They Did What !

In case you haven’t noticed, we the people have become expendable - you, me, the guy down the street or in the next state. If it hasn’t touched us personally it is just because we have not yet been in the way of the movers and shakers making a buck or advancing their agenda.

How else can we explain all the elected officials who mouth words of concern but continue to prove a total lack of concern by their actions?

• The way the people of New Orleans were treated during and since Hurricane Katrina.
• The way the Pentagon puts dollar interests and politics before the welfare of those they send off to fight and die for them – lack of properly armored vehicles, issuing incompatible weapons and ammunition, and lying to families about how their loved ones are killed.
• The way mercenaries, hired by our government, kill innocent civilians and are not accountable to anyone for their actions.
• The way the veterans, (you remember - those troops everyone claims to support), are not properly cared for when they come home with brain injuries, missing limbs, post traumatic stress, and other life altering wounds.
• The way corporations avoid responsibility for illnesses caused by chemicals in the work place, and pollution of rivers, groundwater and even the air in residential areas surrounding their plants.
• The way government agencies, created to protect the people, instead benefit big business at the expense of we the people who pay the price in illness, lost livelihood, homelessness, death from treatable diseases, and death by incompetence in war zones.
• The way our government promotes poverty in other countries by lending “aid” which destroys their economies and leaves them worse off than they were before we “helped.”
• The way we are told over and over that our problems - lack of health care, outsourcing of jobs, failing infrastructure – are a priority with our leaders but strangely things continue to get worse and solutions never materialize.

So when the people talk about change, regardless of which specific issue they are talking about, it really boils down to one change – putting “for the people” back into our government. That one change will be the beginning of solutions to the issues that concern us all.

So when you hear John McCain talking about making the tax cuts permanent, look at the economy, look at the deficit; when you hear him talking about staying in Iraq, look at the economy, look at the deficit, and most particularly, count the wounded and the dead; when Mr. McCain talks about drilling off shore and in Alaska for oil, look at what the hunger for oil has brought us – wars, environmental destruction, high gasoline prices, and high heating costs; when John McCain talks about continuing the Bush policies, think about the fact that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

“What is more important, the rule itself or the purpose the rule is meant to achieve?”

Seems like a no-brainer but in the “Wonderland” of American politics it apparently isn’t. The purpose of public campaign finance by the government is to get the special interest money out of our government and therefore reduce or even eliminate their influence in the running of our country.

If ever there was a “publicly financed” candidate, it is Barack Obama. For the first time since Bobby Kennedy, the people are actually vested in a candidate, supporting him with donations that in many cases come from their need not their excess. It is these donations, not special interests’ money, fueling Obama’s campaign. That means it is the people, not special interests, that Obama will be beholden to when he becomes president.

That clearly shows that the purpose of public finance is achieved by Obama’s campaign and therefore, it is not necessary for him to go with government supported public financing. It also shows that he has good judgment. It would be foolish for Obama to settle for $85 million when he can stay true to the purpose of public financing and bring in much more than that. We do want a president with good judgment don’t we?

It would also be foolish to limit his ability to raise funds since experience from the last two presidential campaigns almost guarantees 527 smear campaigns from the Republicans before this election is over. This is definitely an example of learning from experience despite Republican denials about 527s in this election. We keep hearing how important experience is. We do want a president who learns from experience don’t we?

So what is the truth the Republicans don't want us to know? It seems likely that John McCain’s inability to match Obama’s fund raising means Barack’s decision to forego government funds is a big deal. Not, as McCain would have us believe, because Barack is betraying the American people by his decision but rather because it leaves McCain in the position of running an under funded campaign. Of course the RNC and 527s have plenty of money which they will no doubt use in less than ethical ways to help McCain. If Obama allowed himself to be limited to government public financing, he would be unable to compete with this big money because the DNC isn't that rich and Barack does not want 527s working on his behalf.

