Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Correspondence with Rob Related to Julian Assange
Here is some correspondence between Rob and me on December 7, 2010, the day Julian Assange was arrested in London. As always with email threads, the earliest message is at the bottom and the latest message is at the top:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
I’m going to challenge you on that one! The Bill of Rights doesn’t make any distinctions about people or groups in the First Amendment. The right of free speech applies to everyone, not just the press, without qualification. The only settled qualifications applied since the Bill of Rights are those related to crowded theaters. The courts have tried to stay away from decisions about what counts as privileged information under national security. Yet I think the legal case against Assange has to turn on national security, not on whether he enjoys special privileges as a journalist.
As we saw with the Times reporter in the Valerie Plame case, Judith Miller, if a prosecutor wants to put a journalist in jail to force disclosure of sources, he will do it. Being a journalist doesn’t give you special immunity from coercion, according to the prosecutor or the courts. The Wikileaks case is different, of course, as Wikileaks’ source is not in question. We know from long history and from the last few days that if the government wants to shut you up in a national security case, it can and will.
I know of course that constitutional lawyers have a lot to say about these issues, but I’m going to stay in my role as dismayed and indignant citizen. I truly hope that Palin and the patriotic crowd do not carry the day here. Palin and others throw around the word treason in connection with a case that turns on rights of free speech. And I write in the middle of the work day to keep from becoming angry and depressed.
Love,
Dad
P. S. Thanks again for being such a good audience, interlocutor, and commentator. It has helped me a lot.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Assange vs. New York Times distinction will probably come down to one of old media versus new media. Whether bloggers can avail themselves of the same freedom of the press protections that established newspapers can is an open and I think difficult question.
Also, I think El Pais is is a Spanish newspaper. I hadn't heard of it before the last week or so either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your note. I didn’t do research to nail down the list of publications that have an agreement with Wikileaks. I assumed that the Post, like the Times, had early access to the cables, since the Post published analysis of the cables shortly after Wikileaks published them. The list you give below sounds right, though I hadn’t heard of El Pais before. Is that in Paris?
I called Assange a journalist in my message to you, and changed that to website owner in the version I posted. However you see Assange’s role, you state the case correctly: if it’s unconstitutional to prosecute the New York Times under the Espionage Act, it’s unconstitutional to prosecute Wikileaks or Wikileaks’ founder, and for the same reasons.
/Dad
P. S. The only standing the government has for prosecution is the case against Bradley Manning. He is held in solitary confinement, with no visits even from his parents. The government has already denied him his right to a speedy trial. We can expect that when he is granted a military trial, it will be largely secret.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dad -
I was at an event today regarding data mining (the Constitution Project put it on to release its new report on the subject), and WikiLeaks briefly came up. It was not the subject of the panel, and is only tangentially related since data mining touches on issues of government openness and transparency. One of the panelists there was a guy by the name of Jim Harper who works at the Cato Institute. He described his position as not so much pro-WikiLeaks as anti-anti-WikiLeaks. I thought it was a good way of staking out some middle ground where you have some reservations about the whole situation, but hate the scapegoat that he has become.
Two quick comments about the substance of your email... I want to point out, again, that I don't think the Washington Post was one of the sources used for Wikileaks. I could be wrong, but I think the list was Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El Pais, The Guardian, and the New York Times. In fact, I believe that the New York Times was not even directly a source, but has an agreement with The Guardian whereby they share the information. Which brings me to my second point.
On the way back from the event I mentioned, WikiLeaks came up again, specifically that Assange was up a creek. I asked your question - why is it that Assange might be charged under the Espionage Act, but no one was talking about the Time culpability (or, for that matter, the other newspapers, though obviously there are jurisdictional issues there). Someone answered a newspaper has never been charged under the Espionage Act. Moreover, that the Times was aware of this issue, and took the position that the Espionage Act, if applied to journalists, would be unconstitutional. Your argument would probably be that Assange and WikiLeaks is operating as a journalistic group and therefore if it's unconstitutional with respect to the Times, then it's unconstitutional with respect to him... and I'm sure he'll make that argument. But, I thought I'd relay the points outlined from my cab ride.
