Saturday, April 28, 2007
First of New Weekly Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers is back on PBS weekly, Fridays at 9:00 PM. This is what I posted on the blog for the local MoyersTalkers I run at the Glendale Public Library.After the First Weekly Journal - Our Post
Here's what I posted on the Moyers Blog today after viewing the first Bill Moyers Journal program. Join me and add comments there and here. - Bill Trzeciak
A wonderful and significant start to the weekly series. Bill Moyers and Jon Stewart in the same room, talking to each other, and to us who admire both of them so much for what they have helped us learn about our national civic responsbilities. Talking Points' Josh Marshall was also compelling. There are others who matter, but what a great start to what is going to be the must view of the week.
Now, like our local MoyersTalkers group, I hope other people around the country get together at a library or someplace in their community and talk about the issues raised on this show and blog with all of us here. Those who can post can bring to the conversation the comments of others who haven't yet figured out how to exercise free speech electronically, or you can teach them to blog in such a group. Let's not keep Bill Moyers just to ourselves. He's raising questions for all of us and wants all of us to share with him.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Mini-Unraveling
Via TPM via Salon:
As the World Bank career of Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the Iraq debacle, is unraveled, look to it as an example of the larger unraveling of the Bush Administration. All of the cronyism, corruption and arrogance that informs the decisions of the decider are being detailed in the Wolfowitz story. And now that he is in the cross hairs of an investigation he won't have much control over, the crying and the lying have begun: one the one hand the claim he is the victim of a witch hunt and on the other begging to be forgiven for mild incompetence. We've seen this before - every corrupted republican under investigation (and those serving time) have followed the same pattern and AG Gonzalez has run the gamut in record time. As the congressional investigations into everything Bush continue, expect more Lying from Bush and Cheney and more crying from their underlings.
As the World Bank career of Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the Iraq debacle, is unraveled, look to it as an example of the larger unraveling of the Bush Administration. All of the cronyism, corruption and arrogance that informs the decisions of the decider are being detailed in the Wolfowitz story. And now that he is in the cross hairs of an investigation he won't have much control over, the crying and the lying have begun: one the one hand the claim he is the victim of a witch hunt and on the other begging to be forgiven for mild incompetence. We've seen this before - every corrupted republican under investigation (and those serving time) have followed the same pattern and AG Gonzalez has run the gamut in record time. As the congressional investigations into everything Bush continue, expect more Lying from Bush and Cheney and more crying from their underlings.
Wolfowitz had spent his career staging neoconservative insurgencies against what he considered to be liberal establishments. But at the World Bank he tried to model himself after Robert McNamara, who had turned his presidency at the bank into his vehicle for redemption for his part in the Vietnam War. Wolfowitz, the chief intellectual and policy advocate for the Iraq war, no longer mentioned it. Now he pleads to the World Bank board that his corrupt dealings be overlooked for the greater good of his crusade against corruption. His refusal to resign discredits and paralyzes the institution he had hoped would vindicate him.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Attack of the Superfiends!
Thank God we won’t have to wait for another election!
Alberto Gonzales will not resign...
...simply because Bush would have to appoint a new AG more agreeable to a Democratic Run Senate - a true law and order AG, not a loyalist, who will not look kindly on corruption and incompetence within the DOJ. That will surely lead to uncovering the evidence that must eventually lead to impeachment (because they know what they're covering up.) Bush will run out the clock with Alberto Gonzales.
That's my prediction.
That's my prediction.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Put down your gun ... debate
So--Bush raised the issue of gun control as the first reaction to the Virginia Tech tragedy...and the “debate” took in off that direction, lickety-split.
