ScaifeNet because we can't let Soros have all the fun...

I watched The Hurt Locker, yesterday, and was not impressed, netiehr was Sgt Tom when he saw it:"Hurt Locker made me laugh, the scene where he sneaks off base, and then walks back up to the gate, haha ask anyone who has been there, no way, no F'n way in hell would that ever have happened. Hollywood, really Hollywood!!! I need to become a military movie consultant! I wasn't impressed either, Dad!"But apparently that doesn't matter, as it won best picture last night.

So if that means it was the best, all the other movies are not as good. Maybe I shouldn't waste my time with the rest of 'em.

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

"If words are to enter men's minds and bear fruit, they must be the right words shaped cunningly to pass men's defenses and explode silently and effectually within their minds."
- J. B. Phillips
British Biblical translator, writer, clergyman
1906 - 1982

"In a sense, words are encyclopedias of ignorance because they freeze perceptions at one moment in history and then insist we continue to use these frozen perceptions when we should be doing better."
- Edward de Bono
Maltese physician, inventor, professor, author and consultant; originator of the concept of lateral thinking
1933

"Deception is a cruel act... It often has many players on different stages that corrode the soul."
~ Donna A. Favors


On Thursday evening March 4th comedic genius Stephen Colbert presented an especially cogent mini 'Tip of the Hat' segment on the Colbert Report in which he demonstrated the kind of extreme editing and outright fakery used by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in creating the false and misleading 'ACORN' sting videos. That it also made fun of the folly of Sean Hannity of Fox News on Hannity's own set added to the effectiveness of the send up, while emphasizing the underlying truth of Colbert's criticism of both O'Keefe and Hannity.

www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/265498/march-04-2010/tip-wag---james-o-keefe---sean-hannity

Saturday evening, March 6th, at the California Republican Assembly Convention, an event that the late President Ronald Reagan called "the conscience of the Republican Party", James O'Keefe and his partner in crime, Hannah Giles, were to be presented with the Ronald Reagan Freedom Fighter Award for their videotape 'stings' of ACORN. This can reasonably be construed as a 'right wing' gala event, the 'right' of the title of this essay 'Right Words', which is all about wrong words, lies, deceptions, fraud and misrepresentations.

So, why reward O'Keefe and Giles, not only with this award, but with wider spread right wing adoration?

For the same reason that so many other right wing prominent political figures have come out against ACORN. They hate ACORN for having been effective in registering voters from lower income and disadvantaged areas who vote largely Democratic, and for the support of associated causes.

The criticism of ACORN for a number of problems, both with internal issues including embezzlement of funds, and with a very small percentage of their voter registration drives, criticism by both the left and the right, is well deserved. Some of the ACORN voter registration drive efforts were badly supervised, and I personally have a serious objection to funds going to an organization that has a past of covering up embezzlement. But I don't believe that ACORN has been proven to have altered the outcome of elections, or many of the other claims against it.

Overall, about 5 to 7% of ACORN's voter registrations have had to be further checked, with about 1% actually being rejected as either duplicate or false. That percentage is higher than the success rate for other voter registration groups, but not excessively so. Those 'bad' voter registrations are caught through the various cross referencing methods used to validate the voter registration data base in every state. Anyone who wants to know exactly what the validation methods are in their state can determine that with a quick phone call or email to their own state administration for that data base. It is a matter of public record, and I encourage people to make their own inquiries.

The RNC has sent out many fund raising solicitations over the signature of chair Michael Steele, both by email and snail mail, incorrectly claiming voter fraud, not just voter registration fraud or failures by ACORN. The RNC and a number of prominent conservative politicians, media talking heads, and bloggers all claim an unprecedented and unprosecuted theft of elections from the right by this voter fraud. They specifically blame ACORN, they specifically target ACORN because they need someone, something, to blame for their losses.

This is a claim even more loudly advanced by Minnesota 6th District Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who has elevated hatred for ACORN into an obsession as unique in intensity as it is inaccurate factually. ACORN is a frequent icon for terrorizing her doner base in Bachmann's fund raising efforts, and a regular target for Bachmann's legislative efforts on behalf of the right. Hannah Giles has included similar completely false, unsupported allegations in the three page solicitation letters she sent out to raise money for her legal defense. There is a lot of money to be made in peddling fear, and anger, and the sting of losing majority power. Further, the right needs a distraction from their own years of bad government when they had that majority power.

Even the December 22, 2009 Report to the Congressional Judiciary Committee prepared by the Congressional Research Service, determined that ACORN has not had a single instance of actual voter fraud resulting from their voter registration efforts (page 1, item number 3).
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/CRS-ACORN091222.pdf
The CRS report was only one of the more recent examination of the charges of voter fraud to find no evidence to support the charges against ACORN by the right; it is not the only report to do so.

So, while there may be a few jokers who fill out a voter registration card as Minnie Mouse or Donald Duck, or even Goofy, none of those people have tried to vote under those registrations. An equal or greater proportion of the problem registrations have been simple duplicates, where there was no attempt to use a fictitious identity. None of the investigations to date have found any pattern of deliberate fraud to alter elections. Problem voter registrations are a nuisance, in some instances they are a crime, but they have never EVER been demonstrated to be significant in the outcome of elections.

