palmeri ran as a third party in a two-party system, he helped pass the Republican agenda (for the record, while I did believe that, my comments to the A-T should have been less pointed – and I apologize for that).
After the election, Palmeri asserted that implementing IRV would be the only way to make voting fair. I personally disagree, but I am for any candidate needing over 50% of the vote to win – I prefer a run-off between the top 2 candidates, as is done in Louisiana.
Here is the irony – in a rant on his website, Palmeri invited “those Oshkosh citizens taking nasty, cheap shots at Dan Carpenter and myself” to “become an activist to reform Wisconsin’s elections,” because, “The bill is stalled in committee and will not pass unless citizens demand it.”
Yet, now it is Palmeri’s race that is causing the bill to stall.
Also, this is a way to point out what the Republicans already know: Unless the Progressives work together, we will never get out from under their rule. We can talk about everyone’s right to run (for the record, no Dem I know has said that someone does not have the right to run as a third party, if you do, you should know that there will be consequences), but unless we work together to field the best candidates, we will continue to lose ground.
According to Rep. Pocan, this is why the Republicans have pulled this bill. They realize that they can keep the 54th seat, if we continue to split the vote.
The pull was blamed on the results of 2004’s 54th Assembly contest. In this, the Republican, Gregg Underheim was re-elected by less that 50%.
Many, myself included, said that the fact that the liberal/progressive vote was split is the main reason for Underheim’s re-election. In fact, I made the comment that because Palmeri ran as a third party in a two-party system, he helped pass the Republican agenda (for the record, while I did believe that, my comments to the A-T should have been less pointed – and I apologize for that).
After the election, Palmeri asserted that implementing IRV would be the only way to make voting fair. I personally disagree, but I am for any candidate needing over 50% of the vote to win – I prefer a run-off between the top 2 candidates, as is done in Louisiana.
Here is the irony – in a rant on his website, Palmeri invited “those Oshkosh citizens taking nasty, cheap shots at Dan Carpenter and myself” to “become an activist to reform Wisconsin’s elections,” because, “The bill is stalled in committee and will not pass unless citizens demand it.”
Yet, now it is Palmeri’s race that is causing the bill to stall.
Also, this is a way to point out what the Republicans already know: Unless the Progressives work together, we will never get out from under their rule. We can talk about everyone’s right to run (for the record, no Dem I know has said that someone does not have the right to run as a third party, if you do, you should know that there will be consequences), but unless we work together to field the best candidates, we will continue to lose ground.
According to Rep. Pocan, this is why the Republicans have pulled this bill. They realize that they can keep the 54th seat, if we continue to split the vote.
4.29.2005
Man convicted in scam wins national award
A man convicted of stealing more than $600,000 in a business loan scam received an award from the National Republican Congressional Committee honoring his business leadership and party support.
Ira Stern, 56, of Milford was among hundreds of people nationally to receive the 2004 Ronald Reagan Republican Gold Medal award, Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Alex Burgos said Wednesday.
Recipients were invited to be recognized at a dinner and tax reform workshop in Washington, D.C., on March 15, at which President Bush was the keynote speaker
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/NEWS01/104280031/-1/news01
Ira Stern, 56, of Milford was among hundreds of people nationally to receive the 2004 Ronald Reagan Republican Gold Medal award, Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Alex Burgos said Wednesday.
Recipients were invited to be recognized at a dinner and tax reform workshop in Washington, D.C., on March 15, at which President Bush was the keynote speaker
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/NEWS01/104280031/-1/news01
4.28.2005
Another Shiny-Happy day in MSNBC Businessland....
As discussed before I recieve an email from MSNBC daily going over the top business stories of the day. There are 10 stories - today was a great day in business - 8 were negative and several were again avout lawsuits and corruption.
Is is not obvious why the business community is turning to the Democratic Party? Where were these headlines pre-Nov 2? We all knew where it was going...