But why the hell are we also not debating the meaning and impact here on the OTHER elephant in the room behind this horrific event: mental health, and the stigma of not only diagnosis but care? And the access to it? And, not to bog down in one particular university's protocols, but why didn’t this kid get more forceful help? The bar for action that "he only wrote these disturbing stories, he didn’t act on them" is bogus; he did act on them, in the end. A single wild, bizarre chiller-action script in a class is one thing; faculty and students who had red flags raised about his continued obsession with "the dark side" in all his ongoing writings should have led to action... and by that I mean competent health care -- and it should have been readily available and with confidentiality! Referrals by the one professor/counselor quoted on MSNBC, at least, should not have been ignored given presentable evidence.
As many on the gun debate have said, gun laws and perhaps even background checks did not keep this kid away from killing weapons. What MIGHT have really kept him from his own "suicide by massacre" is much more basic: some decent referral and effective mental care. He was Asian/South Korean, was a 13-year U.S. resident, had (apparently) healthy, functional and even friendly parents and siblings, according to their mail carrier interviewed ... no easy answers here. But he was let down, and so were all his victims.
THIS should be the fresh and primary angle on the real story, but as usual it's the one overlooked and soon forgotten--while the easy, tired old gun debate plods on with "Would background checks screen out crazy people?"
But why the hell are we also not debating the meaning and impact here on the OTHER elephant in the room behind this horrific event: mental health, and the stigma of not only diagnosis but care? And the access to it? And, not to bog down in one particular university's protocols, but why didn’t this kid get more forceful help? The bar for action that "he only wrote these disturbing stories, he didn’t act on them" is bogus; he did act on them, in the end. A single wild, bizarre chiller-action script in a class is one thing; faculty and students who had red flags raised about his continued obsession with "the dark side" in all his ongoing writings should have led to action... and by that I mean competent health care -- and it should have been readily available and with confidentiality! Referrals by the one professor/counselor quoted on MSNBC, at least, should not have been ignored given presentable evidence.
As many on the gun debate have said, gun laws and perhaps even background checks did not keep this kid away from killing weapons. What MIGHT have really kept him from his own "suicide by massacre" is much more basic: some decent referral and effective mental care. He was Asian/South Korean, was a 13-year U.S. resident, had (apparently) healthy, functional and even friendly parents and siblings, according to their mail carrier interviewed ... no easy answers here. But he was let down, and so were all his victims.
THIS should be the fresh and primary angle on the real story, but as usual it's the one overlooked and soon forgotten--while the easy, tired old gun debate plods on with "Would background checks screen out crazy people?"
Labels: gun, massacre, mental health, Virhina
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Great Site for Polls
What I Sent to Stephanie Miller re: Imus, Maher et al
Dear Stephanie,
As a “radical, militant librarian” I have a few things to say about civility and free speech during National Library Week.
About the Imus issue – It’s a choice whether or not to be civil. It is not a case of free speech.
About the Maher over-response to the Imus issue – Only governments can take away free speech. Markets self-censor because of fear of losing customers. It was a market decision then, and it’s a market decision now. Get over it, Bill. You were in that kind of market then. You’re not now. Imus may find one like your new one someday.
Bloggers railing against a self imposed code of conduct when two well known bloggers asked for a consensus of more decent language – It, too, is a choice to be civil not a case of free speech. You are, indeed, NOT required by overlord owners and coercive advertisers to toe any language lines. But you might be by your readers if you cross over the civility standards of progressive morality. The threshold is not language, but meanspiritedness. Most on the center and left are decent AND speak a wider range of language than they used to but they don’t care for putting down people for its own sake. Words per se don’t matter, intent does. Readers will choose, not just follow. This market will self-correct.
About right wing elephants spinning the issue to drench you, Stephanie, with outbursts from their own trunks, (You were great and cheer-worthy on Reliable Sources this Sunday): Using words like ‘fart’ is not the problem; hiding the truth from citizens is the problem. ‘Fart’ is, ironically, the teaspoon of popular sweetener that helps the truth to go down. (My, how tastes have changed. But they have changed.) We need all the truth underlying humor we can get. You give us much.