Another point - I guess there's some uncertainty about whether our extradition treaty with Sweden covers Espionage Act violations. I hope that if Assange is ultimately prosecuted in the US that someone good steps up to the plate to defend him and makes these First Amendment arguments. It will be interesting to see how they play out.
Love,
Rob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Steven Greffenius wrote:
Hi,
Britain arrested Assange today. They are holding him without bail.
Feinstein is a chicken in her argument. She advocates prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act, but says nothing about prosecuting the New York Times or the Washington Post under the same law, which makes it a felony
Another interesting point comes up when you consider the language of the Espionage Act, which Feinstein wants us to do. All government officials – in the military, in the intelligence agencies, and in the administration itself – who planned torture, set up and maintained torture sites, transported people to those sites, prepared prisoners for torture, carried out torture, disposed the bodies of people who died from torture, arranged for torture with other governments, documented torture, transmitted and stored information about torture: every person who did that is guilty under the language of the law. They all possessed “information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” That’s exactly why the people engaged in torture wanted to keep the information secret. It was obviously harmful to the United States – much more harmful than the information in the State Department cables.
That’s why I wrote about this question in that brief post (http://sgreffenius.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/treason-betrayal-and-revolution/) about treason and betrayal. Treason isn’t committed by people outside of government who reveal things the government deems dangerous to its own security. Treason is committed by people inside government who betray the people they serve. No person who tries to replace the people guilty of that betrayal can be called a traitor.
/Steve
P. S. Note one more item, this one from Jon Stewart’s clip on Palin’s tweets: Assange isn’t even a United States citizen! By claiming a right to prosecute Assange, Feinstein claims a right to prosecute anyone in the world who possesses information we say is dangerous to the United States. Think about what that means.
It means we can hunt, capture, imprison, interrogate, prosecute, and sentence anyone in the world who we consider an enemy. I guess one shouldn’t be dismayed. We’ve already been doing that for nearly ten years. Now that Assange is under arrest, Feinstein would like to extend the hunt to a vulnerable journalist. Let’s see who’s next.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
I’m going to challenge you on that one! The Bill of Rights doesn’t make any distinctions about people or groups in the First Amendment. The right of free speech applies to everyone, not just the press, without qualification. The only settled qualifications applied since the Bill of Rights are those related to crowded theaters. The courts have tried to stay away from decisions about what counts as privileged information under national security. Yet I think the legal case against Assange has to turn on national security, not on whether he enjoys special privileges as a journalist.
As we saw with the Times reporter in the Valerie Plame case, Judith Miller, if a prosecutor wants to put a journalist in jail to force disclosure of sources, he will do it. Being a journalist doesn’t give you special immunity from coercion, according to the prosecutor or the courts. The Wikileaks case is different, of course, as Wikileaks’ source is not in question. We know from long history and from the last few days that if the government wants to shut you up in a national security case, it can and will.
I know of course that constitutional lawyers have a lot to say about these issues, but I’m going to stay in my role as dismayed and indignant citizen. I truly hope that Palin and the patriotic crowd do not carry the day here. Palin and others throw around the word treason in connection with a case that turns on rights of free speech. And I write in the middle of the work day to keep from becoming angry and depressed.
Love,
Dad
P. S. Thanks again for being such a good audience, interlocutor, and commentator. It has helped me a lot.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Assange vs. New York Times distinction will probably come down to one of old media versus new media. Whether bloggers can avail themselves of the same freedom of the press protections that established newspapers can is an open and I think difficult question.
Also, I think El Pais is is a Spanish newspaper. I hadn't heard of it before the last week or so either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your note. I didn’t do research to nail down the list of publications that have an agreement with Wikileaks. I assumed that the Post, like the Times, had early access to the cables, since the Post published analysis of the cables shortly after Wikileaks published them. The list you give below sounds right, though I hadn’t heard of El Pais before. Is that in Paris?
