Article first published as In Politics, Is Your Voice Actually Heard? on Technorati.
By Patrick McCormick
9/27/2010
You care about America. You think of yourself as a good citizen and have strong feelings of association with one political party. You relate to their message. In your heart, you know the changes they want to make are the right changes. You donate money to your party and may even actively campaign; canvass or pick up a sign and wave it at a busy local intersection.
It is important for you to do this; you are a part of the political process. You want to help your party “Save the World”.
Up to this point, we have been discussing your feelings, your beliefs and your stand on the issues, there is another side to the political coin. What does your candidate want? What are his or her beliefs? Where are your candidate’s loyalties? Will they keep their campaign promises to you?
In order to mount a successful political campaign, a candidate must raise huge sums of money for media advertisements. Candidates obtain these sums from large corporations, special interests and even foreign governments. What must a candidate do for this money? It is a fair assumption your candidate promises something that each contributor wants, loyalty on issues important to each donor. To put it simply, campaign contributors want votes.
By the time Election Day arrives, your candidate has made many promises. Not only do they make promises to you, the voter, they make them to their donors as well. Is your candidate honorable? Will he or she represent you as promised? Do promises made to you or the donors ever come into conflict? How will your candidate vote in the event of a conflict; will they represent you or the campaign donor? In the entire political process, how they vote in the event of such conflict is the most important question you can ask.
Ask all you want, our elected officials have passed legislation that allows corporate and special interest donors to keep the amount of their donations for media advertisements secret. You cannot even determine who is giving what to whom. For instance, a foreign government can donate funds to your candidate through a third party organization and you, the voter, cannot obtain that information.
All candidates promise transparency these days. Promises, promises; the minority party recently blocked legislation to make some positive changes in campaign financing with a filibuster. The majority does not seem to be fighting as fervently as they should.
Will the day come when concerned American citizens can obtain accurate information about the sources of funding of their favorite son’s political campaigns? The ability of the voters to verify the integrity of our office holders is at stake. We need to have this information.
It will never happen unless you demand it!
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Top Economists Announce, “Recession is Over”. I Say, "Give Me Some of What They're Smoking"
Commentary by
Patrick McCormick
9/26/2010
The statement from “Top” economists that the recession officially ended in June of 2009, got me to put my “Thinking cap” on. I remembered the old adage, “If you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to accept it as the truth”. What is the truth about our economy?
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), recession is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real gross domestic product (GDP), real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales". More specifically, recession is defined as when businesses cease to expand, the GDP diminishes for two consecutive quarters, the rate of unemployment rises and housing prices decline.
Well… according to government figures, there has been a slight rise in the GDP in the past two quarters. I think the claim that the “Recession” has ended is based on that. Still, I have not seen a lot of positive change.
My analogy would be, “Say you had fallen into a real deep hole and could not get out, then someone threw down a brick for you to stand on. You would be a little closer to the top, but would still be in a real deep hole and unable to climb out.” That is where the American economy is. Way too many people are out of work. Millions are earning less. Interest on our foreign debt is huge. We are definitely still standing in a hole.
It reminds me of the ending of the fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Ripped off by a con man, the Emperor was strutting around naked. Nobody had the courage to tell him the truth.
Today’s economy is shot, it’s an election year. The party in power wants, with all their hearts for this recession to go away. Some “Top Economists” announce, “The recession is over everyone, you can start spending now".
From the edge of the happy crowd, I can hear a small child shout, “Look mommy, the Emperor is naked. Where are his clothes”?
Here is the article I was referring to.
Recession not over, public says
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
September 26, 2010 12:02 p.m. EDT
Seventy-four percent of Americans believe the economy is still in a recession.
Washington (CNN) -- Economic experts may believe the recession is over, but try telling that to the public.
Seventy-four percent of Americans believe the economy is still in a recession, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. Only 25 percent think the downturn is over.
One-third of Americans say the recession is serious, while another 29 percent characterize it as moderate.
One small cause for optimism: the percentage of Americans who say the country is in a recession has dropped 13 points since August.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent group of economists, released a September 20 statement indicating the recession technically ended in June 2009. The dip began in December 2007 -- making it the longest and deepest downturn for the U.S. economy since the Great Depression.
Administration officials, while sounding guardedly optimistic about overall trends, have repeatedly expressed concern for those impacted by the sluggish economy.
"Obviously, for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, [the recession is] still very real for them," President Barack Obama said last week.
The public appears split over the effectiveness of Obama's economic policies. Forty-seven percent of Americans believe the president's policies either have helped boost the economy or will make it better in the future. Forty-eight percent believe Obama's policies will never help improve the economy.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted September 21-23, with 1,010 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
CNN's Keating Holland and Chris Isidore contributed to this report.
Patrick McCormick
9/26/2010
The statement from “Top” economists that the recession officially ended in June of 2009, got me to put my “Thinking cap” on. I remembered the old adage, “If you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to accept it as the truth”. What is the truth about our economy?
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), recession is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real gross domestic product (GDP), real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales". More specifically, recession is defined as when businesses cease to expand, the GDP diminishes for two consecutive quarters, the rate of unemployment rises and housing prices decline.
Well… according to government figures, there has been a slight rise in the GDP in the past two quarters. I think the claim that the “Recession” has ended is based on that. Still, I have not seen a lot of positive change.
My analogy would be, “Say you had fallen into a real deep hole and could not get out, then someone threw down a brick for you to stand on. You would be a little closer to the top, but would still be in a real deep hole and unable to climb out.” That is where the American economy is. Way too many people are out of work. Millions are earning less. Interest on our foreign debt is huge. We are definitely still standing in a hole.
It reminds me of the ending of the fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Ripped off by a con man, the Emperor was strutting around naked. Nobody had the courage to tell him the truth.
Today’s economy is shot, it’s an election year. The party in power wants, with all their hearts for this recession to go away. Some “Top Economists” announce, “The recession is over everyone, you can start spending now".
From the edge of the happy crowd, I can hear a small child shout, “Look mommy, the Emperor is naked. Where are his clothes”?
Here is the article I was referring to.
Recession not over, public says
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
September 26, 2010 12:02 p.m. EDT
Seventy-four percent of Americans believe the economy is still in a recession.
Washington (CNN) -- Economic experts may believe the recession is over, but try telling that to the public.
Seventy-four percent of Americans believe the economy is still in a recession, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. Only 25 percent think the downturn is over.
One-third of Americans say the recession is serious, while another 29 percent characterize it as moderate.
One small cause for optimism: the percentage of Americans who say the country is in a recession has dropped 13 points since August.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent group of economists, released a September 20 statement indicating the recession technically ended in June 2009. The dip began in December 2007 -- making it the longest and deepest downturn for the U.S. economy since the Great Depression.
Administration officials, while sounding guardedly optimistic about overall trends, have repeatedly expressed concern for those impacted by the sluggish economy.
"Obviously, for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, [the recession is] still very real for them," President Barack Obama said last week.
The public appears split over the effectiveness of Obama's economic policies. Forty-seven percent of Americans believe the president's policies either have helped boost the economy or will make it better in the future. Forty-eight percent believe Obama's policies will never help improve the economy.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted September 21-23, with 1,010 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
CNN's Keating Holland and Chris Isidore contributed to this report.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The People are Losing Confidence in Their Government…...Really !
Commentary by
Patrick McCormick
I was reading some commentary in the Washington Post about Democrats losing confidence in their government..I had to laugh. Of course the people are losing confidence in the Democrats, the Republicans too. For all of the money taxpayers pay them to handle the affairs of state...very little has been done.
A leader must earn the confidence of his, or her, people. It is extremely difficult to have confidence in a government that has spent the last two years arguing politics and trading insults while those people are suffering. Many citizens have lost jobs or are earning less and waiting for leaders to keep their campaign promises. Promised chicken in their pots, they have no reason to remain loyal while their pots are still empty.
