DebateGate

I happen to agree with many of these thoughts about the current Administration. Do you?

Noonan: The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation.

Noonan: The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

Noonan: For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

Noonan: What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.


The Rockefeller country club Republicans thought the same thing about the Goldwater Republicans. G H W Bush and his people had the same attitude toward the Reagan Republicans. Is anyone surprised?

www.jerrypournelle.com and http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan.

Supreme Court to Determine if New York City Can Sue Foreign Countries Over Taxes
Tuesday , April 24, 2007

WASHINGTON —

First, it was parking tickets. Now, the dispute between New York City and United Nations diplomats centers on whether foreign countries should pay taxes on the high-rise apartments where they house their diplomatic workers.

The Supreme Court was to hear arguments Tuesday from lawyers representing India and Mongolia, which are fighting New York's effort to collect property taxes from nations that operate diplomatic offices and house their employees in the same buildings.

The two countries — and the State Department — want the court to declare that foreign missions have immunity from such a lawsuit.

Under U.S. treaties, embassies and other diplomatic buildings are generally tax-exempt, but the city claims countries are refusing to pay taxes on property used for non-diplomatic purposes, such as staff residences.

For years, the U.N. and the city sparred over millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets racked up by envoys who rarely paid because of diplomatic immunity. The two sides finally struck a deal settling that issue in 2002.

A year later, the city filed a fresh lawsuit over property taxes, seeking $16.4 million in unpaid taxes and interest from India and $2.1 million from Mongolia for the floors in their respective buildings that are used solely for housing staff.

India and Mongolia insist that even when their employees are sleeping in apartments many floors above their offices, the staffers are always on call and therefore part of the mission.

"Housing diplomatic staff on mission premises to facilitate the performance of their diplomatic and governmental functions is as much a 'public' or 'governmental' purpose as housing soldiers in barracks on a military base or providing sleeping quarters for firemen in a firehouse," John Hawley, the lawyer representing India and Mongolia in the case, argued in court filings.

The city contends that living quarters stacked on top of diplomatic offices should be taxed like any other real estate.

New York City has singled out only a few countries with lawsuits. It has failed in attempts to collect taxes from other countries, including Hungary, Libya, Rwanda, Nigeria and Uganda. Turkey settled a lawsuit for $5 million, far less than the city initially sought.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year affirmed a lower court decision that federal courts have the power to resolve such disputes. The permanent missions of India and Mongolia appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The case is Permanent Mission of India v. New York, 06-134.

source: foxnews.com

Baby Is Born to Mary Cheney, Daughter of Vice President
Thursday , May 24, 2007

WASHINGTON  —

Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary delivered an 8-pound, 6-ounce baby boy on Wednesday, the first child for her and her female partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

Samuel David Cheney was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, the vice president's office announced. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne, paid a visit to their new — and sixth — grandchild a few hours later.

Mary Cheney announced in December that she and Poe had decided to start a family. Her decision to become pregnant and raise a child with Poe was criticized in some conservative circles. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, asserted that children need to be reared by heterosexual married couples, for instance.

The vice president bristled at questions on the topic.

Mary Cheney was an aide to her father during the 2004 campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL.

source: FoxNews, Fair and Balanced News.

Politicians weigh renewal of Net access tax ban

By Anne Broache
http://news.com.com/Politicians+weigh+renewal+of+Net+access+tax+ban/2100-1028_3-6185868.html

Story last modified Wed May 23 06:40:05 PDT 2007

 
WASHINGTON--With only months left on a moratorium restricting state governments from taxing Internet access, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday began a debate over whether the ban should be made permanent or allowed to lapse.
At issue is the scheduled expiration on November 1 of a law, initially enacted in 1998, that says local governments generally cannot tax Internet access, including DSL (digital subscriber line), cable modem and BlackBerry-type wireless transmission services. The law also prohibits governments from taxing items sold online in a different manner than those sold at brick-and-mortar stores, but it does not deal with sales taxes on online shopping.

That's the way it should remain, some politicians said at a brief hearing here convened by a House of Representatives panel on commercial and administrative law.

Related podcast
Tech Politics Rundown 
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey talks to News.com
about Internet taxation. "If we could liken the Internet to a mall, a place where you can go in and purchase goods and services, and also liken it to a library, a place where you can go and pull a book, pull a resource, and obtain some information, why would we tax a person upon entering a mall or why would we tax a person upon entering the library?" asked Rep. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia.

Industries that provide Internet access services have long backed making the ban permanent, and they already enjoy support from some members of Congress. In the House, Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, has introduced such a measure, and senators have made similar moves.

But previous attempts at renewing the ban for more than two to four years have failed, in part because of resistance from state and local government lobby groups. State government representatives caution against making the moratorium permanent, saying it would deprive states indefinitely of vital revenue sources and that its original purpose--boosting the nascent Internet to commercial viability--has essentially been accomplished.

