They Did What !

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)

The ability of the human mind to rationalize in order to transform reality to fit personal beliefs is nothing short of amazing. That thought crossed my mind listening to Antonin Scalia on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago. Leslie Stahl, ask about torture and Scalia said something about torture not being in the Constitution. Leslie asked if he didn’t consider the treatment of prisoners, such as what happened at Abu Ghraib, as “cruel and unusual punishment.” Scalia essentially said that treatment of these people is not considered “punishment” it is interrogation, so it wouldn’t be covered by the Eighth Amendment.

I have trouble with that kind of hair-splitting. If you were in custody, locked up, not allowed to leave, and accused of wrongdoing wouldn’t you think of whatever was done to you as punishment? I wonder if Antonin Scalia was subjected to waterboarding, if he might answer differently.

Strange as it seems, the American people appear to like having their country run by liars. First they elected Bill Clinton (ole Slick Willie) who lies when the truth would serve him better. Then they elected George W. Bush who not only lies to the public but from all accounts even lies to himself. Now there are those who want to elect Hillary Clinton who has shown in her campaign that she can and will lie with the best of them. These supporters are so determined to have her that they are willing to risk a McCain presidency if she doesn’t get the nomination.

What happened to the idea that the president of our country should be a man or woman of honor; someone we can look up to; someone who puts our interests before his or her own; someone we can trust?

Winston Churchill said, “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”

Based on that, what America needs now is courage. There are plenty of us doing the first - standing up and speaking - on the radio, TV, and the internet, in newspapers, magazines and books. But hardly anyone is doing the second – sitting down and listening. And doing one, to the exclusion of the other isn’t courageous.

Talking and listening only to those who agree with us, stunts our growth both intellectually and morally. Not only does it display a lack of courage it also does not serve our best interests because in the end it divides us as a people and a country.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)