"Why our leaders have not come to the bargaining table to do something constructive", is a question that most of US are asking. It is apparent they all care more about their own reelections than they care about the citizens of this Republic.
The people understand that they would not lose much if they voted all incumbents out of office. After all, what good is an experienced Senator or member of the House of Representatives if they do not put that knowledge and experience to work for the people?
Read the Post article. If you still have a job, you might get a little laugh yourself.
Even Dems are fast losing confidence in gov't
A Gallup poll out today sheds some new light on all the talk about the "enthusiasm gap": It finds that confidence in the legislative branch has dropped most precipitiously among Democrats.
The poll's toplines are worrisome enough for Dems: Confidence in the legislative branch is at a record low of 36 percent. That's yet another sign of all the anti-incumbent sentiment we keep hearing about. But, even more ominously for Dems, this drop is driven almost entirely by Democratic voters:
As you can see, confidence in the legislative branch has dropped an astonishing 14 points among Dems since last year, to a bare majority of 51 percent.. By contrast the drop in confidence among Republicans and independents is minimal, since it was much lower to begin with.
There are a whole bunch of possible causes for this. Maybe the strategy of GOP obstructionism is working brilliantly: The inability of Dem leaders to prevail, and the resulting sense of government dysfunction, is deflating Dem confidence. Maybe it's the economy -- though it's unclear why that would disproportionately impact Dems.
Or maybe this is more evidence of a much-remarked-upon phenomenon: Dem euphoria upon taking control of the whole government was so high that a steep fall was inevitable. Whatever the cause, this really drives home, again, the folly of the Dem decision to punt on the middle class tax cuts vote. Simply put, rank and file Dems need to have their confidence restored -- and fast.
Yes, I know, it isn't fair that Dems have lost confidence. The Dem Congress has already passed a whole bunch of wonderful things, and every time they fail it's the fault of mean and nasty Republicans. Still: repeating that argument again and again just isn't going to cut it.
Needless to say, taking a stand on something difficult, laying down a marker and fighting for it, even if it results in a loss, is certainly more likely to restore confidence than dithering, equivocating, handwringing about procedure, and basically throwing up your hands and saying, "No we can't." After all, time is hardly on Dems' side here. They can hardly afford to squander any opportunities.
By Greg Sargent | September 24, 2010; 2:20 PM ET
Patrick McCormick
I was reading some commentary in the Washington Post about Democrats losing confidence in their government..I had to laugh. Of course the people are losing confidence in the Democrats, the Republicans too. For all of the money taxpayers pay them to handle the affairs of state...very little has been done.
A leader must earn the confidence of his, or her, people. It is extremely difficult to have confidence in a government that has spent the last two years arguing politics and trading insults while those people are suffering. Many citizens have lost jobs or are earning less and waiting for leaders to keep their campaign promises. Promised chicken in their pots, they have no reason to remain loyal while their pots are still empty.
"Why our leaders have not come to the bargaining table to do something constructive", is a question that most of US are asking. It is apparent they all care more about their own reelections than they care about the citizens of this Republic.
The people understand that they would not lose much if they voted all incumbents out of office. After all, what good is an experienced Senator or member of the House of Representatives if they do not put that knowledge and experience to work for the people?
Read the Post article. If you still have a job, you might get a little laugh yourself.
Even Dems are fast losing confidence in gov't
A Gallup poll out today sheds some new light on all the talk about the "enthusiasm gap": It finds that confidence in the legislative branch has dropped most precipitiously among Democrats.
The poll's toplines are worrisome enough for Dems: Confidence in the legislative branch is at a record low of 36 percent. That's yet another sign of all the anti-incumbent sentiment we keep hearing about. But, even more ominously for Dems, this drop is driven almost entirely by Democratic voters:
As you can see, confidence in the legislative branch has dropped an astonishing 14 points among Dems since last year, to a bare majority of 51 percent.. By contrast the drop in confidence among Republicans and independents is minimal, since it was much lower to begin with.
There are a whole bunch of possible causes for this. Maybe the strategy of GOP obstructionism is working brilliantly: The inability of Dem leaders to prevail, and the resulting sense of government dysfunction, is deflating Dem confidence. Maybe it's the economy -- though it's unclear why that would disproportionately impact Dems.
Or maybe this is more evidence of a much-remarked-upon phenomenon: Dem euphoria upon taking control of the whole government was so high that a steep fall was inevitable. Whatever the cause, this really drives home, again, the folly of the Dem decision to punt on the middle class tax cuts vote. Simply put, rank and file Dems need to have their confidence restored -- and fast.
Yes, I know, it isn't fair that Dems have lost confidence. The Dem Congress has already passed a whole bunch of wonderful things, and every time they fail it's the fault of mean and nasty Republicans. Still: repeating that argument again and again just isn't going to cut it.
Needless to say, taking a stand on something difficult, laying down a marker and fighting for it, even if it results in a loss, is certainly more likely to restore confidence than dithering, equivocating, handwringing about procedure, and basically throwing up your hands and saying, "No we can't." After all, time is hardly on Dems' side here. They can hardly afford to squander any opportunities.
By Greg Sargent | September 24, 2010; 2:20 PM ET
The GOP and “The Fruit of the Tree”
By Patrick McCormick
9/24/2010
President Obama stated publicly that campaign financing could lead to a “Corporate Takeover of America”. His argument was a chilling warning for any Constitutional Patriot to hear. His speech made a lot of sense and carried the “Ring of Liberty” in its message. It was a warning all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should heed.
American citizens have the right to know who is funding their candidates. If an elected official votes for a cause or an issue simply because some corporation, special interest group or foreign government wants that vote, that official is selling out his own constituency as well as the people of the United States. It is my opinion, “Trading votes for cash is a criminal act and should be regarded as one”.
As the situation exists today, voters are unable to tell where a candidates funding comes from or how much any donor gave. With that information, voters could check on the voting record of his or her particular representatives and determine for themselves if their congressional representative or senator was voting for the people or the special interests. It is important information for all citizens to possess.
The GOP’s new Pledge seems to indicate a promise to represent the People and their Constitution. However, they just blocked the Democrats from passing a Bill that would make campaign contributions more transparent and put limitations on the amounts of donations.
Regardless of your religious beliefs, Jesus Christ warned about false prophets in his “Sermon on the Mount”. That wisdom, if applied to any of life’s encounters, will lead to the truth. Christ stated that you could tell someone’s true intentions by examining their deeds and not heading their words.
Apply this wisdom to the GOP’s new Pledge and compare the stated intentions in that document against the filibuster to block transparency in campaign funding. It becomes apparent what our republican politicians want and whom they really work for; it is not US.
I have included part of President Obama’s speech on the threat of corporate campaign contributions as well as today’s Washington Post article. Think about it.
Published: Aug. 21, 2010 at 6:01 AM WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 (UPI)
U.S. President Barack Obama Saturday warned of a "corporate takeover" of democracy and said Republicans want the public kept "in the dark" on campaign funding.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, the Democratic president found fault with a Supreme Court ruling that permits corporations, unions and other organizations to spend "unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections."
"They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads -- and worst of all, they don't even have to reveal who is actually paying for them," he said.
"A group can hide behind a phony name like 'Citizens for a Better Future,' even if a more accurate name would be 'Corporations for Weaker Oversight.'"
He blamed GOP leaders for killing legislation this summer that would require "corporate political advertisers to reveal who's funding their activities."
(The remained of this article is listed on Aug 21 on this blog)
Today in the Washington Post:
Senate Democrats again fail to pass campaign disclosure law
By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 23, 2010; 11:10 PM
Senate Democrats failed again Thursday in their attempt to require corporations, unions and other interest groups to provide more details about their political spending.