They think that they can call you on using that word, but it’s only because you are saying what they do. Kurt Vonnegut said – “Fart around and be nice.” The truth is: this administration is not nice at all but they do nothing but fart around in the most destructive ways possible. They say you shouldn’t say anything about what they do, but real decency requires a higher level of farting around than what the Bushies and Cheneys offer. Keep calling them to be better citizens in their farting around.
Wouldn’t that be nice of you? Of course, it is. Being nice is all we need to do.
Isn’t that the whole progressive agenda? Not a pretense of niceness like theirs, but honest-to-goodness niceness. We’re all in it together so we have to recognize farting happens.
“Fart around AND be nice.” It’s not either/or but it is a choice.
As a “radical, militant librarian” I have a few things to say about civility and free speech during National Library Week.
About the Imus issue – It’s a choice whether or not to be civil. It is not a case of free speech.
About the Maher over-response to the Imus issue – Only governments can take away free speech. Markets self-censor because of fear of losing customers. It was a market decision then, and it’s a market decision now. Get over it, Bill. You were in that kind of market then. You’re not now. Imus may find one like your new one someday.
Bloggers railing against a self imposed code of conduct when two well known bloggers asked for a consensus of more decent language – It, too, is a choice to be civil not a case of free speech. You are, indeed, NOT required by overlord owners and coercive advertisers to toe any language lines. But you might be by your readers if you cross over the civility standards of progressive morality. The threshold is not language, but meanspiritedness. Most on the center and left are decent AND speak a wider range of language than they used to but they don’t care for putting down people for its own sake. Words per se don’t matter, intent does. Readers will choose, not just follow. This market will self-correct.
About right wing elephants spinning the issue to drench you, Stephanie, with outbursts from their own trunks, (You were great and cheer-worthy on Reliable Sources this Sunday): Using words like ‘fart’ is not the problem; hiding the truth from citizens is the problem. ‘Fart’ is, ironically, the teaspoon of popular sweetener that helps the truth to go down. (My, how tastes have changed. But they have changed.) We need all the truth underlying humor we can get. You give us much.
They think that they can call you on using that word, but it’s only because you are saying what they do. Kurt Vonnegut said – “Fart around and be nice.” The truth is: this administration is not nice at all but they do nothing but fart around in the most destructive ways possible. They say you shouldn’t say anything about what they do, but real decency requires a higher level of farting around than what the Bushies and Cheneys offer. Keep calling them to be better citizens in their farting around.
Wouldn’t that be nice of you? Of course, it is. Being nice is all we need to do.
Isn’t that the whole progressive agenda? Not a pretense of niceness like theirs, but honest-to-goodness niceness. We’re all in it together so we have to recognize farting happens.
“Fart around AND be nice.” It’s not either/or but it is a choice.
Labels: freee speech, Imus, language, Maher, Stepanie Miller, Vonnegut
Monday, April 16, 2007
Why Progressive Taxes are Fair
George Lakoff and Bruce Budner have a great post today on www.TomPaine.com about what to say when conservatives complain about the wealthy "being punished" by paying more taxes.
Essentially, it's a moral argument, they say. Their wealth has been enabled by the wealth empowerment those taxes provide.
Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.
The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.
This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.
Read the full article and feel good about believing in the decent, shared values you do.
Essentially, it's a moral argument, they say. Their wealth has been enabled by the wealth empowerment those taxes provide.
Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.
The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.
This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.
Read the full article and feel good about believing in the decent, shared values you do.
Labels: Budner, Lakoff, Taxes, Wealth
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Why am I not suprised
Could it be...karma?
Link
World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz is fighting for his political life as calls mount for his resignation over his involvement in astonishing pay hikes given to his girlfriend by the lender.
The controversy engulfing the former US deputy defence secretary, one of the architects of the war in Iraq, threatened to overshadow talks on Friday among finance ministers from the wealthy Group of Seven nations.