But that hasn't stopped the continuing efforts of the right against ACORN. Readers may recall that the New Mexico US Attorney, David Iglesias, lost his job for refusing to prosecute ACORN in that state because there was insufficient evidence of any crime, during the Bush administration attempt to politicize the Department of Justice. The efforts by O'Keefe and Giles are only the latest attack on ACORN by the right.

The latest award to O'Keefe and Giles comes at the end of the week that saw the announcement by the Brooklyn, New York District Attorney at the conclusion of an extensive investigation that there was no basis for any prosecution of ACORN. This despite the attempts by O'Keefe and Giles to portray the Brooklyn ACORN office, and a number of other ACORN locations, as engaging in not just any criminal activity, but child prostitution, in a calculated attempt to engage the emotions of the public. Mere voter registration issues are too boring to get a reaction. They needed to 'sex up' the perception of problems with ACORN.

Except that like the false accusations of voter fraud, there do not appear to, have been any instances of criminal activity, either aiding prostitution or money laundering, by ACORN identified to date. There are other investigations into the activities of both ACORN AND O'Keefe and Giles, resulting from these videos, including one by the California Attorney General. There is a very real possibility of criminal felony indictments resulting from those investigations - charges against O'Keefe and Giles.

There has been a huge media smear of ACORN, but no charges, no proof. To date, only O'Keefe and Giles, and now the Brooklyn, NY District Attorney have seen the uncut, unedited version of the events. O'Keefe and Giles, and their boss Andrew Breitbart have insisted across the internet, and across pretty much the entirety of Fox News and some mainstream media, and social utilities like Youtube through their videos and interviews that their heavily altered and partially faked videos portrayed ACORN assisting them to try to set up a brothel providing the sexual services of underage illegal immigrant girls.

In response to the investigation by the Brooklyn DA, the right has tried to fly the accusation of conflict of interest, along with the usual factual errors they resort to with ACORN claims. One of the best analyses of New York prostitution and money laundering laws explaining factually why the Brooklyn DA did not prosecute ACORN was written by prominent New York attorney Michael J. Gaynor at www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=100305 where he breaks down the applicable statutes line by line as they apply to what ACORN did - and did not do.

There have been multiple investigations, and now there are law suits against O'Keefe and Giles being filed. There may be criminal indictments as well resulting from their videos of ACORN, and appropriately so as they appear to have possibly violated not only the laws of a number of states including Maryland and California, relating to recording without consent, but also possibly the federal statutes against recording people for either tortious or criminal purposes. Some states make a particular point of singling out for penalty not only recording people with or without their consent with the intent of then making the recordings public after altering them to reflect false and negative images, which would seem to be a big problem for O'Keefe and Giles.

Fox News which promoted O'Keefe and Giles is suddenly very quiet on the subject. Andrew Breitbart who employed O'Keefe and Giles, accepted awards with them, and widely promoted them across the media is now claiming he never saw the unedited 'raw' footage, and that he was deceived by O'Keefe and Giles.

I wonder when more of the right is going to catch on that the jig is up. I wonder if the California Republican Assembly will eventually try to take back their Ronald Reagan Freedom Fighter Awards.

I wonder what the Right words on ACORN, O'Keefe, and Giles will be then.

A better than anticipated Jobs report with some silver lining on the inside:several industries showed solid gains in employment, including health care and the service industries. Private business services created 51,000 jobs in February, the most of any sector. That's encouraging, since economists say hiring in that sector is a good measuring stick for the health of the overall labor market.

Also encouraging was the addition of 47,500 temporary workers, whose hiring often signals that employers are starting to gear up again. There have been nearly 100,000 temporary jobs created in 2010.Yes, for those who keep trying to say that only Government is growing, take note -> ""Private business services created 51,000 jobs in February, the most of any sector.""

And on that note, no matter where someone is working, they are getting paid, and spending that money in the free market, creating demand. AS demand increases, so will the need to create more goods to meet the demand.

This is good news all around, well maybe not for the GOP, who needs to pray for a jobless stagnating economy. If the Left was smart, THAT is what they would be communicating to the electorate.

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

Now that the Senator from MLB has 'balked' and released his hold on the unemployment extensions, I provide you these moments in history:


See Cartoons by Cartoon by Bob Englehart - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon


See Cartoons by Cartoon by Nate Beeler - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoonhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

For a moment, they were all on the same team!PITTSBURGH -- Buffalo Sabres goaltender Ryan Miller received a standing ovation in Pittsburgh on Tuesday night for leading the United States to an Olympic silver medal -- cheers louder than those given the Penguins' own Sidney Crosby.

Crosby beat Miller to score the game-winning goal in overtime Sunday as Canada defeated the United States 3-2 for the gold medal in Vancouver. Despite being on the losing team, Miller was chosen as the tournament MVP.

Olympians for both teams were introduced before the game, with Miller drawing the loudest and most sustained cheering. Crosby also was given a standing ovation, but it was less enthusiastic than Miller's despite his vast popularity in Pittsburgh.