I called Assange a journalist in my message to you, and changed that to website owner in the version I posted. However you see Assange’s role, you state the case correctly: if it’s unconstitutional to prosecute the New York Times under the Espionage Act, it’s unconstitutional to prosecute Wikileaks or Wikileaks’ founder, and for the same reasons.
/Dad
P. S. The only standing the government has for prosecution is the case against Bradley Manning. He is held in solitary confinement, with no visits even from his parents. The government has already denied him his right to a speedy trial. We can expect that when he is granted a military trial, it will be largely secret.
/S. G.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dad -
I was at an event today regarding data mining (the Constitution Project put it on to release its new report on the subject), and WikiLeaks briefly came up. It was not the subject of the panel, and is only tangentially related since data mining touches on issues of government openness and transparency. One of the panelists there was a guy by the name of Jim Harper who works at the Cato Institute. He described his position as not so much pro-WikiLeaks as anti-anti-WikiLeaks. I thought it was a good way of staking out some middle ground where you have some reservations about the whole situation, but hate the scapegoat that he has become.
Two quick comments about the substance of your email... I want to point out, again, that I don't think the Washington Post was one of the sources used for Wikileaks. I could be wrong, but I think the list was Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El Pais, The Guardian, and the New York Times. In fact, I believe that the New York Times was not even directly a source, but has an agreement with The Guardian whereby they share the information. Which brings me to my second point.
On the way back from the event I mentioned, WikiLeaks came up again, specifically that Assange was up a creek. I asked your question - why is it that Assange might be charged under the Espionage Act, but no one was talking about the Time culpability (or, for that matter, the other newspapers, though obviously there are jurisdictional issues there). Someone answered a newspaper has never been charged under the Espionage Act. Moreover, that the Times was aware of this issue, and took the position that the Espionage Act, if applied to journalists, would be unconstitutional. Your argument would probably be that Assange and WikiLeaks is operating as a journalistic group and therefore if it's unconstitutional with respect to the Times, then it's unconstitutional with respect to him... and I'm sure he'll make that argument. But, I thought I'd relay the points outlined from my cab ride.
Another point - I guess there's some uncertainty about whether our extradition treaty with Sweden covers Espionage Act violations. I hope that if Assange is ultimately prosecuted in the US that someone good steps up to the plate to defend him and makes these First Amendment arguments. It will be interesting to see how they play out.
Love,
Rob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Steven Greffenius wrote:
Hi,
Britain arrested Assange today. They are holding him without bail.
Feinstein is a chicken in her argument. She advocates prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act, but says nothing about prosecuting the New York Times or the Washington Post under the same law, which makes it a felony
…to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."She’s chicken because she knows prosecution of the Times and the Post would raise free speech issues the prosecutors could not overcome. So you go after an unsympathetic individual without resources to make an example of him. That way you intimidate others and make sure like-minded people don’t follow his path. Anyone who believes Assange broke the law has to believe the Times and the Post broke the law as well.
Another interesting point comes up when you consider the language of the Espionage Act, which Feinstein wants us to do. All government officials – in the military, in the intelligence agencies, and in the administration itself – who planned torture, set up and maintained torture sites, transported people to those sites, prepared prisoners for torture, carried out torture, disposed the bodies of people who died from torture, arranged for torture with other governments, documented torture, transmitted and stored information about torture: every person who did that is guilty under the language of the law. They all possessed “information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” That’s exactly why the people engaged in torture wanted to keep the information secret. It was obviously harmful to the United States – much more harmful than the information in the State Department cables.
That’s why I wrote about this question in that brief post (http://sgreffenius.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/treason-betrayal-and-revolution/) about treason and betrayal. Treason isn’t committed by people outside of government who reveal things the government deems dangerous to its own security. Treason is committed by people inside government who betray the people they serve. No person who tries to replace the people guilty of that betrayal can be called a traitor.