Link
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Liberal Media...Finally.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Burbank election results
Candidate Votes % of ballots
cast for council members
Gary Bric 6301 * 32.83%
Anja Reinke 6286 * 32.75%
Carolyn Berlin 3338 17.39%
Phil Berlin 3268 17.03%
TOTAL VOTES CAST: 10,237
Ballot Measures: Yes No
A Transient occupancy tax 4616 4908 *
B Appointed City Clerk? 4443 5062 *
C Appointed Treasurer 4294 4993 *
D Transition if B/C approved? 4778 * 4400
E Filling council vacancies 5146 * 3979
F Simple majority budget approval 4895 * 4264
G Misc. Charter changes 5210 * 3864
Monday, April 09, 2007
The most powerfull woman in the world
Republicans had better get used to it.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
A Letter to the LA Times Got In, sort of
A shorened version of this letter was published in the LA Times today in response to last Sunday's Current piece by Chip Ward about so many homeless people in libraries these days:
I'm a librarian and this is what I've been telling library patrons for years when they complain about homeless people being in the library: Public libraries, city police, city paramedics, and social services are the rug under which Ronald Reagan threw these people when he trashed the social contract by closing societal mental care facilities.
You want a cleaner, nicer, more considerate place to come to in your city? Change your national government into a cleaner, nicer, more considerate one that honors and respects you by honoring everyone's social contract with universal health and mental care. Then your city might have enough money left over to provide you better parks, libraries, and schools.
Of course these homeless people shouldn't have to be here but they have to be somewhere and they have to be getting help to get beyond their situation without being criminalized. Many of these people are veterans, for heaven's sake. I have no patience for the haughty voice that complains the people's house is unclean without recognizing our shared responsibility in everyone's welfare. If you think anyone is "beneath" you there is no one lower than you in my estimation and yet I will serve you with the same courtesy I give to a homeless person.
I wholeheartedly agree with Ward's last words "We are doing our best. Are you?"
I'm a librarian and this is what I've been telling library patrons for years when they complain about homeless people being in the library: Public libraries, city police, city paramedics, and social services are the rug under which Ronald Reagan threw these people when he trashed the social contract by closing societal mental care facilities.
You want a cleaner, nicer, more considerate place to come to in your city? Change your national government into a cleaner, nicer, more considerate one that honors and respects you by honoring everyone's social contract with universal health and mental care. Then your city might have enough money left over to provide you better parks, libraries, and schools.
Of course these homeless people shouldn't have to be here but they have to be somewhere and they have to be getting help to get beyond their situation without being criminalized. Many of these people are veterans, for heaven's sake. I have no patience for the haughty voice that complains the people's house is unclean without recognizing our shared responsibility in everyone's welfare. If you think anyone is "beneath" you there is no one lower than you in my estimation and yet I will serve you with the same courtesy I give to a homeless person.
I wholeheartedly agree with Ward's last words "We are doing our best. Are you?"
Friday, April 06, 2007
Fox Noise meltdown!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
More Burbank Politics
I just got a Robo-Call from the LA County Democratic Party endorsing the Berlins. I guess showing up at the right meetings matters, considering they first accepted and then declined an invitation to speak the Burbank Democratic Club, but showed up for the endorsement meeting of the LACDP, which, obviously mattered more.
Pelosi in Syria? Oh My? Not.
The Bush administration slams Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria to meet with President Assad. His Press Secretary states that the White House discourages ALL visits to Syria from anyone of any party. Yet clearly, Republican and Democratic members of the congress (not to mention James Baker and the Iraq Study Group) have visited the Axis of Evil on many occasions with the help of the White House and the State department.
Thanks to TPM for this:
All I ask from Democrats in the next 2 years is "Please do not self destruct." We need a Democratic sweep in 2008 so we can turn this mess around before my son gets drafted and I get sent to a concentration camp.