"It was a good tournament," Miller said before the Sabres lost to the Pens 3-2. "Hopefully, it made some hockey fans here in the United States."MIller was resting, last night, so those 3 goals scored by Pitt were not against him.

The Olympics were a great run, and a great Gold medal game, now it is back to business as usual.

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

So when then Sen John Kerry changed his vote when a bill was stripped of its funding mechanism, the GOP Smear machine used it to pummel him for being a flip flopper. Remember those cute wind Surfing ads. Yesterday, something completely different happened.

38 member of the GOP caucus, who all voted FOR those disadvantaged and most vulnerable among us, turned their back on those folks. They did a complete 180 on the EXACT SAME PIECE of legislation. There was no amendments, or adjustments. It was the EXACT SAME BILL! What changed was the pressure from the Presidential Candidate we call Governor, and the vice of the "pup tent" party tightening down.

The most vulnerable on the list is Marty Seifert, who now has lost his presumptive status as the GOP nominee. The Tea Partiers won't touch him, and the moderates now see him for who he is, a flip flopping, finger in the wind politician.

The Left has been dealt a hand that only they can screw up. However, maybe they will surprise some folks, and put out a full frontal assault to the Ideologue party. You know, a GOP that says one thing on one day, and the exact opposite a few days later.

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

An opinion article in the Financial Times tells some unspoken truths about the 'mystical' Reagan years...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/01/business/financialtimes/main6256362.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.10

"Traditional conservatives disdain populism and respect knowledge. They believe in balancing the government's books. And they are pragmatists who are suspicious of ideology. Reagan debased all these ideas - and modern American conservatism is still suffering the consequences.

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

The most damaging idea propagated by the Reagan myth is the cult of the idiot-savant (the wise fool). "

Certainly Ms. Palin (and a host of other conservatives who deny things like Evolution or Global Warming) is/are intelligent, even clever, but they frequently quote ill-researched, often veneer thin factoids, while eschewing vastly better supported research supporting the position they don't prefer. In her case, she is highly ambitious, and it seems her power base for election and support is to appeal to a social/political stance which doesn't prefer the scientific outcome/researched positions, consequently, she adopts such a position, and claims it is simply 'common sense' that, for example, that Global Warming isn't happening.

GREAT article on the CNN website about who much used to get done in Congress, and why it is hard to get anything done, now. In an article entitled "Blame yesterday's reforms for today's gridlocked Congress"; David Frum, writes:Washington (CNN) -- At the end of his career, former House Speaker Tip O'Neill was asked how Congress had changed between the 1950s and 1980s. O'Neill answered: "The people are better. The results are worse."

* snip *

Take this quiz. Name the most important legislation enacted in the 30 years between 1950 and 1980.

Overwhelming isn't it? Civil rights. Voting rights. Interstate highways. Medicare. Medicaid. The deregulation of the airlines, natural gas, trucking, rail and oil. The immigration act of 1965. Clean Air, Clean Water, and the Endangered Species Acts. Supplemental Security Income in 1974. I could fill the whole screen.

Now ... the next 30 years.

There's the Reagan tax cuts of course. Deregulation of the savings & loans in 1982. The Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. Welfare reform in 1995. Medicare Part D. What else?

Leave aside whether you are liberal or conservative, whether you approve the measures mentioned above or disapprove. It's hard to dispute: Congress just got a lot more done in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s than in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

Why?

You hear many grand, sweeping explanations. Let's try just one simple one.

Congress in the first period was controlled by a handful of committee chairmen, who owed their positions to seniority. The committees did their work in secret. Bills written in committee typically could not be amended on the floor of Congress. The institution was authoritarian, hierarchical, opaque. And stuff passed.

In the mid-1970s, Congress underwent a revolution. The power of the committee chairmen was broken. The number of subcommittees proliferated. The committees met in public. Amendments multiplied. Congress become more open, more egalitarian, more responsive. And stuff ceased to pass.

Again and again, today's gridlock can be traced to yesterday's reform.Read the whole thing. He goes on to talk about the evolution of the filibuster, why lobbyists matter, and the end of bipartisanship due to ideological loyalty.

However, a reason bipartisanship is difficult, is how the true politicians politician flips flops at the hint of a politically driven need. Take Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, for instances, who in 1995 said that reconciliation is:“the rule of the Senate,” and one that allows for “majority rule.” “Is there anything wrong with majority rule?” he asks. “I don’t think so. In supporting this tactic, he helped ram through President GW Bush budgets that have shown to be economically devastating to the country.

But now that the tables are turned, Gregg is thinking reconciliation is bad:"That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. "You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."I think Frum makes some good points, and the article itself is a great Cliff Note to the evolution of Congress over the past 60 years. But it is also the transition to 'Win at any cost' politics that is stalling our elected leaders from getting work down; and the minority, regardless of which party it is at the time, seems content with that.

If there is a sincere desire to change the way congress works, the electorate must understand it can't be done by hiring the same people over and over again, and expecting different results.

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

I am entering the SD66 convention as a 'Leans Rukavina' I like his position on Gaming, which separates him from many of the other Democratic candidates. I also like his straight forward, 'shoot from the hip' style. He is not intimidated by the process, and is not afraid to speak his mind or conform to some ideological expectation.