The measure, known as the Disclose Act, fell one vote short of the 60 needed to break a GOP filibuster in the divided Senate, with Republicans uniformly opposed to the bill. The legislation had also been blocked by Senate Republicans during an earlier vote in July.
The 59-39 vote marks a bitter defeat for Democratic leaders and President Obama, who has repeatedly urged Congress to pass the bill in response to a Supreme Court ruling lifting restrictions on corporate and union political spending.
The outcome represents a major victory for Republicans and major business groups, which lobbied hard against a proposal that they said was an attempt by Democrats to silence GOP-leaning business groups.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) called the proposal a "cynical, partisan bill designed to silence the free speech of Congress's critics and to protect Democrat incumbents."
Proponents argued that voters deserve to know the identities of donors bankrolling outside advertising that has played an increasingly pivotal role in U.S. elections. Under the bill defeated Thursday, corporations and most interest groups would have been subject to stricter financial disclosure requirements.
The measure also would have broadened restrictions on foreign-controlled companies and required heads of companies and interest groups to appear on camera during their political spots.
Democratic leaders expressed frustration Thursday at the unwillingness of GOP moderates, such as Maine Sens. Susan Collins (R) or Olympia Snowe (R), to allow the measure to move forward. Democratic leaders had signaled a willingness to debate changes to the legislation, including delaying its implementation until January.
"Republicans continue to block the Senate from even debating common-sense oversight to bring transparency to our campaign finance laws," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement. "The outcome of today's vote shows the difference between Democrats who believe voters should be in control of our elections and Republicans who want to allow big corporations to buy their outcomes behind closed doors."
Interest groups and political parties have reported $87 million in independent spending so far in this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Democratic aides had acknowledged even before Thursday's vote that they were unlikely to get any Republicans to break ranks with their party. But several aides said they were hopeful the defeat would provide benefits by allowing Democrats to tie the GOP to corporate interests ahead of the midterm elections.
The legislation, which passed the House in a different form earlier this year, was drafted as a response to the 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court found that corporations had the same rights as individuals to engage in political speech and could therefore spend as much as they wanted for or against specific candidates.
Obama pointedly criticized the ruling during his State of the Union address, prompting an unusual public objection weeks later by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The president and other White House aides have continued to focus on the decision as opening the door to abuses by corporations and had made passage of the Disclose Act a top legislative priority.
In his weekly radio address last Saturday, for example, Obama blasted Republicans for opposing the bill. "A partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents," Obama said. "It's a power grab, pure and simple."
Despite the Disclose Act defeat, activists in favor of changing campaign finance rules celebrated a small victory in the House on Thursday: The Committee on House Administration passed the Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow candidates to receive 4-to-1 matching funds culled from broadcasting license fees by agreeing to limit themselves to donations of $100 or less. The fate of the bill remains unclear, however.
9/24/2010
President Obama stated publicly that campaign financing could lead to a “Corporate Takeover of America”. His argument was a chilling warning for any Constitutional Patriot to hear. His speech made a lot of sense and carried the “Ring of Liberty” in its message. It was a warning all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should heed.
American citizens have the right to know who is funding their candidates. If an elected official votes for a cause or an issue simply because some corporation, special interest group or foreign government wants that vote, that official is selling out his own constituency as well as the people of the United States. It is my opinion, “Trading votes for cash is a criminal act and should be regarded as one”.
As the situation exists today, voters are unable to tell where a candidates funding comes from or how much any donor gave. With that information, voters could check on the voting record of his or her particular representatives and determine for themselves if their congressional representative or senator was voting for the people or the special interests. It is important information for all citizens to possess.
The GOP’s new Pledge seems to indicate a promise to represent the People and their Constitution. However, they just blocked the Democrats from passing a Bill that would make campaign contributions more transparent and put limitations on the amounts of donations.
Regardless of your religious beliefs, Jesus Christ warned about false prophets in his “Sermon on the Mount”. That wisdom, if applied to any of life’s encounters, will lead to the truth. Christ stated that you could tell someone’s true intentions by examining their deeds and not heading their words.
Apply this wisdom to the GOP’s new Pledge and compare the stated intentions in that document against the filibuster to block transparency in campaign funding. It becomes apparent what our republican politicians want and whom they really work for; it is not US.
I have included part of President Obama’s speech on the threat of corporate campaign contributions as well as today’s Washington Post article. Think about it.
Published: Aug. 21, 2010 at 6:01 AM WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 (UPI)
U.S. President Barack Obama Saturday warned of a "corporate takeover" of democracy and said Republicans want the public kept "in the dark" on campaign funding.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, the Democratic president found fault with a Supreme Court ruling that permits corporations, unions and other organizations to spend "unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections."
"They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads -- and worst of all, they don't even have to reveal who is actually paying for them," he said.
"A group can hide behind a phony name like 'Citizens for a Better Future,' even if a more accurate name would be 'Corporations for Weaker Oversight.'"
He blamed GOP leaders for killing legislation this summer that would require "corporate political advertisers to reveal who's funding their activities."
(The remained of this article is listed on Aug 21 on this blog)
Today in the Washington Post:
Senate Democrats again fail to pass campaign disclosure law
By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 23, 2010; 11:10 PM
Senate Democrats failed again Thursday in their attempt to require corporations, unions and other interest groups to provide more details about their political spending.
The measure, known as the Disclose Act, fell one vote short of the 60 needed to break a GOP filibuster in the divided Senate, with Republicans uniformly opposed to the bill. The legislation had also been blocked by Senate Republicans during an earlier vote in July.
The 59-39 vote marks a bitter defeat for Democratic leaders and President Obama, who has repeatedly urged Congress to pass the bill in response to a Supreme Court ruling lifting restrictions on corporate and union political spending.
The outcome represents a major victory for Republicans and major business groups, which lobbied hard against a proposal that they said was an attempt by Democrats to silence GOP-leaning business groups.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) called the proposal a "cynical, partisan bill designed to silence the free speech of Congress's critics and to protect Democrat incumbents."
Proponents argued that voters deserve to know the identities of donors bankrolling outside advertising that has played an increasingly pivotal role in U.S. elections. Under the bill defeated Thursday, corporations and most interest groups would have been subject to stricter financial disclosure requirements.
The measure also would have broadened restrictions on foreign-controlled companies and required heads of companies and interest groups to appear on camera during their political spots.
Democratic leaders expressed frustration Thursday at the unwillingness of GOP moderates, such as Maine Sens. Susan Collins (R) or Olympia Snowe (R), to allow the measure to move forward. Democratic leaders had signaled a willingness to debate changes to the legislation, including delaying its implementation until January.
"Republicans continue to block the Senate from even debating common-sense oversight to bring transparency to our campaign finance laws," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement. "The outcome of today's vote shows the difference between Democrats who believe voters should be in control of our elections and Republicans who want to allow big corporations to buy their outcomes behind closed doors."
Interest groups and political parties have reported $87 million in independent spending so far in this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Democratic aides had acknowledged even before Thursday's vote that they were unlikely to get any Republicans to break ranks with their party. But several aides said they were hopeful the defeat would provide benefits by allowing Democrats to tie the GOP to corporate interests ahead of the midterm elections.
The legislation, which passed the House in a different form earlier this year, was drafted as a response to the 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court found that corporations had the same rights as individuals to engage in political speech and could therefore spend as much as they wanted for or against specific candidates.
Obama pointedly criticized the ruling during his State of the Union address, prompting an unusual public objection weeks later by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The president and other White House aides have continued to focus on the decision as opening the door to abuses by corporations and had made passage of the Disclose Act a top legislative priority.
In his weekly radio address last Saturday, for example, Obama blasted Republicans for opposing the bill. "A partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents," Obama said. "It's a power grab, pure and simple."