Thanks to TPM for this:
And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad.What? There were Republicans in Syria before Nancy showed up in her Head Scarf?
Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."
"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.
Clearly someone is lying -- again. Any guess who it is? And I'm sure if this news ever hits the Corporate news world (where most people get there daily does of brainwashing) the excuse will be that someone over at the State department didn't get the memo:
White House spokesman Alex Conant said Monday the Bush administration — as a blanket policy — "discourages all of (Congress') visits" to Syria, a country believed by the White House to sponsor terrorism.
Right. Just like Alberto Gonzalez wasn't really involved in the Attorney General Firings. Just like Rumsfeld didn't go war with the Army he wanted. Just like Bush didn't know Valerie Plame was a Covert Agent when he agreed to out her.
Oh, and apparently, Evil Nanny Nancy has gone to Syria with a message from Israel that they'd like to get back to negotiating peace with Syria ... What? Israel want to talk with Terrorists?All I ask from Democrats in the next 2 years is "Please do not self destruct." We need a Democratic sweep in 2008 so we can turn this mess around before my son gets drafted and I get sent to a concentration camp.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Just when you thought hip-hop couldn't get worse...
Burbank Elections - Measures
One week left. Ballots due April 10th and I'll probably drop mine off at the Library.
Measure A is an increase in the Hotel Tax from 10 to 12%. According to this list from GSA, Los Angeles has a rate of 14% for lodging (Orange County is 15% - so much for low tax Republicans, eh?), so the rate increase wouldn't make Burbank regionally uncompetitive. I am bothered by asking visitors to pay for city services on principle, but realistic enough to know a city needs to have an income. I think I can live with a Yes vote - but if anyone wants to argue the point, please leave a comment.
Charter Amendments: First of all let me express my bewilderment that a 15 person Committee spent more than a year on this and this was all they could some up with!??! Ok, maybe that's a testament to the quality of the City Charter.
Measures B though E all seem to me to favor expedience over democracy and I am not convinced by any of the arguments FOR. We elect people to be the head of offices, not to do the actually work, so the notion that we need a City Clerk who can do the job, rather than lead people who can do the job, doesn't work for me. All these measures do is consolidate power in the hands of the City Manager who is appointed by the City Council. Along with Measure E which allows the City Council to replace it's membership without an election, this all has the effect of giving the City Council more consolidated power - and instinctively, I prefer that power be de-centralized. So for me that's a bunch of No's.
Measure F gets rid of the "Super Majority" requirement for the approval or amendment of the City Budget. I consider these super majority rules anti-democratic. It gives the minority view an unfair advantage and it reduces the effect of our votes (especially on the state level.) It is true that requiring a 4/5ths vote will slow down the budget process, but it might just as easily prevent a rate increase in one area as it could prevent the allocation of funds for a service somewhere else. I am for Majority Votes, not Super Majorities. Elections should have consequences and those consequences should include our votes in the next election.
Measure G is a hodge-podge of mostly minor language changes that update the Charter and a few rather significant additions. If passed, I will miss such words as "hereinafter" and "plenary," words no longer hip enough, I guess. Is this the RAP version of the city Charter?
But seriously, there are some things to wonder about. First of all is the requirement that a recount of a contested election must include a deposit of money to cover the cost of the recount. While this might prevent someone from challenging an election that needed to be challenged, it might also prevent using the challenge for political reasons. It isn't clear if you get your money back if the recount proves your claim...that should be in there, since a failure by the City Clerk shouldn't be paid for by the one who found the error.
On the plus side, in my mind, there is Article 6, which lists the Functions of the City Government and includes "Ensure open access to and availability of information and knowledge" and "Plan for and initiate substantial long-range physical, economic and social development of the City." Though I'm not sure how to "initiate social development" in a city, it sure sounds nice.