There are several of us who hope to have a viable Sub Caucus, but if not, we'll go uncommitted instead.

More on Rep Tom Rukavina, here!

I'll be tweeting live through about 2:0, then I have a hot lunch date with the beautiful and lovely Mrs. Flash. Don;t want to be late for that *smile*

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

On honor of the HCR Summit, I offer up this:
See Cartoons by Cartoon by R.J. Matson - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoonhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

Remember this post:Something tells me that the new Senator from Mass may just like being a Senator, and will be willing to at least make some moves to color himself Purple if he wants more then two years in Congress.Now lets visit the business the US Senate conducted, yesterday, on the Jobs Bill:It was almost time to vote on the Senate jobs bill, the first major vote since Brown's arrival. Republicans were counting on their new member to be their "41st vote," the number needed to sustain filibusters and shoot down any and all Democratic proposals.

Brown, his desk in the back corner, was the only Republican in the room as Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a final denunciation of the GOP before the vote. "My friends on the other side of the aisle are looking for ways not to vote for this," he said, accusing them of putting "partisanship ahead of people."

As Reid spoke, Brown was leafing through a Senate face book, learning to recognize his new colleagues. As soon as the vote was called, he strode quickly into the well and interrupted the clerk as he read the roll.

"Yes," Brown said quietly, and then, having become Reid's first vote, he rushed out of the room before Republican colleagues arrived. He stepped into the hallway, then waited for reporters to assemble around him.
ad_icon

"I'm not from around here," he said. "I'm from Massachusetts."

Back inside the Senate chamber, Maine's Susan Collins, a Republican moderate, followed Brown's lead and voted yes. The floodgates opened, and the GOP filibuster was broken with two votes to spare. Looks like Senator Brown likes being a Senator already.

Oh, and the folks who worked to put him in office are livid:This did not keep Tea Party members from flaming Brown on Twitter. Here is a sampling of the Tea Party backlash against Brown: solbeachdog: Scott Brown quickly exposed as just another New England progressive masquerading as a Republican. Disgusting."

PAC43: RT @Lanettetay: I am furious and sick about Sen Scott Brown voting YES for Harry Reid & Obama's Job Bill that is serious DEFICIT SPENDING!!"

Tigerstooth: RT @LiliaEP Scott Brown is an example of the progressivism that is creeping into the GOP that Glenn Beck talks about. #tcot #tlot #teaparty"It appears that Democrats should have taken a different strategy in attacking Brown. Instead of painting him as a Tea Party extremist they should have simply called Brown a moderate. This may have led to the loss of his Tea Party support as seen in the tweets above.Hmmmm, is that possibly a new strategy for the Left, paint the opposition as a Moderate so as to loose the support of their much needed fringe element. Might be a good one early on, to at least get primary challenges or, better yet, 3rd party candidates to step up and split the vote.

I still think that it is an eternity till November, and as the economy improves under the leadership of the current administration, the electorate will start to get it!

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

Recently, Dr. Michael Kirsch wrote a thoughtful argument for supporting Tort reform. While he didn't specify the nature of reform he supports, the general convention for such reform is to limit damages in such cases, typically to $250,000.00.

As I said to Dr. Kirsch then, while I support the general idea of reform of our court system, I do not support this solution. I'll explain below, but more importantly, I feel most of the time if we want to oppose a solution to a recognized problem, we have to offer a different solution, and so I will try to.

First, I see as fundamental to any solution the following goals must be achieved:

1. The conduct of irresponsible doctors must be policed - this country pays for the malpractice mistakes of poor practitioners, through maimed bodies, ruined lives AND financially because the cost of that malpractice insurance (both the premiums and the payouts) are passed along to the consumer.

2. Indigent or poor litigants must not be barred from bringing suit by the threat of the cost, or actual cost of entry. If we set penalties, or threaten them with paying the legal costs - defendants simply will load up their counsel team to make the risk of loss too prohibitive to even allow for real suits to be heard.

3. The number of ludicrous claims must be effectively reduced. While I list this third, it is probably the second most important thing to #1.

4. Malpractice insurance must not be subject to the vagaries and losses of malpractice financial managers investing in the markets, bonds, currency trading, whatever.

I want to spend a paragraph on why I oppose the $250k cap. First and foremost, it doesn't work. In states where such caps exist, rates of inflation in medicine are NO lower than elsewhere. It also fails to prevent frivolous cases. Payments in low-grade (to coin a phrase) malpractice cases are far below $250k, so there is little to no reduction in preventing malicious and meaningless filings. In truth, the only people who would benefit in such a system, would be the insurers, because the cost of answering scurrilous claims, of being deposed for frivolous cases, is not avoided by the physician. Their malpractice cost MIGHT be lower IF their carrier actually passed along such savings, but when was the last time you heard of an entire industry passing along reduced costs realized by what they'd term 'greater efficiency'? Typically, such efficiencies are instead realized as profits. The proof is in the pudding either way, malpractice costs whether lower or higher in states with the $250k cap, have not changed the path of overall costs, health care costs overall are just as high and growing just as quickly in those states, as in states without such caps.