A 'slippery slope'
"If a moratorium is made permanent, there is a slippery slope where other industries will seek their own preemptions of state laws," said David Quam, director of federal relations for the National Governors Association.

The NGA supports the idea of extending the ban in a limited sense and for a defined time period, he added. He said reports by government auditors and the University of Tennessee have shown no statistical correlation between levels of broadband penetration and the existence of Internet access taxes.

Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and one of 66 House members who co-sponsored the permanent ban proposal, suggested he wasn't swayed by that argument. "Taxes always impact everything else in our economy," he said. "I would assume they've had a major impact in this area as well."

As a rule, economists dislike taxes that could discourage investment, but taxes that could hinder build-out of the Internet are especially problematic, argued Scott Mackey, an economist and partner at the law firm Kimbell Sherman Ellis. He spoke on behalf of a coalition of Internet service providers, "backbone" providers and application and content companies that support a permanent extension of the tax ban.

Now on News.com
Net taxes could arrive later this year Can video save the book-publishing star? Leading thinkers ponder the future Extra: Tech industry opposes immigration bill Video: Chambers preaches Web 2.0 gospel
"A permanent moratorium will send a strong, pro-investment signal to those entrepreneurs that are looking to improve communications and commerce over the Internet," he told the politicians.

A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled to weigh the issue at its own hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

A separate issue on one politician's mind was what to do about the collection of sales taxes on the Internet. State governments have long griped that they are losing revenue to booming e-commerce businesses that aren't required to collect taxes from customers in states where the businesses don't have a physical presence. Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said he was planning to try again at enacting a bill designed to address those concerns.

As for the Net tax ban, he said, "my own position is we ought to have a temporary moratorium until we finally resolve the issue of how the states are going to support public services with an eroding tax base predicated on the growth of e-commerce."

http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6185868.html?tag=st.util.print

I unfortunatley agree with much in this article (the Iraq debacle, the Republican environmental record, etc.). However, I think it is iinteresting that President Carter says this, all from a man who couldn't even properly address our Embassy personnel being taken hostage, which is why I didn't vote for him again...what a wimp!

(The previous statement was made by ME, not by the author of the following article or any affiliated editors, etc. associated with the following article)

Carter Blasts Bush on His Global Impact
 
May 19, 7:08 PM (ET)

 
(AP) Former President Jimmy Carter listens to a student's question after speaking about his book...
Full Image
 
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.

Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and Carter biographer, described Carter's comments as unprecedented.

"This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made about an American president," Brinkley said. "When you call somebody the worst president, that's volatile. Those are fighting words."

Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."

"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.


Now, to attribute thisCORRECTLY so big bad BT doesn't jump down my throat: (geesh)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070519/D8P7O79O0.html

Retrieved at 8:26 am EDT.

So you want to run for president: Tips from the experts on how an independent could seek the White House
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 12:03 p.m. ET May 17, 2007

WASHINGTON - Dear Consultant:  I am a wealthy, former business owner who is now the chief executive of a large governmental organization. If I wanted to run for president of the United States as an independent, what do I need to do?

Dear Sir: The short answer is you need to gather enough signatures on petitions to get on the ballot in all 50 states. And spend a LOT of money on advertising.

Michael Bloomberg has that kind of money.

But will the wealthy New York City mayor follow Ross Perot’s third-party blueprint of 1992 and 1996? Or Ralph Nader’s of 2000 and 2004?

One Republican would like Bloomberg to do just that.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said Sunday, “A credible third ticket, third party, would be good for the system” because it would rebuke “both parties that have been hijacked by the extremes… Mayor Bloomberg is the kind of individual who should seriously think about this.”

Bloomberg, for now, has disclaimed any interest in the White House.

That may be in part because of the obstacles to mounting an independent bid. But while they are large, they are not insurmountable.

Ballot access experts say a candidate would need to confront these questions:

Q. Why does an independent need a bevy of ballot access experts, signature gatherers, and lawyers?
A. Each state has different requirements for a contender to get his name on the ballot. In California, for example an independent would need nearly 160,000 signatures, while in Minnesota he’d need only 2,000.

“You are not a candidate until you are on the ballot,” said ballot access expert Laureen Oliver, an advisor to Texas independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman last year and New York Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Golisano in 2002.

“An independent candidate can’t get on the ballot until he has organizational structure. That’s the number one reason that candidates who run as independents lose,” said Oliver. “It’s not money; it’s structure…. You need to do 50 races simultaneously.”

And if that organizational hurdle is not enough, keep in mind if an independent appears to be a threat to either of the major-party candidates, they might file lawsuits to try to keep him or her off state ballots.

In 2004, the Democrats, fearful of Nader, fought court battles to boot him off the ballot in Iowa and other states.