Despite the Disclose Act defeat, activists in favor of changing campaign finance rules celebrated a small victory in the House on Thursday: The Committee on House Administration passed the Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow candidates to receive 4-to-1 matching funds culled from broadcasting license fees by agreeing to limit themselves to donations of $100 or less. The fate of the bill remains unclear, however.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The GOP Pledge… an Empty Taco…"Where’s the Beef" ?
Commentary by
Patrick McCormick
9/23/2010
Talk about being out of touch with the people, I was expecting to read some kind of plan. After two years criticizing the President and blocking legislation, there are some crucial elements missing from the “Pledge”.
How will the Grand Old Party stimulate the creation of Jobs? Is it their plan to simply extend Bush era Tax Incentives for businesses and the wealthy? What is the cost of that going to be?
How are we going to pay back the monstrous debit rung up by the Bush and Obama administrations? New Jobs, the kind that make things and pay federal income taxes are what the America needs to help get its “Bottom Line” back into the black.
What is the GOP plan to reduce the trillions of dollars worth of overseas debit created by the tremendous “Imbalance of Trade”? If we continue going down the same road as before, we will come to a place called “Financial Ruin”.
The GOP plan wants to stop funding abortions. That is a direct appeal for votes from the religious right, but will not save much cash or create jobs.
The “Pledge” does not address the environment, are we just going to ignore environmental problems until times get better? We have done that since humanity started burning coal. Why not stimulate the production of “Green Technology” and “Renewable Sources of Energy” to create some new jobs.
After two years of denouncing legislation proposed by their Democratic opposition, it would be fair to assume our minority leaders had some actual plans, some new ideas, some “Beef”; obviously, they do not.
I am as fed up with our stagnant economy as any American citizen. I am willing to vote for anyone with an agenda designed to get US out of this hole. Will that person please stand up.
To Watch "Where's the Beef" commercial go to sidebar >>>>
Patrick McCormick
9/23/2010
Talk about being out of touch with the people, I was expecting to read some kind of plan. After two years criticizing the President and blocking legislation, there are some crucial elements missing from the “Pledge”.
How will the Grand Old Party stimulate the creation of Jobs? Is it their plan to simply extend Bush era Tax Incentives for businesses and the wealthy? What is the cost of that going to be?
How are we going to pay back the monstrous debit rung up by the Bush and Obama administrations? New Jobs, the kind that make things and pay federal income taxes are what the America needs to help get its “Bottom Line” back into the black.
What is the GOP plan to reduce the trillions of dollars worth of overseas debit created by the tremendous “Imbalance of Trade”? If we continue going down the same road as before, we will come to a place called “Financial Ruin”.
The GOP plan wants to stop funding abortions. That is a direct appeal for votes from the religious right, but will not save much cash or create jobs.
The “Pledge” does not address the environment, are we just going to ignore environmental problems until times get better? We have done that since humanity started burning coal. Why not stimulate the production of “Green Technology” and “Renewable Sources of Energy” to create some new jobs.
After two years of denouncing legislation proposed by their Democratic opposition, it would be fair to assume our minority leaders had some actual plans, some new ideas, some “Beef”; obviously, they do not.
I am as fed up with our stagnant economy as any American citizen. I am willing to vote for anyone with an agenda designed to get US out of this hole. Will that person please stand up.
To Watch "Where's the Beef" commercial go to sidebar >>>>
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Tea Party and “The Art of War”
Commentary by
Patrick McCormick
9/22/2010
An article appeared in the Washington Post today titled;
“The tea party, Wikipedia and al-Qaeda: shared leadership lessons?"
The Post article speaks of reasons the Tea Party could have achieved their recent successes without formal leadership. It made me stop and think for a moment, “How could an organization without a leader win a string of victories”. The question poses an enigma.
Politics is similar to warfare. The success or failure of any political campaign is subject to the same criteria as a military campaign. Strategy and tactics, intelligence, terrain, the strength and weaknesses of your opponent are all important factors in the pursuit of military victory. The rules of war hold true for politics.
History teaches that it is possible to win many battles and still lose the war. A good overall strategy is necessary if a nation desires to achieve battlefield successes and defeat an opponent. What purpose would it serve to mount a large campaign without a plan to win the endgame?
Can the Tea Party actually be a “Ship without a rudder”, and win their war? According to the greatest military mind of all times, the answer is “No”.
Sun Tzu commanded armies around 600 BC. Successful battlefield commanders and business executives still study his writings today. Following his principles of warfare, many great leaders have vanquished their opponents. Ignoring them has led hundreds of ill-prepared commanders down the road to defeat and humiliation.
I suspect that somewhere there is a single intelligence behind current Tea Party Successes. Deception is another key to Sun Tzu’s formula for supremacy in warfare. He said, “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
He expanded this philosophy by advising, “Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.”
When I study the movements and successes of the Tea Party, I see evidence of intelligent direction and unified strategy. I suppose that we will have to wait a while longer to see if I am right or wrong. If the Tea Party really is a ship without a captain, it will sail aimlessly until it founders in some future storm or crashes onto some rocky shore.
If I am correct in my assumption, establishment politicians are dealing with a great field commander. Tea Party candidates may lose a battle here and there, but a brilliant general will win the war for them. I see evidence the tide is turning in that direction.
The Washington Post article follows.
"The tea party, Wikipedia and al-Qaeda: shared leadership lessons?"
Q: Has the recent success of the Tea Party come because of, or in spite of, the movement's lack of a formal leadership structure? Along with Wikipedia, open-source software and organizations like moveon.org, is this another example of the power of distributed leadership?
It's interesting that the two organizations that best exemplify "distributed leadership" (or at least get the most attention for making use of it) are the Tea Party and al-Qaeda. Both illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this approach to leadership.
On the positive side, having no one leader at the top empowers many more people and fosters more creativity than traditionally hierarchical organizations can muster. This can result in a more diverse set of strategies ("laboratories of the states," if you will) and infuse more energy into a movement than would otherwise be the case. It can also make it more difficult for opponents, enemies or business competitors to mount a counter-strategy, since there may be no one strategy to counter.
At the same time, distributed leadership poses a host of challenges that must be overcome. "Subsidiaries," "factions" or "chapters" in different states or countries can work at cross-purposes with one another, create confusion about mission that can frustrate or drive away members and/or potential enlistees, duplicate efforts and suffer from lack of scale (in fundraising, for instance).
If you're Wikipedia and trying to provide free information to people, these liabilities are one thing and may not be fatal. It's quite another to be aspiring to revolutionize politics (Tea Party) or overthrow a secular, Western democratic model of governing (al-Qaeda). I like Wikipedia's chances much more.
BY PAUL R. PORTNEY
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010; 5:15 PM ET
Patrick McCormick
9/22/2010
An article appeared in the Washington Post today titled;
“The tea party, Wikipedia and al-Qaeda: shared leadership lessons?"
The Post article speaks of reasons the Tea Party could have achieved their recent successes without formal leadership. It made me stop and think for a moment, “How could an organization without a leader win a string of victories”. The question poses an enigma.
Politics is similar to warfare. The success or failure of any political campaign is subject to the same criteria as a military campaign. Strategy and tactics, intelligence, terrain, the strength and weaknesses of your opponent are all important factors in the pursuit of military victory. The rules of war hold true for politics.
History teaches that it is possible to win many battles and still lose the war. A good overall strategy is necessary if a nation desires to achieve battlefield successes and defeat an opponent. What purpose would it serve to mount a large campaign without a plan to win the endgame?
Can the Tea Party actually be a “Ship without a rudder”, and win their war? According to the greatest military mind of all times, the answer is “No”.