So, with those things being said: I have a counter set of proposals, ones which I hope would NOT prevent legitimate cases from moving forward, NOT prevent poor and middle class victims of malpractice from filing claims, and still hold practitioners accountable only for things which they should be held accountable for.

1. Establish an independent medical review board in each state. The board would consist of both doctors, nurses, and patient rights advocates. This board would hear cases requesting the removal of incompetent doctors. Currently, doctors effectively police themselves, and there is no, read zero, chance to strip a doctor of his/her license without repeated cases of grossly negligent (often in fact criminal) conduct.

2. Establish a separate, but equally independent board in each county which would hear cases of alleged malpractice. Each case would get 2-3 hours (at most) to present it's position at hearing - such hearing would judge based on the merits of reasonableness, not just standards of care, but reasonableness of care, whether the practitioner had acted reasonably - this is a standard used in insurance pretty often, and frankly, it works pretty well. In such a case, have 5 jurists decide the outcome, if the case gets at least 2 votes to proceed, then it can proceed to a normal legal trial. To make it legal (contractually enforceable) as anyone could sue to another court saying their case was being legally squelched - make it binding that any claimant who doesn't agree to this sort of arbitration, as well as any doctor, no longer is eligible for Medicare or Medicaid payments. Anyone who signed up for Medicare as a practitioner would be bound by contract, and you can easily pass a stipulation of benefits that any citizen agrees to such arbitration as a matter of benefit.

3. If a case got only 1 (or zero) votes regarding validity, make the lawyer filing the case pay $500 for wasting the court's time(such fine not to be passed on to the claimant to pay). Make the claimant pay $250 as a penalty. Also, create a tracking system such that any lawyer who achieves 10 such findings against him/her, has their license suspended for a year.

The points are: establish the meritability of the case on reasonableness of health care, not potential provability grounds, nor on 'what the law says.' If it wasn't unreasonable care, then create a small fine for the lawyer, and finally, make it so that someone who engages in such malicious cases routinely gets an applicable punishment. On the doctor/practitioner side, make it quick - showing up for such a hearing shouldn't take all day, shouldn't take hours of deposition, and should be resolved on the grounds of whether the caregiver a good job, not even necessarily the best job they knew how.

The other point is, malpractice protection should NOT be for the insurance carrier, but rather the practitioner who provides decent, adequate, and professional care. If malpractice carriers decide to invest their funds in the stock market and lose, the rest of the country should not have to pay for those losses. Many financial services entities are required (for example, by ERISA) to treat certain funds with 'fiduciary responsibility' as such, they are generally prohibited from risky investment practices. This should be true for malpractice premiums as well.

And then there's this, litigation in this country (and elsewhere) can be abused - heavily abused, of that there is no question, but it is also why we have airbags, and seat belts, and warning labels, and black-lung disease payments, and a whole host of other things which corporations have been made to account for when they acted grossly negligently. Without giving the ordinary citizen the right to hold the powerful accountable, many necessary changes we've made in the country would not exist, and more importantly, the little guy WILL wind up powerless - which is precisely against what we have said all along this country stands for, namely, the tyranny of the majority (or the powerful) cannot (and should not be allowed to) usurp the rights of the less powerful.

The Growth and Justice Folks had an excellent Op-Ed in the STrib, yesterday! They start with a reality check:Put down your coffee cup. Minnesota's state government needs to raise taxes by as much as $1 billion a year. Pick the cup back up. That's only four-tenths of 1 percent of our annual $230 billion in personal income. And it would still leave the total portion of our income paid in taxes smaller than it was a decade ago.Then they get into details:After a decade of cutting corners and underinvesting, our state's public structures are showing the strain, in ways that damage business interests. A few examples:

•Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Magnuson has been traveling around the state to make the case personally for no new cuts to Minnesota's stressed court services -- taking on the governor who appointed him. Courts and the rule of law are essential not just for public safety but also for conflict resolution and contract enforcement for businesses.

•Delays and deteriorating roads -- due to the state's fast-growing congestion and crumbling transportation infrastructure -- build higher costs into the prices of products produced or sold here.

•Our public schools are being forced, in effect, to loan money to state government. Students at Minnesota's two-year colleges pay the third-highest tuition and fees of all 50 states. And Minnesota faces a growing achievement gap between white and nonwhite, and between affluent and poor households. These trends represent an erosion of Minnesota's educational advantage, the bedrock of our economic success.

•We now have the largest percentage of Minnesotans without health insurance in recent history. Some 480,000 children, men and women now lack health insurance, and that population is expected to increase this year. State assistance with medical coverage, a program slashed deeply by budget cuts, actually helps remove pressure on employers to cover this expense.

