They Did What !

“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)