Sun Tzu commanded armies around 600 BC. Successful battlefield commanders and business executives still study his writings today. Following his principles of warfare, many great leaders have vanquished their opponents. Ignoring them has led hundreds of ill-prepared commanders down the road to defeat and humiliation.
I suspect that somewhere there is a single intelligence behind current Tea Party Successes. Deception is another key to Sun Tzu’s formula for supremacy in warfare. He said, “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
He expanded this philosophy by advising, “Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.”
When I study the movements and successes of the Tea Party, I see evidence of intelligent direction and unified strategy. I suppose that we will have to wait a while longer to see if I am right or wrong. If the Tea Party really is a ship without a captain, it will sail aimlessly until it founders in some future storm or crashes onto some rocky shore.
If I am correct in my assumption, establishment politicians are dealing with a great field commander. Tea Party candidates may lose a battle here and there, but a brilliant general will win the war for them. I see evidence the tide is turning in that direction.
The Washington Post article follows.
"The tea party, Wikipedia and al-Qaeda: shared leadership lessons?"
Q: Has the recent success of the Tea Party come because of, or in spite of, the movement's lack of a formal leadership structure? Along with Wikipedia, open-source software and organizations like moveon.org, is this another example of the power of distributed leadership?
It's interesting that the two organizations that best exemplify "distributed leadership" (or at least get the most attention for making use of it) are the Tea Party and al-Qaeda. Both illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this approach to leadership.
On the positive side, having no one leader at the top empowers many more people and fosters more creativity than traditionally hierarchical organizations can muster. This can result in a more diverse set of strategies ("laboratories of the states," if you will) and infuse more energy into a movement than would otherwise be the case. It can also make it more difficult for opponents, enemies or business competitors to mount a counter-strategy, since there may be no one strategy to counter.
At the same time, distributed leadership poses a host of challenges that must be overcome. "Subsidiaries," "factions" or "chapters" in different states or countries can work at cross-purposes with one another, create confusion about mission that can frustrate or drive away members and/or potential enlistees, duplicate efforts and suffer from lack of scale (in fundraising, for instance).
If you're Wikipedia and trying to provide free information to people, these liabilities are one thing and may not be fatal. It's quite another to be aspiring to revolutionize politics (Tea Party) or overthrow a secular, Western democratic model of governing (al-Qaeda). I like Wikipedia's chances much more.
BY PAUL R. PORTNEY
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010; 5:15 PM ET
Monday, September 20, 2010
Politics… is it a Game or a “Shell Game”?
Commentary by
Patrick McCormick
9/20/2010
An important election is coming this November. How does the average American know where to cast their vote? Determining the answer to that question may be more difficult then figuring out which shell hides the proverbial pea.
People select “Their” candidate for many reasons; they like their looks, they like their position on certain issues, they may simply align themselves with the political party their candidate represents. Once a voter “Locks onto” a candidate, anything is possible. He, or she, will argue that candidate’s worth with friends and strangers alike. Perhaps they will actively campaign, take a sign with a catchy slogan out to a busy intersection and jump up and down for passing automobiles. They may even donate their hard-earned cash.
Here’s the rub; candidates choose their position on the issues carefully. None of them want to have the same agenda as the other candidates. It is important for them to offer a clear choice for the voters, you and me, US. So, they hire a group of consultants to create, and maintain, their “Public Image”. I suspect these consultants even help them determine whether or not to dye their hair, get a Botox treatment or a quick nip and tuck. Above all things, a candidate has to appeal the voters.
While the consultants in the back room are working on the image factor, which includes campaign promises for the voters, the candidate is out raising campaign funds. Most of the necessary cash comes from large corporate donors and other special interest groups. These organizations do not give something for nothing. They get support on issues relevant to their continued operation or objectives. This support comes in the form of votes. It takes a lot of money to run an effective campaign. A candidate has to make a lot of promises to their donors in order to raise what’s needed. Do those promises conflict with the promises made to the voters? It would be necessary to match the candidates voting record after he/she takes office with their campaign promises and then match the same record to the goals of the special interests. . Although this would seem to be very important, I suspect “Most voters never look”.
Look back at all of the elections you can remember. How may campaign promises were actually kept winners of those elections. I would be willing to bet you that the answer is a very low number.
President Bush promised physical austerity and smaller government. He invaded two countries and allowed the banks to sell millions of mortgages to unqualified individuals. His administration inherited a virtually debt free government from President Clinton and left us wallowing in trillions of dollars worth of debt.
President Obama promised to reduce our debt, give US a cleaner government, create jobs, stimulate renewable energy, work on environmental issues and provide fair health insurance for all. His batting average is a poor one.
Look at the Tea Party. They promise to Support Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, A Free Market, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. They believe the observance by the government of those core values is critical to the security and personal and economic liberties of all U.S. citizens.
What appears to lead and inspire participants involved in the American Tea Party Movement is the concept that "there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual."
On the surface, the Tea Party looks promising. However, their candidates have to raise a lot of money, just like the other guys. They get their campaign cash the same way the other guys do. They make promises to the same organizations the other guys do. They can’t possibly keep any more of their promises than the other guys do. If Tea Party Candidates were truly out to reform our government processes, a great place to start would be to completely reveal their sources of campaign finances; make them totally transparent. I doubt that any Tea Party Candidate would do this.
I would have to say the same for the old guard Republicans or the Democrats. Most of them are promising “Transparency in government”. I say, “Lay it on the line and show US where your funding is coming from”. My common sense tells me, “Any politician that refuses to make their funding transparent is playing the “Shell Game” with US”.
Politics is much more complicated than the picture I have painted here. There are many more factors involved in the election process and the effectiveness of Political Office Holders than I have mentioned. Politics is a complicated game.
What I wanted to point out is that all candidates make campaign promises to the voters. All candidates have to raise campaign funds for which they make more promises to special interest groups. Once in office, the newly elected have obligations to both groups. Which of the promises are they most likely to keep; who knows. We could track that after the election if we knew how much money they raised and where it came from. Unfortunately, that is an impossible task because our office holders passed laws allowing the concealment of those facts from US. That means a voter cannot actually check on his, or her, candidate and determine if they were working to represent them or the special interest groups that funded their campaigns.
As I inferred in the beginning, “It’s a Shell Game”. All politicians make great campaign promises. In an actual Shell Game, your chances of selecting the shell that covers the pea are slim. Your chances of voting for a candidate that will keep all of their campaign promises are equally slim.
That’s politics folks, part of the game is to figure out the ending.
Patrick McCormick
9/20/2010
An important election is coming this November. How does the average American know where to cast their vote? Determining the answer to that question may be more difficult then figuring out which shell hides the proverbial pea.
People select “Their” candidate for many reasons; they like their looks, they like their position on certain issues, they may simply align themselves with the political party their candidate represents. Once a voter “Locks onto” a candidate, anything is possible. He, or she, will argue that candidate’s worth with friends and strangers alike. Perhaps they will actively campaign, take a sign with a catchy slogan out to a busy intersection and jump up and down for passing automobiles. They may even donate their hard-earned cash.
Here’s the rub; candidates choose their position on the issues carefully. None of them want to have the same agenda as the other candidates. It is important for them to offer a clear choice for the voters, you and me, US. So, they hire a group of consultants to create, and maintain, their “Public Image”. I suspect these consultants even help them determine whether or not to dye their hair, get a Botox treatment or a quick nip and tuck. Above all things, a candidate has to appeal the voters.
While the consultants in the back room are working on the image factor, which includes campaign promises for the voters, the candidate is out raising campaign funds. Most of the necessary cash comes from large corporate donors and other special interest groups. These organizations do not give something for nothing. They get support on issues relevant to their continued operation or objectives. This support comes in the form of votes. It takes a lot of money to run an effective campaign. A candidate has to make a lot of promises to their donors in order to raise what’s needed. Do those promises conflict with the promises made to the voters? It would be necessary to match the candidates voting record after he/she takes office with their campaign promises and then match the same record to the goals of the special interests. . Although this would seem to be very important, I suspect “Most voters never look”.