The media, exercising its now common practice of creating news by making mountains out of molehills, and totally missing the point, will continue to stir things up egging McCain and company on in making sanctimonious declarations about Obama’s decision. Meanwhile people are distracted from real flip-flops by McCain on:

• Bush tax cuts, which he opposed and now supports
• Ethanol which he said did nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase energy independence, nothing to improve air quality and now he says ethanol is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects
• Religious Right leaders Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell who were agents of intolerance and suddenly became best buddies and supporters
• Gay marriage was fine one minute and eleven minutes later should not be allowed
• Abortion which he supported saying Roe vs Wade should not be overturned and now says the ruling should be overturned
• Torture, which he has always claimed to oppose and now has voted against a bill to ban waterboarding

Perhaps we should be paying attention to some of the really worrisome things about the idea of McCain as president such as:

• Temper: He gets so angry he actually loses control, something military personnel along with many of his fellow Republican Senators consider a good reason not to allow his finger to be the one on “the button”
• Hawkish attitudes: Blumberg news says McCain is more hawkish than Bush about Iraq, Russia and China. Pat Buchanan, a conservative commentator, says McCain “will make Cheney look like Ghandi.”
• Children : Children’s defense fund rated McCain the worst Senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health bill and supported Bush’s veto of it.
• Credit crunch: McCain, himself one of the wealthiest men in Congress, has publicly stated he has no sympathy for those facing foreclosure. He suggests they get a second job and skip their vacations. (Uh, Mr. McCain, a lot of us already have a second job and skip vacations because we can’t afford them,)
• Reform: Presents himself as a supporter of special interests reform but his campaign manager and top advisors are lobbyists with many more lobbyists raising money for him
• Environment: Talks a good story about being pro-environment but last year the League of Conservation Voters gave him a score of zero.

We don’t want a president who is hot headed, hawkish, doesn’t care about children, has no empathy for people caught in the middle of financial scams, and wants to continue the lobbyist influence in Washington while allowing our planet to further deteriorate… Do we?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

On November 6, 2007, Dennis Kucinich submitted a resolution to the House for the impeachment of Richard Cheney. This resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it was killed.

On June 9, 2008, Dennis Kucinich introduced thirty-five Articles of Impeachment against George Bush. He introduced it as a “privileged resolution” which requires the House to act on it within two legislative days. According to a Washington Post article:

As they have previously, Democratic leaders staunchly oppose Kucinich's impeachment effort. They expect to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they expect it to die.

It would seem that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration continues to determine the actions of the House in this matter. When asked to explain her stand on impeachment, Pelosi asserts that it would be a “distraction.” So let us ask her:

Under what set of moral imperatives is impeachment appropriate for lying about having sex but impeachment for lying our country into a war is considered a distraction?

On what planet is holding someone accountable for their actions considered a distraction, when those actions result in the deaths of over 4000 of America’s young men and women?

Under what Constitution can it be considered a distraction for Congress to fulfill its duty to oversee and check attempts by the Executive Branch to usurp powers our Founding Fathers established as belonging to other branches of the government?

According to what accepted standard of human behavior can accountability for illegal detention, kidnapping, and torture be dismissed as a distraction?

Under what kind of democratic rule can a president ignore the Constitution, the laws, and the human needs of the country he leads and have calling him to account be deemed a distraction?

All of these questions can be rolled up into one simple question. And so I ask Nancy Pelosi,

Since when is justice a distraction?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Or at least, that’s the way today’s problem solving seems to work. Take for example the dilemma of our energy use. The supply of oil is rapidly being outstripped by the demand for it. And the use of oil and petroleum based products is polluting our planet. So o o o o figure the genius’ of today, let’s switch to an energy source that produces toxic waste for which we have no safe disposal plan. This is radioactive waste we are talking about, the kind that not only poisons land for thousands of years, but in amounts as small as one millionth of a gram can cause cancer.

Perhaps I am missing something but it seems to me that trying to solve one problem by creating another with deadly consequences, just doesn’t make sense. And yet that is what the proponents of nuclear energy seem to be doing as they push ahead with plans to build 15 new nuclear plants. Without a permanent repository for the spent fuel currently stored on site around the country, the industry can’t possibly move forward with these plans for additional construction and that explains why the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have spent around $72 million lobbying in favor of the Yucca Mountain dump.

No new nuclear plants have been built since the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. However, we have accumulated what is variously reported as 70,000 – 77,000 metric tons of radioactive waste from the existing reactors. It will cost $70 billion to create the Nevada nuclear waste dump to store it. That is if the people of Nevada lose their fight to keep this dump from being built at Yucca Mountain, a fight that has been going on for years. But with the high cost of oil and the push for “green” living as excuses, the government is pushing hard once again to get this dump built.