From the current depleted baseline, the governor proposes to cut the state budget by another $1.2 billion. More tax cuts would inflate that damage.There was another one I noted yesterday, too. The former Republican State Senator, now Republican Mayor os St. Cloud was on At Issue sharing his frustration with a depleted budget, cuts to local aid, and facing the tough decisions to now start limiting services, both safety and infrastructure related.In the SCTimes they mention:St. Cloud and Stearns County officials say Pawlenty’s proposal likely would force them to reduce basic services again, on top of deep cuts they’ve already made.
St. Cloud’s leaders cut 10 percent from the city’s 2010 budget after losing more than $5 million in state aid since late 2008, Mayor Dave Kleis said Monday. Pawlenty’s proposal would reduce state aid to St. Cloud by an additional $4.97 million through the 2011 fiscal year.
Such reductions may help Pawlenty maintain his no-new-tax stance, but that approach simply shifts government costs to cities and counties, Stearns County Board chair Mark Sakry said.
“It may look like a good sound bite when you run for president, but it’s not helping the local taxpayers,” Sakry said.
The Right is in a precarious position. The State is cutting to the marrow and it is beginning to impact the electorates every day lives. If the Right isn't careful, and continues down the path of governmental elimination, they may just blow their chance to make up some ground both locally, and nationally!

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

Bayh lays it on in a NYTimes Op-Ed, and he pulls no punches. He also provides solutions, so it is not just a bash fest.

He starts by sharing the problem:While romanticizing the Senate of yore would be a mistake, it was certainly better in my father’s time. My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats.

One incident from his career vividly demonstrates how times have changed. In 1968, when my father was running for re-election, Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, approached him on the Senate floor, put his arm around my dad’s shoulder, and asked what he could do to help. This is unimaginable today.

When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays. This type of social interaction hardly ever happens today and we are the poorer for it. It is much harder to demonize someone when you know his family or have visited his home. Today, members routinely campaign against each other, raise donations against each other and force votes on trivial amendments written solely to provide fodder for the next negative attack ad. It’s difficult to work with members actively plotting your demise.

Any improvement must begin by changing the personal chemistry among senators. More interaction in a non-adversarial atmosphere would help.
After showing his frustration, more at the opposition from my first read, he also proffers ways to change the way things work.

Well worth the few moments to read!

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

See Cartoons by Cartoon by R.J. Matson - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoonhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

Today marks the anniversary of the Recovery act also known as Stimulus II. I was lukewarm on both the Bush Stimulus and then sequel of Stimulus II passed under Obama's watch, but the results can't be ignored:

If the Democratic Party, and their candidates, want to hold off the continued surge of Republican support, they need to recapture the new cycle from the Tea Partyiers, full out challenge and combat the misinformation for the Right Wing Smear machine, and get the truth out to the American People.

Lets look at some of those indicators:

Unemployment, the lagging indicators, is dropping

Manufacturing is in its 6 straight month of expansion

Quarterly GDP shows 5.7% growth

Home prices experienced 7 straight months of increases, before breaking that streak with a small decline.

Retail sales UP .5% in January

Consumer Confidence at a two year high.

And just announced today, this bit of news:Housing construction posted a better-than-expected increase in January which pushed activity to the highest level in six months. The solid gain raised hopes that the construction industry is beginning to mount a sustained rebound from its worst slump in decades.Its over 8 months till the midterms, and that is an eternity in political time. If we continue to see improvements in the economy, the people will start feeling it first, seeing it second, and begin to understand that it will take more than two years to correct 8 years of mismanagement.

Flash

UPDATE: File this in the Obstructionist Party Portfolio, In Washington they said it wouldn't work, back home they admit how well it is working.

Stimulating Hypocrisy: 111 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Successhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

I saved this blockquote for the Holiday. Perfectly timely, and reasonably accurate: With George Washington’s birthday comes the attendant mythology, hatchet and cherry tree, wooden teeth, throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River – or the Rappahannock.

Of course, as the old joke goes, a dollar went a lot further then. Today, if you tried to hurl a silver dollar across the Potomac, chances are some member of Congress would snatch it in flight like one of those nature film grizzly bears grabbing a salmon in mid-leap.That's just the beginning, the rest is pretty good as well, as it goes into the attempts to crack down on Lobbyists control in DC. You may want to read the whole thing!

Enjoy the Holiday!

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

Recently, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan was killed by a US rocket launched from a drone. This was a major achievement, and is expected to result in a serious weakening of the Pakistani Taliban. With it, the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan will also be meaningfully weaker.

Yet, there was little if any fanfare from the Administration. Had this happened under Bush, we'd have had a full-court press from Bush about how meaningful and important and decisive this was, how it reflected just how well Bush was handling the war (think not, go back and look at the grand-standing done when we killed the leader of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", a rather second-rate figure leading a group which didn't have that name prior to our entry into Iraq and which was pretty well a second-rate group in the struggle in Iraq). By comparison, the death of Hakimullah Mehsud is far more significant. He was the replacement of Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed by US forces in August 2009, and his death is meaningful because it shows that Al Qaeda and the Taliban, after seven years of moribund action by the Pakistani and US forces, are under continuing and real threat.

Further, Pakistan has joined the fight in it's northern "frontier" provinces in earnest. This is a major shift of the actions and intent of Pakistan in the past year. It is due in no small part to the threats and pressure placed upon the Pakistani government by Obama, partly in response to needing to distance itself from the ISI-funded terror group which attacked Mumbai, and partly in response to Clinton's visit where the US promised to be more careful and discrete in its use of drones and aeriel bombing. This latter point had been a major sticking point during the Bush years.