Look back at all of the elections you can remember. How may campaign promises were actually kept winners of those elections. I would be willing to bet you that the answer is a very low number.
President Bush promised physical austerity and smaller government. He invaded two countries and allowed the banks to sell millions of mortgages to unqualified individuals. His administration inherited a virtually debt free government from President Clinton and left us wallowing in trillions of dollars worth of debt.
President Obama promised to reduce our debt, give US a cleaner government, create jobs, stimulate renewable energy, work on environmental issues and provide fair health insurance for all. His batting average is a poor one.
Look at the Tea Party. They promise to Support Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, A Free Market, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. They believe the observance by the government of those core values is critical to the security and personal and economic liberties of all U.S. citizens.
What appears to lead and inspire participants involved in the American Tea Party Movement is the concept that "there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual."
On the surface, the Tea Party looks promising. However, their candidates have to raise a lot of money, just like the other guys. They get their campaign cash the same way the other guys do. They make promises to the same organizations the other guys do. They can’t possibly keep any more of their promises than the other guys do. If Tea Party Candidates were truly out to reform our government processes, a great place to start would be to completely reveal their sources of campaign finances; make them totally transparent. I doubt that any Tea Party Candidate would do this.
I would have to say the same for the old guard Republicans or the Democrats. Most of them are promising “Transparency in government”. I say, “Lay it on the line and show US where your funding is coming from”. My common sense tells me, “Any politician that refuses to make their funding transparent is playing the “Shell Game” with US”.
Politics is much more complicated than the picture I have painted here. There are many more factors involved in the election process and the effectiveness of Political Office Holders than I have mentioned. Politics is a complicated game.
What I wanted to point out is that all candidates make campaign promises to the voters. All candidates have to raise campaign funds for which they make more promises to special interest groups. Once in office, the newly elected have obligations to both groups. Which of the promises are they most likely to keep; who knows. We could track that after the election if we knew how much money they raised and where it came from. Unfortunately, that is an impossible task because our office holders passed laws allowing the concealment of those facts from US. That means a voter cannot actually check on his, or her, candidate and determine if they were working to represent them or the special interest groups that funded their campaigns.
As I inferred in the beginning, “It’s a Shell Game”. All politicians make great campaign promises. In an actual Shell Game, your chances of selecting the shell that covers the pea are slim. Your chances of voting for a candidate that will keep all of their campaign promises are equally slim.
That’s politics folks, part of the game is to figure out the ending.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
NASA Space Program; Two Steps Forward, One Step Back .
Commentary by
Patrick McCormick
9/19/2010
Is the United States willingly taking a “Second Seat” in space exploration? We had a good thing going with our Space Shuttle. It was far ahead of anything else the other nations had to offer. There was a time we could have done anything we wanted out there.
Think of the technological advancements in medicine, astronomy, computer technology and metallurgy, to name a few, the Space Program brought to US. Think about Japan, China and India providing them for US now. We gave the world the fruit of our technological advancements. Does anyone believe the world will be as generous to US?
We did not fund the Space Program for national pride alone. It was big business. It gave US a big business advantage over the rest of the world. Financially, is it a good idea to abandon our lead now? How much would it really cost US to refurbish a pair of our old shuttles?
A couple of adventurous wars in the Middle East and a severe recession and we no longer have the financial means to carry the torch. Is it wise to "Throw in the towel" and let the Russian, Diving Bell shaped, Space Taxi” ferry us to the space station at 35 million per seat. That antique still lands with a parachute.
The Boeing CST-100, Follow Link, is another “Diving Bell”. The glory days of our magnificent Space Shuttles are gone. I would like to see the Boeing device carry a replacement for the Hubble telescope or use its hydraulic arm to swing a new segment for the International Space Station into place; it does not have one.
The thoughts of all of the brave men and women that led US into space, and the risks they willingly shouldered for our nation, brings a tear to my eye. I feel anger building when I dwell on the political follies of the past ten years and some of the things we have lost because of them. The Space Program was not a waste of money; we flew with it into this technological age.
Read the following article in shame.
Spacecraft Could Carry Seven People and Fly in Low-Earth Orbit
XCOR Aerospace joins the space tourism game with competitive pricing.
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Boeing Co plans to offer passengers the chance to fly into space on a craft it is developing for travel in low-Earth orbit, the aerospace company said on Wednesday.
Boeing said it reached an agreement with Virginia-based Space Adventures to market passenger seats on commercial flights aboard Boeing's CST-100 space vehicle being developed for NASA.
The spacecraft could carry seven people and fly in low-Earth orbit as soon as 2015, Boeing said. The company added that potential customers could include private individuals, companies, nongovernmental organizations and U.S. federal agencies.
Space Adventures said it had arranged for seven spaceflight participants to fly on eight missions to the International Space Station being built in space by the United States and Russia.
The companies said during a conference call that pricing for the planned space flights had not been set but were expected to be competitive.
Guy Laliberte, founder of Canada's Cirque du Soleil, paid more than $35 million to travel into space last year on a Russian spaceship from Kazakhstan.
The U.S. space shuttle program, which carries astronauts and supplies to the International Space Space, is being shut down next year. President Barack Obama's administration has launched an initiative to replace NASA-owned and operated launch services with commercial space taxis.
Until a replacement vehicle is ready, the United States will be solely dependent on Russia to fly crews to the International Space Station, a $100 billion project involving 16 nations, which has been under construction 220 miles above Earth since 1998.
Russia currently charges NASA about $51 million per seat for a ride on its Soyuz spacecraft. The price goes up to $56 million in 2013.
(Reporting by Karen Jacobs; Editing by Peter Cooney and Bill Trott)
Patrick McCormick
9/19/2010
Is the United States willingly taking a “Second Seat” in space exploration? We had a good thing going with our Space Shuttle. It was far ahead of anything else the other nations had to offer. There was a time we could have done anything we wanted out there.
Think of the technological advancements in medicine, astronomy, computer technology and metallurgy, to name a few, the Space Program brought to US. Think about Japan, China and India providing them for US now. We gave the world the fruit of our technological advancements. Does anyone believe the world will be as generous to US?
We did not fund the Space Program for national pride alone. It was big business. It gave US a big business advantage over the rest of the world. Financially, is it a good idea to abandon our lead now? How much would it really cost US to refurbish a pair of our old shuttles?
A couple of adventurous wars in the Middle East and a severe recession and we no longer have the financial means to carry the torch. Is it wise to "Throw in the towel" and let the Russian, Diving Bell shaped, Space Taxi” ferry us to the space station at 35 million per seat. That antique still lands with a parachute.
The Boeing CST-100, Follow Link, is another “Diving Bell”. The glory days of our magnificent Space Shuttles are gone. I would like to see the Boeing device carry a replacement for the Hubble telescope or use its hydraulic arm to swing a new segment for the International Space Station into place; it does not have one.
The thoughts of all of the brave men and women that led US into space, and the risks they willingly shouldered for our nation, brings a tear to my eye. I feel anger building when I dwell on the political follies of the past ten years and some of the things we have lost because of them. The Space Program was not a waste of money; we flew with it into this technological age.
Read the following article in shame.
Spacecraft Could Carry Seven People and Fly in Low-Earth Orbit
XCOR Aerospace joins the space tourism game with competitive pricing.
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Boeing Co plans to offer passengers the chance to fly into space on a craft it is developing for travel in low-Earth orbit, the aerospace company said on Wednesday.
Boeing said it reached an agreement with Virginia-based Space Adventures to market passenger seats on commercial flights aboard Boeing's CST-100 space vehicle being developed for NASA.