Too late to jump in the race?
Q. Is it getting late for an independent to begin mounting a bid for the White House?
A. Yes, said Oliver.  Even though some states’ petition deadlines are not until next summer, she stressed the need for early action to gather signatures. “The earlier you start, the better chance you have,” she said. “Organization comes before signatures.”

She added, ”If Bloomberg thinks he’d going to come out in September or December and do this, I’ll tell him point-blank, ‘you’re never going to make it.’”

Q. Is it necessary for a candidate to get on the ballot in ALL 50 states and the District of Columbia?
A. A candidate must win 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win the presidency. He would need to be on all or nearly all state ballots in order to have a reasonable chance to get 270.

The winner-take-all nature of the system makes it imperative to be a contender in as many states as possible. In 48 states the person with the statewide plurality (even if it isn't a majority) gets all of that state’s electoral votes.


1992 versus 2008
Q. Is it more difficult or less difficult for an independent to get on the ballot in all 50 states than it was in 1992 when Perot ran?
A. It’s easier now in six states, said Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, a leading source of ballot expertise. Since 1992, he said, several states have reduced the number of signatures needed to get in the ballot. It is more difficult in three states, he said: Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon.

Q. Are there any states which a candidate must form a political party in order to get on the ballot?
A. According to Winger, all states now have a procedure for an independent candidate to qualify without starting a new party in that state.

But, Oliver said, in New York it would be easiest for an independent to run on the ballot line of the Independence Party and in Florida to run as the candidate of the Reform Party, both of which already have ballot access.

Q. Are there lessons that a potential independent candidate can learn from Ross Perot’s experience in 1992?
A. If the candidate were Bloomberg, then he’d need to advertise early. “He needs to raise the awareness and introduce himself to rest of the country. I don’t think Bloomberg has anywhere near the same persona as Perot did in 1992,” said Bill Hillsman, president of North Woods Advertising in Minneapolis, who devised ad campaigns for Nader in 2000 and for Democrat Ned Lamont in last year’s Senate race in Connecticut.

“One of Perot’s masterstrokes was to use the access to the ballot as a mechanism for mobilizing people,” said Walter Stone, professor of political science at the University of California, Davis and co-author of “Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence.”

“He held press conferences, brought the signatures to the state capitol, and made a big show of getting his name on the ballot in different states,” said Stone. Ballot access “wasn’t just a barrier, it was an opportunity to organize, to demonstrate support. That was a brilliant strategic move.”

Bottom line: What's it gonna cost me?
Q. How much would it cost to get on the ballot in all 50 states?
A. According to Winger, a candidate would need a total of about 700,000 signatures nationwide. “If the bulk of the work were done in 2007, when paid circulators don’t have much work so they charge less, it could be done for $2.5 million.”

Q. What about the cost of TV, radio, and other advertising?
A. Hillsman estimated that it would cost more than $150 million for an advertising effort.

Hillsman said he hadn’t talked to Bloomberg. But “I'm a fan of what the mayor has accomplished in New York and we would certainly talk to them if they wanted to discuss with us,” he said.  “The choice of a running mate would be key, and we like a lot of what Chuck Hagel has been saying about the war.”

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18701434/

Would this work?

Iraq Withdrawal Plan

One of my hobbies is thinking up impractical solutions to world problems. Lately, my favorite problem is how to withdraw from Iraq without allowing a huge increase in civilian deaths. I have a solution. I call my plan the Ironic Peace by Stealing Oil Plan, or IPSOP.

The way this works is that the US informs the fledgling Iraqi government that we are going to withdraw from the population centers of Iraq, but we’re going to keep our military bases and take control of key Iraqi oil fields. The oil fields would be heavily guarded, of course, with wide perimeters.

Here’s the genius part. We ask the UN to form a commission to oversee the Iraqi government’s performance and the inevitable civil war. When that commission certifies that the Iraqis have worked out a solution for oil sharing, and power sharing, and when the civil war subsides, America agrees in advance to return the oil fields and phase out the military bases in five years. Until the UN certification comes, if it ever does, we just pump the Iraqi oil and use the revenue to help, for example, Palestinian children.

The beauty of this plan is that the Iraqis can choose to fight the civil war forever, or they can choose to get America out of their country. The longer the Iraqis kill each other, the more financial help the struggling Palestinians will get. Tragedy-wise, it’s a breakeven scenario. It’s morally neutral. And in the meantime, fewer Americans will die fighting in Iraq.

Would IPSOP work?

[Update: If insurgents attack the pipeline, they'd be attacking Palestinian interests. And we wouldn't need to protect all oil facilities, just whatever ones are easiest to control and protect.

As for funding Palestinians, I'm sure there's a way to limit the aid to something useful that can't get into the terrorists' hands. It could be shipments of medicine, for example. Obviously sending cash would be a bad idea. If funding Palestinians doesn't work for you, pick some starving Muslims in Africa.]

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/05/iraq_withdrawal.html