Here is a sample:
Stocks lower after downbeat GDP data
Stocks fell sharply Thursday despite robust earnings from big industrial companies as first-quarter economic growth came in below expectations, raising yet more questions about the strength of the economy.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/
Economy grows at slowest pace in two years
Buffeted by rising energy prices and weakened consumer and business spending, the economy grew at an annual rate of just 3.1 percent in the first quarter, the slowest pace of expansion in two years.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665920/
Mortgage rates drop for 4th straight week
Rates on 30-year mortgages fell for a fourth consecutive week as more evidence of an economic slowdown eased concerns among bond investors about inflation.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7148582/
Work-related accidents kill 2 million a year
Work-related accidents and illness kill more than two million people a year and are rising in some developing countries including China and Brazil, the International Labor Organization (ILO) said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7667459/
Kerkorian appeals DaimlerChrysler ruling
Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian on Thursday appealed a federal judge's rejection of his claims that he was defrauded in the 1998 merger of DaimlerBenz and Chrysler Corp.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7668789/
Tyson Foods to pay $1.5 million fine
Tyson Foods Inc. agreed Thursday to pay a $1.5 million civil fine to settle federal regulators' charges that it failed to fully disclose lavish perks provided to former chairman Don Tyson, including $38,000 in oriental rugs and antiques, and the use of houses in England and Mexico.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7669650/
Former Charter official implicates Paul Allen
A former Charter Communications Inc. executive sentenced last week to probation in a plot to dupe investors through fraudulent cable television disconnect practices said in a court document that Charter Chairman Paul Allen was aware of the scheme.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7668808/
Spitzer probes claims of race bias at banks
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is questioning some of the nationâ?Ts biggest banks in an investigation of potential discriminatory practices in setting mortgage rates and fees.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7667799/
Is is not obvious why the business community is turning to the Democratic Party? Where were these headlines pre-Nov 2? We all knew where it was going...
Here is a sample:
Stocks lower after downbeat GDP data
Stocks fell sharply Thursday despite robust earnings from big industrial companies as first-quarter economic growth came in below expectations, raising yet more questions about the strength of the economy.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/
Economy grows at slowest pace in two years
Buffeted by rising energy prices and weakened consumer and business spending, the economy grew at an annual rate of just 3.1 percent in the first quarter, the slowest pace of expansion in two years.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665920/
Mortgage rates drop for 4th straight week
Rates on 30-year mortgages fell for a fourth consecutive week as more evidence of an economic slowdown eased concerns among bond investors about inflation.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7148582/
Work-related accidents kill 2 million a year
Work-related accidents and illness kill more than two million people a year and are rising in some developing countries including China and Brazil, the International Labor Organization (ILO) said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7667459/
Kerkorian appeals DaimlerChrysler ruling
Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian on Thursday appealed a federal judge's rejection of his claims that he was defrauded in the 1998 merger of DaimlerBenz and Chrysler Corp.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7668789/
Tyson Foods to pay $1.5 million fine
Tyson Foods Inc. agreed Thursday to pay a $1.5 million civil fine to settle federal regulators' charges that it failed to fully disclose lavish perks provided to former chairman Don Tyson, including $38,000 in oriental rugs and antiques, and the use of houses in England and Mexico.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7669650/
Former Charter official implicates Paul Allen
A former Charter Communications Inc. executive sentenced last week to probation in a plot to dupe investors through fraudulent cable television disconnect practices said in a court document that Charter Chairman Paul Allen was aware of the scheme.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7668808/
Spitzer probes claims of race bias at banks
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is questioning some of the nationâ?Ts biggest banks in an investigation of potential discriminatory practices in setting mortgage rates and fees.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7667799/
From a review of Richard Parker’s new biography of John Kenneth Galbraith
This struck a chord with me.
In The Affluent Society Galbraith sketched a cruel but apt cartoon of the American-as-consumer, who submits himself to the world of advertising and allows it to likewise create and sate his needs, lending him the illusion of choice and the reality of credit-card debt. Government by the free consent of the governed has given way to government by the implicit acquiescence of the adequately distracted. We don’t want to know that the world is complicated and asks our attention. We want to watch The Apprentice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
In The Affluent Society Galbraith sketched a cruel but apt cartoon of the American-as-consumer, who submits himself to the world of advertising and allows it to likewise create and sate his needs, lending him the illusion of choice and the reality of credit-card debt. Government by the free consent of the governed has given way to government by the implicit acquiescence of the adequately distracted. We don’t want to know that the world is complicated and asks our attention. We want to watch The Apprentice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
What do you have to do to be considered a failure these days?
Iraq's Ahmad Chalabi: He's now Mr. Oil
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7666574/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7666574/
4.27.2005
An Update...
On the story of the 3 people kicked out of a Bush Rally for a bumper sticker.
Turns out the person was not a secret service agent (even though he said he was - a felony). It also turns out that the Republican Party and the Bush Administration know who he is, and are refusing to tell (also a felony).
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3732570,00.html
Turns out the person was not a secret service agent (even though he said he was - a felony). It also turns out that the Republican Party and the Bush Administration know who he is, and are refusing to tell (also a felony).