/Steve
P. S. Note one more item, this one from Jon Stewart’s clip on Palin’s tweets: Assange isn’t even a United States citizen! By claiming a right to prosecute Assange, Feinstein claims a right to prosecute anyone in the world who possesses information we say is dangerous to the United States. Think about what that means.
It means we can hunt, capture, imprison, interrogate, prosecute, and sentence anyone in the world who we consider an enemy. I guess one shouldn’t be dismayed. We’ve already been doing that for nearly ten years. Now that Assange is under arrest, Feinstein would like to extend the hunt to a vulnerable journalist. Let’s see who’s next.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Monday, December 06, 2010
Wikileaks Mirror Sites
Here's a list of Wikileaks mirror sites:
http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
And here's the Wikileaks home page:
http://wikileaks.ch/
Please support this organization in your own blogs!
http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
And here's the Wikileaks home page:
http://wikileaks.ch/
Please support this organization in your own blogs!
Tension grows between Calif. Muslims, FBI after informant infiltrates mosque
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Stirs Distress in Mideast
WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Stirs Distress in Mideast - NYTimes.com
So how is it that the New York Times benefits so much from the special access it has to Wikileaks' disclosures, but doesn't do anything to defend Julian Assange against the United States government's threats and criticism. In fact, it gives full play to all the bad news about Assange - the rape charges, the blood on his hands charges - as if he ought to be run out of town and thrown into jail. It publishes long pieces that make Assange look about as bad as he can look. Then it publishes another big scoop based on documents that Wikileaks has turned over to the Times.
The Times is certainly having it both ways here. It makes Assange look bad, which certainly makes the government happy. And it eagerly publishes articles that would be impossible without Wikileaks' support. We shouldn't have any doubt about what the Times should do: give Assange a break and stop making him look so bad. In fact, the Times should acknowledge what an incredibly good job Assange and Wikileaks are doing. I don't think the Times has the courage to do that, though.
So how is it that the New York Times benefits so much from the special access it has to Wikileaks' disclosures, but doesn't do anything to defend Julian Assange against the United States government's threats and criticism. In fact, it gives full play to all the bad news about Assange - the rape charges, the blood on his hands charges - as if he ought to be run out of town and thrown into jail. It publishes long pieces that make Assange look about as bad as he can look. Then it publishes another big scoop based on documents that Wikileaks has turned over to the Times.
The Times is certainly having it both ways here. It makes Assange look bad, which certainly makes the government happy. And it eagerly publishes articles that would be impossible without Wikileaks' support. We shouldn't have any doubt about what the Times should do: give Assange a break and stop making him look so bad. In fact, the Times should acknowledge what an incredibly good job Assange and Wikileaks are doing. I don't think the Times has the courage to do that, though.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Christie Could Be Like Reagan
Christie Could Be Like Reagan
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What Do You Do When Profits Go Down?
If you're a socialist like Marx, you call it excess production capacity when profits decline. Power to the working class!
If you're a more traditional Keynesian, you say we have a problem with demand, nothing that a little stimulus won't cure.
If you're a libertarian like Friedman, you say get the hell out of the economy and let the business fail if it's producing things people don't want!
If you're a more traditional Keynesian, you say we have a problem with demand, nothing that a little stimulus won't cure.
If you're a libertarian like Friedman, you say get the hell out of the economy and let the business fail if it's producing things people don't want!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Sarah Palin: American Law Should Be 'Based On The God Of The Bible And The Ten Commandments'
Hi Leslie and Rob,
Here’s support for your argument that Palin doesn’t know what she needs to know. In this instance, she doesn’t know enough about our constitutional roots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html
The founders differed a great deal among themselves, but they reached broad agreement about matters of church and state. First, discussing God in the public square was just fine. They invoked God and his blessings on the new nation all the time. Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Wilson in the twentieth were two presidents who extended this tradition.
Second, a government that favors a particular church, sect, tradition or faith was not fine. The inter-faith wars in Europe were a recent memory for the founders. They wanted no part of those conflicts in America. Thus the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution. I should know where that phrase appears, but I don’t remember.