The spacecraft could carry seven people and fly in low-Earth orbit as soon as 2015, Boeing said. The company added that potential customers could include private individuals, companies, nongovernmental organizations and U.S. federal agencies.
Space Adventures said it had arranged for seven spaceflight participants to fly on eight missions to the International Space Station being built in space by the United States and Russia.
The companies said during a conference call that pricing for the planned space flights had not been set but were expected to be competitive.
Guy Laliberte, founder of Canada's Cirque du Soleil, paid more than $35 million to travel into space last year on a Russian spaceship from Kazakhstan.
The U.S. space shuttle program, which carries astronauts and supplies to the International Space Space, is being shut down next year. President Barack Obama's administration has launched an initiative to replace NASA-owned and operated launch services with commercial space taxis.
Until a replacement vehicle is ready, the United States will be solely dependent on Russia to fly crews to the International Space Station, a $100 billion project involving 16 nations, which has been under construction 220 miles above Earth since 1998.
Russia currently charges NASA about $51 million per seat for a ride on its Soyuz spacecraft. The price goes up to $56 million in 2013.
(Reporting by Karen Jacobs; Editing by Peter Cooney and Bill Trott)
Saturday, September 18, 2010
“Holy Smokes Batman”, the Air Force is Ripping Our Gear !
It appears that the United States Air Force is going to copy all the slick gear in the “Bat Belt”. The question is, “Will the US Military stop there”. One service always copies the other. I believe the “Bat Plane, Bat Boat, Bat Copter, Bat Cycle and even the Bat Cave” are at risk. Yes, even the cave… I can see Air Force one, painted a slick stealthy black, parked in the cave beneath Wayne Mansion.
The “Bat Light” high in the night sky will signal the Alpha Force to lock and load. Watch the night skies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a real life *Kapow!* is heading your way; not that you will ever see it coming.
“Holy Cow Batman!”, read the story from ABC News.
'Batman' Prepares To Join the Air Force
Special Operators to Act -- and Dress -- More Like Batman
W I R E D
By SPENCER ACKERMAN
Sept. 18, 2010
Grappling hooks attached to siphon electricity from low-hanging power lines. Computers mounted onto a commando's chest plate. Communications gadgets small enough to fit into gear pouches worn around the waist. The Air Force is actually preparing its special operators to act (and outfit themselves) more like the Batman.
Since 2004, the Air Force has worked to reduce the physical load of gear carried by its Special Operations Forces — the superheroes who seize hostile airfields and rescue captured troops behind enemy lines. Those airmen are often weighed down on these missions, lugging as much as 160 pounds worth of stuff.
Since much of the bulk comes from their communications gear, the Air Force opted to cut out heavy batteries to power it, fueling the gear through methanol fuel cells that get lighter as the charge dies. That allows elite airmen to essentially wear their gear like a scaffold, a concept the Air Force calls a "Human Chassis."
Except a human chassis isn't a cool enough name.* So the program, pursued at Ohio's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, bears a moniker that strikes fear into the heart of villains everywhere. It's the Battlefield Air Targeting Man-Aided kNowledge (just go with it). Yes: the BATMAN.
BATMAN Program Comes With Bat Hook
Adam Hadhazy of Tech News Daily has a great piece reporting on the program from inside Wright-Pat's, uh, Batcave. He finds that the BATMAN program rolls with its character concept with astonishing consistency. There may not be a rubber-nipple-equipped Batsuit, nor a trusty butler.
In fact, the prototype Air Force outfit used to test out the gear is more garage nightmare than Hollywood blockbuster. But BATMAN does come equipped with a Bat Hook: a grappling hook that special operators can throw onto power lines in order to charge up their battery-powered communications equipment.
According to a program engineer, the Bat Hook came about after a special operator observed that it would be "really cool" to design "'Something like what Batman has on his belt that he can take out and wing it up to a power line and get power,'" he tells Hadhazy. Bob Kane could not have said it better.
Chest Computer Is Laptop Embedded Into a Chest Plate
Then there's the on-board chest computer, a laptop that relays logistical information and fits right into the chest plate. One imagines the next-gen BATMAN will use a tablet instead, as the program is already at work on a 2.0 version.
Iranian Missile Worries Pentagon
Hadhazy reports that one of the next projects for the design team is to go wireless, replacing cumbersome cables connecting the commo gizmos to airmen's rucksacks with secure frequencies. The wires are Adam West; secure wi-fi is Christian Bale.
Of course, if fearsome communications equipment is the direction in which the Air Force is trending, ironclad comic-book history suggests that the real next step is for the BATMAN program to invent the all-seeing Brother-Eye, an artificial intelligence mounted in a satellite orbiting earth. (Only to watch it spiral out of control, sure, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.) Until then, we'll settle for elite airmen embracing their superhero status.
* This is a matter of some dispute. Attentive fans of the first Terminator film will recall that Cyberdyne Systems Model T-101 gets described by time-traveling soldier Kyle Reese as a metal chassis covered in organic tissue. That means a plausible alternative template for the BATMAN program would be the TERMINATOR — It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. It absolutely will not stop, ever! Until you are dead! — provided someone could figure out what the acronym might stand for. Anyone want to take a crack at that in comments?
The “Bat Light” high in the night sky will signal the Alpha Force to lock and load. Watch the night skies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a real life *Kapow!* is heading your way; not that you will ever see it coming.
“Holy Cow Batman!”, read the story from ABC News.
'Batman' Prepares To Join the Air Force
Special Operators to Act -- and Dress -- More Like Batman
W I R E D
By SPENCER ACKERMAN
Sept. 18, 2010
Grappling hooks attached to siphon electricity from low-hanging power lines. Computers mounted onto a commando's chest plate. Communications gadgets small enough to fit into gear pouches worn around the waist. The Air Force is actually preparing its special operators to act (and outfit themselves) more like the Batman.
Since 2004, the Air Force has worked to reduce the physical load of gear carried by its Special Operations Forces — the superheroes who seize hostile airfields and rescue captured troops behind enemy lines. Those airmen are often weighed down on these missions, lugging as much as 160 pounds worth of stuff.
Since much of the bulk comes from their communications gear, the Air Force opted to cut out heavy batteries to power it, fueling the gear through methanol fuel cells that get lighter as the charge dies. That allows elite airmen to essentially wear their gear like a scaffold, a concept the Air Force calls a "Human Chassis."
Except a human chassis isn't a cool enough name.* So the program, pursued at Ohio's Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, bears a moniker that strikes fear into the heart of villains everywhere. It's the Battlefield Air Targeting Man-Aided kNowledge (just go with it). Yes: the BATMAN.
BATMAN Program Comes With Bat Hook
Adam Hadhazy of Tech News Daily has a great piece reporting on the program from inside Wright-Pat's, uh, Batcave. He finds that the BATMAN program rolls with its character concept with astonishing consistency. There may not be a rubber-nipple-equipped Batsuit, nor a trusty butler.
In fact, the prototype Air Force outfit used to test out the gear is more garage nightmare than Hollywood blockbuster. But BATMAN does come equipped with a Bat Hook: a grappling hook that special operators can throw onto power lines in order to charge up their battery-powered communications equipment.
According to a program engineer, the Bat Hook came about after a special operator observed that it would be "really cool" to design "'Something like what Batman has on his belt that he can take out and wing it up to a power line and get power,'" he tells Hadhazy. Bob Kane could not have said it better.
Chest Computer Is Laptop Embedded Into a Chest Plate
Then there's the on-board chest computer, a laptop that relays logistical information and fits right into the chest plate. One imagines the next-gen BATMAN will use a tablet instead, as the program is already at work on a 2.0 version.