Californians should be concerned because Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border. The nuclear waste, currently being stored in 39 states, would have to be transported by truck and rail across the country to reach Yucca Mountain. There are 109 cities with populations of more than 100,000 along the proposed routes. That means there are a lot of other states that should be concerned as well because an accident could occur anywhere en route with calamitous results.

Some of the interesting facts that should be considered before supporting the building of more nuclear plants are:

Yucca Mountain, itself a volcanic ridge, has 7 young volcanoes and 39 faults in the area surrounding it, with earthquakes occurring as recently as 2002. In 1996 even the Energy Department admitted that some water from the waste repository could go to the water table within 50 years. This water eventually flows into wells and springs.

Nuclear fuel consists of uranium pellets encased in metal rods. Used or "spent" fuel is removed from the reactor to water-filled pools, where it cools for about 10 years. It is then moved to "dry" storage, where it has been piling up at reactor sites because there is no place to dispose of it.

The metal containers designed to carry spent nuclear fuel from the Calvert Cliffs plant and other reactors to a proposed storage site in Nevada would have failed if the transport train had been engulfed in the estimated 1,500- degree heat of the Baltimore rail tunnel fire in the summer of 2001. Each rail cask weighs about 145 tons fully loaded and contains 260 times the amount of radioactive cesium released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The fire would not have triggered a nuclear blast, but the city would have been exposed to a catastrophic release of radiation.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Many of us, including me, have had much to say about the incompetence in our government and a president who's not the brightest bulb in the pack. But lately I ‘m wondering if we are missing the point because, looking a little closer, all this incompetence seems to have one result. It channels millions of dollars to the wealthy and large corporations while at the same time dismantling government agencies and programs intended to provide services for the public. These results are so consistent it's hard to believe it's coincidence.

Think about Katrina and New Orleans. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), intended to be the public’s help in emergencies – exhibited colossal incompetence which allowed chaos to reign during and following Katrina. The money grabbers swooped in, the American public lost confidence in FEMA, and the way New Orleans is being rebuilt is resulting in the exile of the poor who lived there. FEMA, now understaffed, under funded, and no longer a stand alone agency but part of a larger bureaucracy will be even slower to act, less efficient, and much less flexible to deal with on the spot needs.

What about the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) intended to protect the safety of foods, drugs, and other products? Instead, without public knowledge for a long time, they have allowed Pharmaceuticals to pay for the testing of their own drugs. The result has been large profits for Big Pharma and poorly tested drugs for consumers. As food imports have increased, FDA staffing and funding have not kept pace allowing unsafe foods to repeatedly reach our markets.

Then there is the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) intended to protect consumers from unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. Again, underfunded and understaffed, with no one sounding the alarm, products, including high lead count toys made their way into our formerly well regulated markets.

In Iraq, no bid contracts and careless lack of accountability for cash have allowed the loss of millions of taxpayers dollars. This isn’t incompetence, it’s robbery pure and simple.

Now we have the media reporting that our President went to Saudi Arabia to beg for more oil production and was turned down. Is that what really happened? Hasn’t the Bush family been tight with the Saudis for years? Aren’t a lot of their money interests tied up with oil companies? Aren’t the high oil prices bringing huge profits to the oil companies? Maybe Bush’s so called groveling was just for show, to make the American people think he is trying to do something about gas prices. That seems more likely than the idea that he would do anything to stop the oil companies from raking in the profits doesn’t it?

We really need to get it right in the upcoming elections if we want to stop the train wreck that is our government. NY Times columnist and three time Pulitzer Prize winner, Thomas L. Friedman wrote a piece called Who will tell the people? * in which he said it well: “We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.”

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

What’s up with the Clinton campaign? The pundits keep talking about it - what is happening or going to happen. But it sounds like speculation without any more real knowledge than we have. Based on years of observation of Clinton shenanigans, both Bill and Hillary, both in and out of office, I have my own ideas.

It seems pretty clear the Clintons are used to winning and were so sure Hillary was going to be the nominee that they simply can't accept the fact that Obama whupped her. This morning in Florida she was pandering to Floridians about how “every American has the right to have his vote counted..." yada, yada, yada.. Wouldn't It be interesting to hear what she would be saying if those states (FL & MI) had gone to Obama? You can bet it would be something about how they broke the rules and there must be consequences. You may have noticed the contrast - Obama is not agitating on either side of the question.