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3732570,00.html
4.22.2005
Krugman on Healthcare (continued)....
Paul Krugman on the state of American Healthcare - part 2...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/opinion/22krugman.html?th&emc=th
Excerpts:
The United States spends far more on health care than other advanced countries. Yet we don't appear to receive more medical services. And we have lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality rates than countries that spend less than half as much per person.
According to the World Health Organization, in the United States administrative expenses eat up about 15 percent of the money paid in premiums to private health insurance companies, but only 4 percent of the budgets of public insurance programs, which consist mainly of Medicare and Medicaid. The numbers for both public and private insurance are similar in other countries - but because we rely much more heavily than anyone else on private insurance, our total administrative costs are much higher
Isn't competition supposed to make the private sector more efficient than the public sector? Well, as the World Health Organization put it in a discussion of Western Europe, private insurers generally don't compete by delivering care at lower cost. Instead, they "compete on the basis of risk selection" - that is, by turning away people who are likely to have high medical bills and by refusing or delaying any payment they can.
Yet the cost of providing medical care to those denied private insurance doesn't go away. If individuals are poor, or if medical expenses impoverish them, they are covered by Medicaid.
So we've created a vast and hugely expensive insurance bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. The resources spent by private insurers don't reduce overall costs; they simply shift those costs to other people and institutions. It's perverse but true that this system, which insures only 85 percent of the population, costs much more than we would pay for a system that covered everyone.
First, in the U.S. system, medical costs act as a tax on employment. For example, General Motors is losing money on every car it makes because of the burden of health care costs. As a result, it may be forced to lay off thousands of workers, or may even go out of business. Yet the insurance premiums saved by firing workers are no saving at all to society as a whole: somebody still ends up paying the bills.
Think about how crazy all of this is. At a rough guess, between two million and three million Americans are employed by insurers and health care providers not to deliver health care, but to pass the buck for that care to someone else. And the result of all their exertions is to make the nation poorer and sicker.
Why do we put up with such an expensive, counterproductive health care system? Vested interests play an important role. But we also suffer from ideological blinders: decades of indoctrination in the virtues of market competition and the evils of big government have left many Americans unable to comprehend the idea that sometimes competition is the problem, not the solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/opinion/22krugman.html?th&emc=th
Excerpts:
The United States spends far more on health care than other advanced countries. Yet we don't appear to receive more medical services. And we have lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality rates than countries that spend less than half as much per person.
According to the World Health Organization, in the United States administrative expenses eat up about 15 percent of the money paid in premiums to private health insurance companies, but only 4 percent of the budgets of public insurance programs, which consist mainly of Medicare and Medicaid. The numbers for both public and private insurance are similar in other countries - but because we rely much more heavily than anyone else on private insurance, our total administrative costs are much higher
Isn't competition supposed to make the private sector more efficient than the public sector? Well, as the World Health Organization put it in a discussion of Western Europe, private insurers generally don't compete by delivering care at lower cost. Instead, they "compete on the basis of risk selection" - that is, by turning away people who are likely to have high medical bills and by refusing or delaying any payment they can.
Yet the cost of providing medical care to those denied private insurance doesn't go away. If individuals are poor, or if medical expenses impoverish them, they are covered by Medicaid.
So we've created a vast and hugely expensive insurance bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. The resources spent by private insurers don't reduce overall costs; they simply shift those costs to other people and institutions. It's perverse but true that this system, which insures only 85 percent of the population, costs much more than we would pay for a system that covered everyone.
First, in the U.S. system, medical costs act as a tax on employment. For example, General Motors is losing money on every car it makes because of the burden of health care costs. As a result, it may be forced to lay off thousands of workers, or may even go out of business. Yet the insurance premiums saved by firing workers are no saving at all to society as a whole: somebody still ends up paying the bills.
Think about how crazy all of this is. At a rough guess, between two million and three million Americans are employed by insurers and health care providers not to deliver health care, but to pass the buck for that care to someone else. And the result of all their exertions is to make the nation poorer and sicker.
Why do we put up with such an expensive, counterproductive health care system? Vested interests play an important role. But we also suffer from ideological blinders: decades of indoctrination in the virtues of market competition and the evils of big government have left many Americans unable to comprehend the idea that sometimes competition is the problem, not the solution.
4.21.2005
Way to take a stand....
2 Winona High Students Put Free Speech to the Test
http://startribune.com/stories/462/5359758.html
I don't think expulsion will happen if they get 100 students to show up...