So in this country we have two extremes. One group wants to exclude all discussion of God from public discourse, no matter where it comes from. Most recently we saw opposition to a national day of prayer. Another group – led by Palin – wants not only God, but a Christian God central to our public discourse. We had a vision from the founders of a civil society that welcomes publicly expressed religious beliefs, but doesn’t favor a particular church. Current arguments about God’s place in the public square no longer point toward that vision.
Love,
Steve
P. S. In the last campaign, reporters asked Obama why he didn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel. He started wearing one. What would happen if a candidate wore a cross or a star of David in the same location? How about a cross next to the flag? In a healthier political environment, a candidate could wear anything and no one would remark about it. At least, no one would say anything directly to the candidate about the symbol.
It’d be great if a candidate wore a different symbol every day! One problem: Muslims eschew symbols like that, so they’d be left out of the rotation. Plus a male candidate wouldn’t want to wear a head scarf.
/sfg
Here’s support for your argument that Palin doesn’t know what she needs to know. In this instance, she doesn’t know enough about our constitutional roots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html
The founders differed a great deal among themselves, but they reached broad agreement about matters of church and state. First, discussing God in the public square was just fine. They invoked God and his blessings on the new nation all the time. Lincoln in the nineteenth century and Wilson in the twentieth were two presidents who extended this tradition.
Second, a government that favors a particular church, sect, tradition or faith was not fine. The inter-faith wars in Europe were a recent memory for the founders. They wanted no part of those conflicts in America. Thus the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution. I should know where that phrase appears, but I don’t remember.
So in this country we have two extremes. One group wants to exclude all discussion of God from public discourse, no matter where it comes from. Most recently we saw opposition to a national day of prayer. Another group – led by Palin – wants not only God, but a Christian God central to our public discourse. We had a vision from the founders of a civil society that welcomes publicly expressed religious beliefs, but doesn’t favor a particular church. Current arguments about God’s place in the public square no longer point toward that vision.
Love,
Steve
P. S. In the last campaign, reporters asked Obama why he didn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel. He started wearing one. What would happen if a candidate wore a cross or a star of David in the same location? How about a cross next to the flag? In a healthier political environment, a candidate could wear anything and no one would remark about it. At least, no one would say anything directly to the candidate about the symbol.
It’d be great if a candidate wore a different symbol every day! One problem: Muslims eschew symbols like that, so they’d be left out of the rotation. Plus a male candidate wouldn’t want to wear a head scarf.
/sfg
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Political Leaders and Intelligence
Hi Leslie and Rob,
I just saw in Huffington Post that Bill Maher’s nickname for Sarah Palin is Mrs. Moron. That made me smile.
It’s a reminder though of something that Garry Wills wrote a long time ago. He observed that political leaders do much better when they are of middling intelligence – mediocre is the word he used. So why do we want our leaders to be so smart? We don’t want them to be too wealthy, too randy, too pushy, too fussy, or too anything, really. Why do we want them to be so brainy?
Anyway, no one would mistake Palin for a brainiac.
Love,
Steve
P. S. You could say that leaders with extra brains are better problem solvers, or that they’re more entertaining, or that we trust them more, but each one of those reasons sounds pretty doubtful to me.
Nixon was smart, but no one would call him entertaining or trustworthy.
Here’s an interesting case: Kennedy was blessed with high intelligence, and many voters loved him for his leadership qualities. But many individuals, including people in his government who were quite powerful, thought he was not a good leader. As with Julius Caesar, they did not trust him, and his extraordinary intelligence may have been a factor in that.
/S. G.
I just saw in Huffington Post that Bill Maher’s nickname for Sarah Palin is Mrs. Moron. That made me smile.
It’s a reminder though of something that Garry Wills wrote a long time ago. He observed that political leaders do much better when they are of middling intelligence – mediocre is the word he used. So why do we want our leaders to be so smart? We don’t want them to be too wealthy, too randy, too pushy, too fussy, or too anything, really. Why do we want them to be so brainy?