Another interesting addition is to give the City Council the right to appoint elected officers in cases where the elections are not competitive. Do elections really cost that much money? (All Mail elections run about $120,000, so I guess so.) This would have meant, for example, that our last School Board election, where there were 3 seats and 3 candidates, would have not been on the ballot. I guess I don't care. It was a moot election, though there was a message to be sent by having it on the ballot. And it wouldn't have saved any money since there was City Council primary.
And there is more..read it if you like...I am not convinced that all of it is necessary. I'd rather vote on each change separately.
But they've added a very nice preamble:
Measure A is an increase in the Hotel Tax from 10 to 12%. According to this list from GSA, Los Angeles has a rate of 14% for lodging (Orange County is 15% - so much for low tax Republicans, eh?), so the rate increase wouldn't make Burbank regionally uncompetitive. I am bothered by asking visitors to pay for city services on principle, but realistic enough to know a city needs to have an income. I think I can live with a Yes vote - but if anyone wants to argue the point, please leave a comment.
Charter Amendments: First of all let me express my bewilderment that a 15 person Committee spent more than a year on this and this was all they could some up with!??! Ok, maybe that's a testament to the quality of the City Charter.
Measures B though E all seem to me to favor expedience over democracy and I am not convinced by any of the arguments FOR. We elect people to be the head of offices, not to do the actually work, so the notion that we need a City Clerk who can do the job, rather than lead people who can do the job, doesn't work for me. All these measures do is consolidate power in the hands of the City Manager who is appointed by the City Council. Along with Measure E which allows the City Council to replace it's membership without an election, this all has the effect of giving the City Council more consolidated power - and instinctively, I prefer that power be de-centralized. So for me that's a bunch of No's.
Measure F gets rid of the "Super Majority" requirement for the approval or amendment of the City Budget. I consider these super majority rules anti-democratic. It gives the minority view an unfair advantage and it reduces the effect of our votes (especially on the state level.) It is true that requiring a 4/5ths vote will slow down the budget process, but it might just as easily prevent a rate increase in one area as it could prevent the allocation of funds for a service somewhere else. I am for Majority Votes, not Super Majorities. Elections should have consequences and those consequences should include our votes in the next election.
Measure G is a hodge-podge of mostly minor language changes that update the Charter and a few rather significant additions. If passed, I will miss such words as "hereinafter" and "plenary," words no longer hip enough, I guess. Is this the RAP version of the city Charter?
But seriously, there are some things to wonder about. First of all is the requirement that a recount of a contested election must include a deposit of money to cover the cost of the recount. While this might prevent someone from challenging an election that needed to be challenged, it might also prevent using the challenge for political reasons. It isn't clear if you get your money back if the recount proves your claim...that should be in there, since a failure by the City Clerk shouldn't be paid for by the one who found the error.
On the plus side, in my mind, there is Article 6, which lists the Functions of the City Government and includes "Ensure open access to and availability of information and knowledge" and "Plan for and initiate substantial long-range physical, economic and social development of the City." Though I'm not sure how to "initiate social development" in a city, it sure sounds nice.
Another interesting addition is to give the City Council the right to appoint elected officers in cases where the elections are not competitive. Do elections really cost that much money? (All Mail elections run about $120,000, so I guess so.) This would have meant, for example, that our last School Board election, where there were 3 seats and 3 candidates, would have not been on the ballot. I guess I don't care. It was a moot election, though there was a message to be sent by having it on the ballot. And it wouldn't have saved any money since there was City Council primary.
And there is more..read it if you like...I am not convinced that all of it is necessary. I'd rather vote on each change separately.
But they've added a very nice preamble:
We the people of the City of Burbank, in order to exercise the benefits of home rule and establish a responsive, effective and accountable government that maintains the highest level of integrity, provides an outstanding quality of life through excellent municipal services, and through which all voices in our diverse society can be heard, and to provide fair representation and distribution of government resources and a safe, harmonious, and sustainable environment based on principles of liberty and equality, do enact this Charter.