And what's up with using Rove's statement as a positive talking point? Hillary should be smart enough (especially if she is qualified to be the Prez) to realize that the Republicans want her to be the nominee because she is such a perfect target for their attacks and they really don't have that much to use against Obama. Many Republicans registered as Democrats and voted for Hilary in the primary- not because they support her, (and they sure won't be voting for her in the general election) but because they want to stop Obama. Interestingly, these votes are part of that "winning" popular vote she keeps touting.

The Republicans do not want to run McCain - old, bad tempered, not very articulate, economically challenged, and hitched to Bush's policies - against Obama - young, unflappable, not only articulate but downright inspiring, economically knowledgeable, and able to show, point by point, the failures of those Bush policies.

So, what's up with the Super delegates? Are they just trying to let Hillary run it out (as long as she stopped the negativity toward Obama) until the primaries play out on June 3? Then, will they, as many have aleady said, throw their votes to Obama and end it? If that's the plan, I just hope they are not shooting the Democratic Party in the foot by letting Clinton's supporters harden against Obama.

They (these Hillary supporters) blame Obama for what they consider sexist and unequal coverage by the media. Where did these people get the idea that Barack Obama controls the media? In what kind of convoluted thinking is he responsible for everything the newscasters and pundits say that might be interpreted as sexist? What about both the Clintons playing the race card several times while Obama never played the gender card and has in fact praised Hillary and her abilities? This is a real case of the pot calling the kettle black (pun intended).

As far as unequal coverage - what about the early campaign when everyone thought Hillary was the inevitable nominee and most of the coverage was of her? Did you hear any complaints about unequal coverage then? If Obama is getting more or better coverage now could it be because he looks like the winner? Isn’t the winner the one the media usually covers?

As a woman, I am embarrassed by the whining and finger pointing of these Clinton supporters. Why are they so bound and determined that Hillary has to be the nominee or they will take their ball home and not play anymore? Could it be because she is a woman and they want a woman in the white house no matter what?

Uh… isn’t that attitude the essence of sexism?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 07:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

With election news dominating the airwaves, other important issues have been pushed aside. Some of them call out for attention. One such issue is the ongoing annihilation of the Constitution’s safeguards against a run-away power grab by one of the three branches of government.

White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers were subpoenaed to testify before Congress in the investigation into the firing of US Attorneys General for partisan political motives. They refused to comply - an unprecedented action – totally refusing to even show up before Congress.

Both Bolten and Miers were cited for contempt of Congress, giving them the dubious honor of being the highest officials ever held in contempt of Congress. But Attorney General Mukasey refused to enforce the contempt decree. (So much for his testimony during confirmation hearings that he “believes in the rule of law.”) Congress is now suing Bolten and Miers in District Court to demand compliance. This makes it obvious that regular Contempt charges don’t work very well with an Attorney General who chooses deriliction of duty over the rule of law.

However, there is another route Congress can take. Inherent Contempt. This is a little used, little known tool that the House or Senate can use. It requries only a majority…which should be easily attainable in the House. Under the Inherent Contempt power, the individual is "brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisioned. The purpose of the imprisonment may be punitive or coercive, and can be indefinite." The Inherent Contempt power is recognized by the Supreme Court as Constitutional.

The Vice President's Chief of Staff, David Addington, refused to testify on the investigation into the Bush Administration's ordering of torture. Carl Rove continues the pattern of executive arrogance by also refusing to testify. It is alleged that Mr. Rove personally instigated the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegleman. The Siegleman case has been criticized by legal experts, and 52 former state attorneys general – both Republicans and Democrats called for an investigation. (Siegleman is now out of prison pending appeal). If Rove refuses to testify and ignores a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, then the House of Representatives should pass an Inherent Contempt citation and exercise the right to send the House Sergeant-of-Arms to pick up Mr. Rove and bring him before Congress to testify.

No American is above the law. None of us should be able to ignore Congress without consequence. Congress has few options when the Administration totally refuses to submit to any type of reasonable Congressional oversight. However, Congress has not only the right but the obligation to investigate these questionable circumstances. That is one of the purposes of the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution. If we back off or continue to drag our feet, we effectively forfeit the power of Congress to investigate the Executive branch and that is unacceptable.

The Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Dunn, in 1821 held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.

Our representatives in Congress need to ensure that such criminal offenses have consequences.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 03:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)