PSoTD

I gave. How about you?

As long as the Congress is ruled in both houses by Republicans that choose to support President Bush on almost anything he does, I vow to:

Always refer in my blog to the current Federal Government as the Bush Republican Administration rather than the Bush Administration.

Tar the entire party with Bush. Let them deal with it.

We'll just see how much the Republican Administration - President and Congress - gets pushed around on this issue.

China opposes US lifting of Taiwan contact ban

Beijing said yesterday that it strongly opposes US moves to lift decades-old restrictions on contact between American and Taiwan officials, saying it runs counter to the one-China principle.

The US House of Representatives approved the measure on Wednesday but it has not yet been considered by the Senate.

"China has always resolutely opposed any form of official contact between US and Taiwan authorities," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a news conference.

She called the resolution a "serious violation of the fundamental principles of Sino-US relations" and said it ran contrary to the commitment to the one-China policy the United States has affirmed many times.

US restrictions that prevent high-ranking American military officers from travelling to Taiwan have been in force since 1979, when it established diplomatic relations with Beijing.

Also prohibited are meetings between US and Taiwan civilian officials in certain government buildings, including the White House.

The House approved the measure in an amendment to a funding bill for the State Department; and the Senate could debate the issue later this summer.

I found this web site advertised from an Ugandan newspaper. (Don't ask, I'm an info junkie)

Green Card Lottery Live and Work in the U.S.A. Usafis Green Card Lottery Application Service

for a group known as USAFIS

Theoretically, Ugandans register online. But "In order to win the American Green Card to Live and Work in America" Ugandans have to pay a fee with your online registration. Registration, however, is free for people who actually register US State Department of State. So why go through USAFIS? Here's the come-on... *Winners will get FREE Airline ticket to the USA

The fine print? Green Card Lottery winners will receive airline ticket1 for free, up to $500 value. Terms mentioned herein are limited to winners who registered through usafis.org and hired Usafis.org affiliated law firm to process their Green Card application.

Oh... you have to hire the affiliated law firm, too.

The whole USAFIS web site reads like one of those "Repair Your Credit for $400" outfits from the 1980s. It is piggybacking on an official American government program, which means it can impact on the impression of citizens of other nations on the actions of our Department of State. In fact, there are stories about Green Card fraud circulating already. Is Congress looking into businesses like USAFIS?

I smell gerrymandering disasters by the truckload coming up...

On a different issue, the court ruled that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like — not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital.

The Constitution says states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts. In Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay after Republicans took control.

That was acceptable, justices said.

I wish we didn't have to let the games begin, but that is coming...

I'm still waiting for a longshot Democrat Congressional Candidate to unleash their

"Elect Me and I'll Personally Punch Karl Rove in the Nose"

campaign. I think it might be a surprise sleeper.

From the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Addressing other high school students during graduation ceremonies because you are the class valedictorian is not a right. It is a privilege. If students can't accept it as a privilege and keep their comments within the guidelines offered by the educational institution, then high schools would be best off taking the privilege away, to avoid lawsuits such as what the The Rutherford Institute is committing against Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada.

A couple of days ago I asked a QotD about membership in homeowner associations. It's a subject I know a little about, I belong to one and am an officer. We're one of those voluntary organizations - we don't have any power to force neighbors to join or pay, and in many ways I prefer that. On the other hand, we have park properties that we are required to maintain, and there's not a guaranteed stream of revenue (but there is a dependable one at this point), and a guarantee sure would be preferable.

But what I want to talk about is voluntary versus required fees or taxes. This development I live in is over 40 years old and has about 400 houses in it. The properties that the homeowner association "owns" are two parks and a natural area that add benefit and value to the neighborhood. Yet, regardless of how hard we try to make that point, we can't get but about 70% of the households in the neighborhood to pay annual dues of approximately $50. There are some folks with financial hardship - older residents, retired residents, ill residents - and I realize that there's no way to expect 100% voluntary participation.

But when we survey residents and ask the remaning 25% why they won't pay, the answer usually is "I don't use the parks". This minority doesn't agree with the community standard that the parks benefit the neighborhood as a whole, that the parks increase the value of each home in the neighborhood, that the parks give kids somewhere else to play noisily other than right outside their bedroom at 8 AM on Saturday morning. They don't see that the parks and the natural area looks a lot better than just more houses in the same area. They don't see that the parks are actually one of the first things that visitors notice about our neighborhood. They don't see any of that.

They see $50, it's theirs, and they don't go in the park. It's voluntary, and the next ten trips to Starbucks is more important to them than joining the community for community benefit.

I'm not venting about our neighborhood. Our neighborhood isn't that different from yours, or anyone else's, in my humble opinion. I think it's representative of the nation at large. There's a 25% out there in your city. There's a 25% in every city. They require immediate gratification for expenditure. They play to pay, not pay to play. They're vocal, too. They don't want to pay taxes for schools, because they don't have any kids. They don't want to pay for Social Security, because they think they have their nest egg already. And if it is voluntary, they aren't going to pay for it. They're not interested in paying for a present or a future in which they don't receive some sort of gratification. And unless there is a force of law compelling them to, they aren't going to do it. Not even a measly $50 a year, not even for their neighbors' kids.