This is how to do it, take a stand, organize support, make a difference...
http://startribune.com/stories/462/5359758.html
I don't think expulsion will happen if they get 100 students to show up...
This is how to do it, take a stand, organize support, make a difference...
A Must Read and A waste of a Good Life...
Marla Ruzicka's death is a blow to all of us. It is too bad that we did not know more about her when she was alive.
These are the people we need to spend more media time on.
This is where most of the world met her:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21herbert.html?th&emc=th
This is where we should have:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1230-08.htm
These are the people we need to spend more media time on.
This is where most of the world met her:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21herbert.html?th&emc=th
This is where we should have:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1230-08.htm
Out of the mouths of babes.....
"I repeat, personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution."—George W. Bush; Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005
4.20.2005
Krugman on Healthcare....
Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html?th&emc=th
And excerpts:
Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: somebody is sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system, which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
But in any case, Britain isn't the country we want to look at, because its health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only 40 percent as high as ours.
The countries that have something to teach us are the nations that don't pinch pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany or Canada - but still spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they're much shorter than Britain's - and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France and Germany don't have a waiting list problem.)
Let me rattle off some numbers.
In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.
Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government spends more on health care than the governments of other advanced countries, even though the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
What do we get for all that money? Not much.
Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries.
Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html?th&emc=th
And excerpts:
Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: somebody is sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system, which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
But in any case, Britain isn't the country we want to look at, because its health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only 40 percent as high as ours.
The countries that have something to teach us are the nations that don't pinch pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany or Canada - but still spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they're much shorter than Britain's - and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France and Germany don't have a waiting list problem.)
Let me rattle off some numbers.
In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.
Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government spends more on health care than the governments of other advanced countries, even though the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
What do we get for all that money? Not much.
Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries.
Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
4.19.2005
Roosevelt's great ideas:
Bob Hebert discusses what I believe to be one of the greatest speaches of all time:
Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."
Among these rights, he said, are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
"The right of every family to a decent home.
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
"The right to a good education."
"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fBob%20Herbert
Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."
Among these rights, he said, are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
"The right of every family to a decent home.
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
"The right to a good education."
"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fBob%20Herbert
If only people paid more attention to the real issues before Nov 2nd.....
President Bush doesn’t fare very well in the latest CBS News poll with an approval rating of just 44 percent and still limp support for his proposed Social Security overhaul.
But at least he's doing better than Congress, which earns a thumbs-up from only 35 percent of Americans – nearly as low a rating as it received last month immediately after lawmakers' unpopular intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
Approval ratings for Congress have historically been low but they're now at one of their lowest points since the late 1990s. Disapproval of the Republican-controlled Congress even extends to 39 percent of Republicans, along with 59 percent of Democrats.
Just 37 percent think what the current Congress has accomplished so far has been good for the country; 41 percent think what Congress has done has been bad.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/18/politics/main688974.shtml
But at least he's doing better than Congress, which earns a thumbs-up from only 35 percent of Americans – nearly as low a rating as it received last month immediately after lawmakers' unpopular intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
Approval ratings for Congress have historically been low but they're now at one of their lowest points since the late 1990s. Disapproval of the Republican-controlled Congress even extends to 39 percent of Republicans, along with 59 percent of Democrats.
Just 37 percent think what the current Congress has accomplished so far has been good for the country; 41 percent think what Congress has done has been bad.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/18/politics/main688974.shtml
4.15.2005
Perhaps this explains our local elections....
Pessimism raises dementia risk, study finds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7514222/
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7514222/
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
4.12.2005
Does this sound right...
I get an email every evening from MSNBC that covers the business news of the day. Here are some of today's headlines:
Former AIG CEO takes the Fifth
The former chairman and CEO of embattled insurer AIG Â invoked his constitutional rights against self-incrimination Tuesday, declining to answer questions from securities regulators, according to a person familiar with the meeting.
Scrushy perjury counts to be thrown out
A federal judge indicated Tuesday she would throw out three perjury charges against fired HealthSouth Corp. CEO Richard Scrushy but said she would let his corporate fraud trial move ahead on 55 additional counts.
U.S. prosecutors indict NYSE traders
Fifteen specialists who managed trades on the floor of the NYSE were indicted Tuesday, charged with using their inside positions to earn an estimated $20 million in illicit profits for themselves and their firms.
3 out of 10 of the headlines were about criminal charges leveled against business leaders. We need real change in the US business community, and the demand should come from within.