Anyway, no one would mistake Palin for a brainiac.
Love,
Steve
P. S. You could say that leaders with extra brains are better problem solvers, or that they’re more entertaining, or that we trust them more, but each one of those reasons sounds pretty doubtful to me.
Nixon was smart, but no one would call him entertaining or trustworthy.
Here’s an interesting case: Kennedy was blessed with high intelligence, and many voters loved him for his leadership qualities. But many individuals, including people in his government who were quite powerful, thought he was not a good leader. As with Julius Caesar, they did not trust him, and his extraordinary intelligence may have been a factor in that.
/S. G.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Opposition to value-added tax crosses the political spectrum
Opposition to value-added tax crosses the political spectrum
Can you believe what you're reading here?
Can you believe what you're reading here?
'I think we have to remember that low taxes or tax rates are not an end in themselves; they are the means to an end, which is higher growth and greater prosperity,' Bartlett wrote on the blog Capital Gains and Games. 'In this sense, I think right wingers pay far too much attention to the negative economic consequences of taxation while essentially ignoring the negative economic consequences of extremely large deficits.'
Friday, April 09, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Fein: Beck, Paul could be future for Republicans
Here’s a kernel for you: Time for a Divorce? This could be an interesting one to write!
Here’s something from the Daily Northwestern:
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/fein-beck-paul-could-be-future-for-republicans-1.2166606
Here’s something from the Daily Northwestern:
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/fein-beck-paul-could-be-future-for-republicans-1.2166606
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Shaw and Churchill
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend... if you have one."
- George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill
"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one."
- Winston Churchill, in response.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Dancing in the Street - Scott Brown
Here’s an article from a British website:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6995921.ece
A quotation from the article:
Mr. Brown said voters were fed up. “The main thing they want is good government back and to be part of the process,” he said. “I think they sent a very, very powerful message that business as usual is not going to be the way we do it.”
We’ve all heard a lot of analysis, with much emphasis on left vs. right and Republican vs. Democrat. Scott has been out talking with people, and the message he brings back carries a lot of credibility. Obama promised no more business as usual, and the perception, despite all his initiatives, is that the way we do business didn’t change at all.
Obama can’t change things by himself, but he and the people around him have clearly underestimated the anger and anxiety voters feel.
What counts as good government?
· Honest
· Open
· Responsive to citizens’ needs
· Effective leadership
· Competent
One looks at the process of health care reform, and the government does not meet one of these standards. The same goes for financial reform and stewardship of the economy.
It started when the Democrats arrogantly told the Republicans in Congress last spring, “You don’t want to play ball with us? Good. Then fuck off.” Republicans bear some of the blame for that, but with a little more patience the Democrats could have found some Republican legislators who were willing to talk.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6995921.ece
A quotation from the article:
Mr. Brown said voters were fed up. “The main thing they want is good government back and to be part of the process,” he said. “I think they sent a very, very powerful message that business as usual is not going to be the way we do it.”
We’ve all heard a lot of analysis, with much emphasis on left vs. right and Republican vs. Democrat. Scott has been out talking with people, and the message he brings back carries a lot of credibility. Obama promised no more business as usual, and the perception, despite all his initiatives, is that the way we do business didn’t change at all.
Obama can’t change things by himself, but he and the people around him have clearly underestimated the anger and anxiety voters feel.
What counts as good government?
· Honest
· Open
· Responsive to citizens’ needs
· Effective leadership
· Competent
One looks at the process of health care reform, and the government does not meet one of these standards. The same goes for financial reform and stewardship of the economy.
It started when the Democrats arrogantly told the Republicans in Congress last spring, “You don’t want to play ball with us? Good. Then fuck off.” Republicans bear some of the blame for that, but with a little more patience the Democrats could have found some Republican legislators who were willing to talk.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Foxy | The New Republic
I wasn’t going to send this one, as I know the topic can be upsetting! Michelle Cottle addresses the burning question in our family: Is Sarah Palin as dumb as she sounds? I think Cottle’s on to something.