Finally, this week, as part of 'the surge' in Afghanistan, the Marines and the Afghani Army have launched a major offensive - this offensive is likely to take several major Talibani strongholds in southern Afghanistan. The question remains open whether they will be held long-term of course, but this is a massive shift of strategic approach from only a year ago where the Afghani government was openly mocked for ruling essentially ONLY Kabul (the Capital).

Each of these three events are significant. They show a combined US, Pakistani and Afghani force taking direct action against the Taliban/Wahabi extremists in an area of the world and in nations in which it is FAR TOUGHER to deal with Al Qaeda and jihadists than Iraq EVER was, on its worst day. Iraq was a secular nation which generally abhored jihadism and fundamentalist Muslims. Hussein rather frequently purged/attacked Sunni and Shia extremists, and he was hated by the likes of Bin Laden for allowing the teaching women in schools, for the embrace of technology, and of course for not seeking to establish a Sunni-lead Caliphate in the way that Bin Laden seeks to do. Iraq was only a hotbed of Sunni extremism because of the colossal ineptitude of the Bush-lead war/occupation there which tortured innocent civilians, and generally considered any concern for civilian casualties or the treatment of prisoners to be 'molly-coddling' in their own words. As Rush Limbaugh famously said, "apparently what the Democrat Party wants to do is offer terrorists therapy" (Ok, that's a paraphrase- but it's damned close to the actual quote) - which he said, and then members of the Republican party repeated, when complaints surfaced about the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison (and elsewhere).

Contrastingly, Pakistan was and is the home of hundreds of Madrasas, religious schools normally founded and run by pro-Wahabi fundamentalist extremists from which suicide bombers are recruited and willing martyrs are sought. These Madrasas were funded by the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, including Bin Laden's reputed $300 Million. It is a nation with 180 Million people, many of whom are barely literate, and a great number live in barely governed frontier provinces, like those in the Punjab and Kashmir regions. These regions have been the source of outside defeat for centuries (most recently the British were defeated in their attempt to conquer the region in the late 1800 and early 1900's. The Pakistani government signed peace treaties with the Taliban in 2008 to allow them to control sections of important roads and areas - a peace treaty which has subsequently been torn up as the Taliban proved to be untrustworthy (I suspect so did the Pakistani government). Afghanistan, if anything, is even MORE difficult to control, as the Soviets found out. Yet, when we invaded in 2001, we found ourselves welcomed by a people tired of being brutalized, brutalized by the Soviets, then the warlords, then the Taliban. All we had to do, according to Afghanis, was establish something which was moderately effective and importantly, not blatantly corrupt. Instead, whether due to negligence or overt hostility, the Bush government allowed EXACTLY the same type of government which preceded the Taliban, i.e. one lead by warlords - which the Afghani people had already rejected in place of the Taliban - to return. Consequently, the country slipped inexorably back into the hands of the Taliban. Afghanistan became probably the most corrupt nation on earth under Bush's leadership and our occupation. Estimates put corruption at 20% for any action, meaning, in addition to taxes, you had to pay 20% of your salary to just get ANYTHING done. The people were furious.

Obama insisted on a major change in the Karzai government, and has insisted on the placement of officials not for nepotism or favors, but based on seeking to employ those who aren't corrupt. It's not changed things much YET, but it IS a start, and vastly superior to the apathy and neglect heaped upon the nation by Bush. Afghanistan is the FAR HARDER war to win, but as can be seen by these three events, progress is FINALLY being made. Will it result in some sort of stable, non-extremist government, I don't know, and I can't say. I advocated leaving because I thought we'd gone too far, lost too much, to have a chance. We may not win, but I was wrong, and we have a chance.

The shame of it all is, despite these MASSIVELY more meaningful events than anything Bush ever accomplished in Iraq, Obama is seen as weak. He is anything but in terms of placement of military leaders, of insistence on listening to military and intelligence experts, in terms of gaining the cooperation of reluctant allies, but he IS in terms of holding his political opponent's feet to the fire. In short, Obama may win all the battles, but lose the war (of popular opinion) because rather than engage in the same kind of mean, but effective politics Bush so ably engaged in, Obama desires to be "Presidential" and tactful. If he continues to be unwilling to call a spade a spade, he will see his majority in the House shrink to a very small number, and possibly lose his majority in the Senate - and with it, he will become an impotent President - and with THAT, he likely will not win reelection in 2012, and we will put back in place the same kinds of mendacious people as we ousted in 2008 from the White House. We'll have President Palin or President Huckabee or some other Limbaugh boot-licker who will again neglect Afghanistan and Pakistan and we will see a resurgent extremist movement. If Obama doesn't get that his job is to protect the country first before his legacy as a statesman with a virulently uncooperative Republican party which has shown time and again it puts party and political victory FAR ahead of country - then he is a weak leader and the country will follow him and his legacy down the rat-hole.

Buried in a Peggy Noonan article is the President repeating one of the items I have been trying to explain for some time:"If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression . . . the result is going to be the same. I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us in this fix in the first place." He continued: "If our response ends up being, you know . . . we don't want to stir things up here," then "I don't know why people would say, 'Boy, we really want to make sure those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us.'"I continue to scratch my head when folks support the very policies that got us into this mess, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on.