Former AIG CEO takes the Fifth
The former chairman and CEO of embattled insurer AIG Â invoked his constitutional rights against self-incrimination Tuesday, declining to answer questions from securities regulators, according to a person familiar with the meeting.
Scrushy perjury counts to be thrown out
A federal judge indicated Tuesday she would throw out three perjury charges against fired HealthSouth Corp. CEO Richard Scrushy but said she would let his corporate fraud trial move ahead on 55 additional counts.
U.S. prosecutors indict NYSE traders
Fifteen specialists who managed trades on the floor of the NYSE were indicted Tuesday, charged with using their inside positions to earn an estimated $20 million in illicit profits for themselves and their firms.
3 out of 10 of the headlines were about criminal charges leveled against business leaders. We need real change in the US business community, and the demand should come from within.
4.11.2005
Krugman hits the nail on the head....
...Those of us who accuse the administration of inventing a Social Security crisis are often accused, in return, of do-nothingism, of refusing to face up to the nation's problems. I plead not guilty: America does face a real crisis - but it's in health care, not Social Security.
...A recent survey of chief financial officers at major corporations found that 65 percent regard immediate action on health care costs as "very important." Only 31 percent said the same about Social Security reform.
...America's traditional private health insurance system, in which workers get coverage through their employers, is unraveling. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2004 there were at least five million fewer jobs with health insurance than in 2001.
...the U.S. health care system is wildly inefficient. Americans tend to believe that we have the best health care system in the world. (I've encountered members of the journalistic elite who flatly refuse to believe that France ranks much better on most measures of health care quality than the United States.) But it isn't true. We spend far more per person on health care than any other country - 75 percent more than Canada or France - yet rank near the bottom among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy to infant mortality.
...medical progress may force us to make a harsh choice: if we don't want to become a society in which the rich get life-saving medical treatment and the rest of us don't
...The fact is that in health care, the private sector is often bloated and bureaucratic, while some government agencies - notably the Veterans Administration system - are lean and efficient. In health care, competition and personal choice can and do lead to higher costs and lower quality. The United States has the most privatized, competitive health system in the advanced world; it also has by far the highest costs, and close to the worst results.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/opinion/11krugman4.html?th&emc=th
...A recent survey of chief financial officers at major corporations found that 65 percent regard immediate action on health care costs as "very important." Only 31 percent said the same about Social Security reform.
...America's traditional private health insurance system, in which workers get coverage through their employers, is unraveling. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2004 there were at least five million fewer jobs with health insurance than in 2001.
...the U.S. health care system is wildly inefficient. Americans tend to believe that we have the best health care system in the world. (I've encountered members of the journalistic elite who flatly refuse to believe that France ranks much better on most measures of health care quality than the United States.) But it isn't true. We spend far more per person on health care than any other country - 75 percent more than Canada or France - yet rank near the bottom among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy to infant mortality.
...medical progress may force us to make a harsh choice: if we don't want to become a society in which the rich get life-saving medical treatment and the rest of us don't
...The fact is that in health care, the private sector is often bloated and bureaucratic, while some government agencies - notably the Veterans Administration system - are lean and efficient. In health care, competition and personal choice can and do lead to higher costs and lower quality. The United States has the most privatized, competitive health system in the advanced world; it also has by far the highest costs, and close to the worst results.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/opinion/11krugman4.html?th&emc=th
4.08.2005
Did you see this....
Dad of football player held for shooting coach
Suspect reportedly had shoving matches with coaches in the past
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7420306/
This is the disturbing part:
Rhonda Miller, a cousin of Robertson’s wife, was among the relatives gathered outside the jail Thursday night to help support Robertson’s wife and son.
Miller said she didn’t want Robertson portrayed as “a lunatic” because he wasn’t the only one frustrated with the school’s athletic program.
“A lot of parents are upset. This is not a single incident, and if they don’t take care of it, it could escalate,” she said, declining to elaborate.
They take football serious in Texas.....
Suspect reportedly had shoving matches with coaches in the past
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7420306/
This is the disturbing part:
Rhonda Miller, a cousin of Robertson’s wife, was among the relatives gathered outside the jail Thursday night to help support Robertson’s wife and son.
Miller said she didn’t want Robertson portrayed as “a lunatic” because he wasn’t the only one frustrated with the school’s athletic program.
“A lot of parents are upset. This is not a single incident, and if they don’t take care of it, it could escalate,” she said, declining to elaborate.
They take football serious in Texas.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)