Iranian Missile Worries Pentagon
Hadhazy reports that one of the next projects for the design team is to go wireless, replacing cumbersome cables connecting the commo gizmos to airmen's rucksacks with secure frequencies. The wires are Adam West; secure wi-fi is Christian Bale.
Of course, if fearsome communications equipment is the direction in which the Air Force is trending, ironclad comic-book history suggests that the real next step is for the BATMAN program to invent the all-seeing Brother-Eye, an artificial intelligence mounted in a satellite orbiting earth. (Only to watch it spiral out of control, sure, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.) Until then, we'll settle for elite airmen embracing their superhero status.
* This is a matter of some dispute. Attentive fans of the first Terminator film will recall that Cyberdyne Systems Model T-101 gets described by time-traveling soldier Kyle Reese as a metal chassis covered in organic tissue. That means a plausible alternative template for the BATMAN program would be the TERMINATOR — It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. It absolutely will not stop, ever! Until you are dead! — provided someone could figure out what the acronym might stand for. Anyone want to take a crack at that in comments?
Friday, September 17, 2010
The USA… 14% of US are Below the Poverty Line… What Happened?
Commentary by
Patrick McCormick
9/17/2010
This kind of poverty did not happen overnight, it crept up on US slowly, over many years. How, you might ask, we had everything? While we were sleeping, our Country’s lifeblood was sold for campaign contributions to major corporations and foreign interests, “One vote at a time”.
It reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song. ” I’ve got a 56, 57, 58, 59 Chevrolet. I got it one piece at a time”. The song is about a “Good old boy” that got a job in a General Motors plant and began stealing car parts. Over the years, he built himself a car. It might have been an awful looking thing, but it was the product of many years continuous effort on the part of a small time crook.
The same thing has happened to US. We elect other human beings to political office in order to maintain our nations welfare. The jobs they receive are important ones; prestige, power and influence come with the territory. It is reasonable to assume those elected want to stay in their new positions, and they do. The problem is this, it costs a lot of money to campaign for political office; much more than the office holders are paid for their new jobs. They have to raise that money somehow.
The good news for them is there are many large corporations and foreign interests standing in line to give them that cash. These “Special interests” don’t give away money because they like each fellow’s politics, they pay the money because they get something in return. What they are buying are votes. The process has a name; influence peddling. It is a dirty business.
Influence peddling is the means by which the coal industry was allowed to pollute our air and water. Today there are methods of generating renewable energy from other sources, the sun and wind to name two of them. The old fossil fuel companies, coal and oil, do not want any new competition. They donate huge sums to office holders and, to cover their bets, even those running for office get some cash. Nobody in their right mind gives away money and these old fossils are not doing that. They get something in return.
A coal-fired power plant receives tax breaks and subsidies for their operations. These benefits allow them to operate much more inexpensively then a new Thermal Solar or Wind operation. The new, clean and environmental friendly methods of generating electricity cannot compete with the old fossils. Although our leaders say it is time to stimulate the production of electricity by renewable means, it is not happening.
Energy production is just one area. There are thousands of Special Interests waiting to donate money to our politicians. They all want something in return. They want votes in their particular favor on a myriad of subjects. They can buy what they want. The USA is for sale, not by US the People that own it, by those that we hire to manage our affairs… our elected officials.
We never used to manufacture many of our goods in foreign countries. Our large corporations wanted to get at those sources of cheap labor. New Trade Agreements sprang up. Most of these Treaties are one-sided affairs allowing for an enormous imbalance of trade.
With the new treaties, our major corporations began shipping American jobs out of the country. We got thousands of different inexpensive products in return. Because of the imbalance of trade, we also began piling up huge foreign debt. Oddly enough, the large corporations, or foreign countries, that profit, are not paying for the interest on this debt; WE, The People, American taxpayers, are paying the bills.
Therefore, in order to satisfy big business, our country endured a steady stream of lost jobs and absorbed trillions of dollars in foreign debt. Neither one of these things make our country stronger, in fact they are sucking the lifeblood from our economy.
Our government pays its bills with tax revenue. With less people working, there is less tax revenue. Our government's revenue is going down hill while its debts are rising. It is a formula that will led to bankruptcy. Something has to change.
An old joke went; Politics is a two-syllable word comprised of poli and tics. Poly means many and tics are bloodsuckers. The joke would get a lot of laughs. Somehow, it does not seem so funny today.
There are two groups of people with the ability to fix our problems; politicians and voters. There is not a lot of interest supporting campaign finance reform in Congress. That leaves it up to US, the voters.
The future is in our hands.
Patrick McCormick
9/17/2010
This kind of poverty did not happen overnight, it crept up on US slowly, over many years. How, you might ask, we had everything? While we were sleeping, our Country’s lifeblood was sold for campaign contributions to major corporations and foreign interests, “One vote at a time”.
It reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song. ” I’ve got a 56, 57, 58, 59 Chevrolet. I got it one piece at a time”. The song is about a “Good old boy” that got a job in a General Motors plant and began stealing car parts. Over the years, he built himself a car. It might have been an awful looking thing, but it was the product of many years continuous effort on the part of a small time crook.
The same thing has happened to US. We elect other human beings to political office in order to maintain our nations welfare. The jobs they receive are important ones; prestige, power and influence come with the territory. It is reasonable to assume those elected want to stay in their new positions, and they do. The problem is this, it costs a lot of money to campaign for political office; much more than the office holders are paid for their new jobs. They have to raise that money somehow.
The good news for them is there are many large corporations and foreign interests standing in line to give them that cash. These “Special interests” don’t give away money because they like each fellow’s politics, they pay the money because they get something in return. What they are buying are votes. The process has a name; influence peddling. It is a dirty business.
Influence peddling is the means by which the coal industry was allowed to pollute our air and water. Today there are methods of generating renewable energy from other sources, the sun and wind to name two of them. The old fossil fuel companies, coal and oil, do not want any new competition. They donate huge sums to office holders and, to cover their bets, even those running for office get some cash. Nobody in their right mind gives away money and these old fossils are not doing that. They get something in return.
A coal-fired power plant receives tax breaks and subsidies for their operations. These benefits allow them to operate much more inexpensively then a new Thermal Solar or Wind operation. The new, clean and environmental friendly methods of generating electricity cannot compete with the old fossils. Although our leaders say it is time to stimulate the production of electricity by renewable means, it is not happening.
Energy production is just one area. There are thousands of Special Interests waiting to donate money to our politicians. They all want something in return. They want votes in their particular favor on a myriad of subjects. They can buy what they want. The USA is for sale, not by US the People that own it, by those that we hire to manage our affairs… our elected officials.
We never used to manufacture many of our goods in foreign countries. Our large corporations wanted to get at those sources of cheap labor. New Trade Agreements sprang up. Most of these Treaties are one-sided affairs allowing for an enormous imbalance of trade.
With the new treaties, our major corporations began shipping American jobs out of the country. We got thousands of different inexpensive products in return. Because of the imbalance of trade, we also began piling up huge foreign debt. Oddly enough, the large corporations, or foreign countries, that profit, are not paying for the interest on this debt; WE, The People, American taxpayers, are paying the bills.
Therefore, in order to satisfy big business, our country endured a steady stream of lost jobs and absorbed trillions of dollars in foreign debt. Neither one of these things make our country stronger, in fact they are sucking the lifeblood from our economy.
Our government pays its bills with tax revenue. With less people working, there is less tax revenue. Our government's revenue is going down hill while its debts are rising. It is a formula that will led to bankruptcy. Something has to change.
An old joke went; Politics is a two-syllable word comprised of poli and tics. Poly means many and tics are bloodsuckers. The joke would get a lot of laughs. Somehow, it does not seem so funny today.
There are two groups of people with the ability to fix our problems; politicians and voters. There is not a lot of interest supporting campaign finance reform in Congress. That leaves it up to US, the voters.
The future is in our hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)