I think we need to start fresh, with everything on the table. The President makes it clear he is willing to do that!

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

The KSM trials will not be held in New York.

This much is not news, it was inevitable. Even if the trial had started in the city, a change of venue request would have been considered and resolved before the opening arguments were given, and the process for finding another county in New York in which to hold the trial would have taken place. So the recent decision not to have the trials in New York city saves 'We the Taxpayers' a few weeks and a few dollars. Huzzah.

The real issue is whether or not KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), the alleged but obvious mastermind behind the 2001 terrorist attack should be tried by a civilian court or by a military tribunal.

I believe that the main reason that many people assume that KSM should be tried by tribunal is that he is not an American citizen, and therefore not a civilian. This is erroneous because it assumes that the status of “civilian” is reserved only for Americans. I’m sure there are plenty of Europeans (to name a few) that consider themselves civilians. [Tomorrow’s headline: ROMAN POLANSKI TO FACE MILITARY TRIBUNAL.] KSM is a civilian, if not an American. But this does not preclude a military tribunal. After all, civilians can also be soldiers. Anyone who is a prisoner of war is subject to military tribunal. KSM is most definitely a prisoner, but prisoner of war?

Five men do not an army make.

What are the grounds by which these terrorists are considered military? They are not soldiers. They are not generals. They are evil mass murdering madmen.

That is not to say that we are not at war.

We declared war against Iraq. They were not affiliated with Iraq. We declared war on the Taliban. They were not affiliated with the Taliban.

If a handful of Canadians took down the Sears tower [or whatever they call it these days: money well spent, Whoever Owns the Old Sears Tower] they would not be tried as soldiers, they’d be tried as civilians.

You could argue that they are war criminals because we are fighting a “war on terror”. But we are also fighting a “war on drugs.” When we catch drug dealers and smugglers, we don’t open up tribunals. If that were the case MPs and tanks would be patrolling the corners in Baltimore and Washington.

Conservatives like to lob accusations at Democrats of being fascist, of using the government to oppress the people. What they are asking is for the military to be given powers over civilian matters. I do not personally put a lot of faith in slippery slope arguments, but conspiracy theorist conservatives should be concerned that such a move will eventually lead to martial law. I just want to point out that in the historical pattern of fascism the government does not take over the private sector until the military takes over the government. So people that accuse liberalism as fascism should keep their eye on the military more so than the White House.

Many conservatives equivocate in their translation of “jihad” as a holy war. The terrorists declared their attack as an act of jihad, and conservative America is all too anxious to embrace both aspects of that claim, “holy” and “war.” It makes us feel so very special when God and Country are on the line. We want to believe that our loved ones died for God and the U.S.A., not for Being In the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time and the Borough of Manhattan. The unwilling sacrifice made by the victims of 9/11, including the families, friends, and loved ones of those lost is no less grave or meaningful if you call it a war or an attack. Trying KSM in civilian court will not change the fact that New Yorkers died for their country.

Surprisingly most opposition to a civilian trial for KSM seems to be that it will somehow lead to his acquittal (e.g. Congressman Peter King). Personally I find the opinion that 12 New Yorkers will unanimously find KSM innocent is downright laughable. Even if the defense manages to get 12 Muslim Arab-Americans on the jury, I hardly think they will be falling over themselves to thank KSM for the treatment they’ve been getting in their own country over the last ten years. I think it would be appropriate to give New York City the pleasure of convicting the man that attacked their city, and I wish they would have had the chance.

Of course, realistically speaking, a change of venue would have been inevitable anyway. Even if it wasn’t, there were still the complaints of the added security and its affect on local businesses. This takes us from the debate over whether or not KSM should get a civilian or military trial to the discussion of where the trial should be held and this discussion comes down to one thing.

Money.

The mayor of Newburgh, NY is begging to have the trials in his town... presuming that someone else will foot the bill and bring business to his town. Bloomberg and other city politicians were itching to have the trial in their city, but wanted the White House to foot the bill. Local business people were all in favor of having the trials downtown until they realized that it's not the sort of circus that sells popcorn, it could stretch out over a matter of years, and that the security measures would drive away business.

That this was even a political debate demonstrates nothing else than the state of bipartisanship in America today. When Holder announced his decision, anyone with a political affiliation was itching to find out what side of the fence they were supposed to be on. The blogosphere lit up with various concoctions of how the matter had far more at stake than money, to herd everyone to their designated political seating arrangements. Now that the Big Apple has been eliminated from contention as a location, the bipartisan buzz has died off revealing the real matter: a fight among Democrats about money.

So who should foot the bill?

If I had to venture a prediction, I would expect the same game of musical cities that was inevitable as soon as the closing of Guantanamo was announced. The Feds who are best equipped, will handle the trial in a smaller town which will cut down costs. It will probably be a once notable suburb that wants back on the map for something. And the collection plate will be passed from city to county to state before making the Federal rounds to pay for everything.

If it were up to me?

If the concern is strictly financial I'd set up a military tribunal. It would still cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, but government could bury it under discretionary spending which would keep the general public from further politicizing something that's completely out of their hands anyway.