I don't know if that 25% is growing or shrinking in our society, and I don't know if they reach their decision due to nature or nurture. I do know that it's a big mistake for government to expect them to pay ANYTHING for the present or the future on a voluntary basis. The same people who promote such ideas are the people who will skip out on payment the moment it becomes voluntary.

I just thought I'd take a spin a day through the campaign web sites for incumbents running for their current seat in the United States Senate. Who includes Iraq as a specific issue on their campaign web site? No judgement on the quality of their position, but just the mere fact that they specify Iraq as an election issue and provide some position information on it? I didn't include "Veterans" because much of that is about benefits - not about the war/foreign affairs issue.

Includes Iraq as an Issue

Daniel Akaka of Hawaii - Yes
Conrad Burns of Montana - Yes
Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts - Yes
Ben Nelson of Nebraska - Yes
Bill Nelson of Florida - Yes
Orrin Hatch of Utah - Yes
George Allen of Virginia - Yes
Maria Cantwell of Washington - Sorta
Robert Byrd of West Virginia - Yes

Does Not Include Iraq as an Issue

Bob Menendez of New Jersey - No
Mike DeWine of Ohio - No
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania - No
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - No
Jon Kyl of Arizona - No
Dianne Feinstein of California - No
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut - No
Tom Carper of Delaware - No
Olympia Snowe of Maine - No
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan - No
Jim Talent of Missouri - No
Hillary Clinton of New York - No
Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas - No
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin - No
Dick Lugar of Indiana - No
Kent Conrad of North Dakota - No

Could Not Find Campaign Web Site

Craig Thomas of Wyoming - Could Not Find Web Site
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico - Could Not Find Web Site
Trent Lott of Mississippi - Could Not Find Web Site

Why isn't Iraq an issue on so many of these U.S. Senate imcumbent campaign web sites?

Newspapers are waking up about Congress, slowly. From the Jackson Clarion-Ledger:

As employers on the Mississippi Gulf Coast have found in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the minimum wage won't attract workers. There, signing and retention bonuses are being offered for what are considered "minimum wage" jobs, and still aren't being filled.

The $5.15 an hour level was set in 1997. By comparison, federal lawmakers' annual pay has risen by roughly $30,000 since then. And, now some are pushing for doing away with the estate tax, which only 3 in 1,000 Americans are rich enough to be affected by (only estates worth more than $3.5 million or $7 million for a couple).

Who does this Congress represent?

I think the Clarion-Ledger hinted at an idea there - tie the minimum wage to the salary of Congress (including benefits). Whatever percentage of increase would occur for Congress would automatically be the same percentage of increase for the minimum wage. (But NOT visa versa)

From Hotline:

Sen. John Edwards convened a retreat earlier this week for a bevy of top Democrats in Washington.

Edwards was peppered with questions about a presidential bid. According to one participant, Edwards answered that he is "seriously considering" one, provided wife Elizabeth Edwards remains healthy.

I watched Edwards' poverty speech on CSpan, and it was very easy to be impressed by both the presentation and the approach to the issue. If one believes that poverty is a large contributory cause of a whole slew of social ills, and I do, then you have to want this guy to be a major contender in 2008. If one believes that America can't successfully export solutions to poverty to other countries until it resolves some solutions itself, as I do, then you have to want Edwards to be a major contender in 2008.

And if you believe that America's role in the world will be stronger - and more accepted - when we can export solutions to poverty, then you REALLY want Edwards to be a major contender in 2008.

I decree that one Joe Biden should go on a two month long diet limited to such.

That should about do it.

If we let our government go against the ideals our country was established by, we risk allowing that government slip into replacing justice with control. Assuming that justice can be returned, the nation's pain haunts for generations. Just remember Argentina:

Over 30 years after the 1976 coup, the shadows of those terrible times continue stalking the country with their presence still felt in recent news items ? even with President N?stor Kirchner absent in Spain and the World Cup entering its decisive stages. On Tuesday the trial of Miguel Etchecolatz (the second-in-command of the notorious Buenos Aires provincial police chief General Ram'n Camps) for crimes against humanity began in La Plata while retired military officers chose the same day to pay tribute to various ex-colleagues slain by terrorists. Perhaps San Isidro Bishop Jorge Casaretto might be tempted to say: ?A plague on both your houses!? over the human rights debate if it were seemly for ecclesiastics to curse ? as it was, he called on society to ?overcome the traumas of the past? in a message of reconciliation last weekend.

In fact much of society needs no second invitation to move past those traumas ?- even if motives range from guilt (personal or collective) or simple discomfort to a strong feeling that the future only belongs to countries which look ahead, not remain stuck in the past. Yet it would be dangerous to regard either the Etchecolatz trial or memories of terrorism as useless anachronisms. Some might challenge the point of trying somebody like Etchecolatz who is too old for anything more than house arrest but however inadequate the punishment, the single word ?missing? which describes the status of so many ?dirty war? victims shows how much remains to be clarified ? the Etchecolatz trial does have this value. Above all, it delivers a necessary message against impunity beyond the passage of time. The tribute to military victims of terrorism also has its place over and above any provocative intentions. In order to say that the 1976-83 military dictatorship employed the worst possible counter-terrorist methods, why should it be necessary to deny the existence of terrorism (as has become almost mandatory in some government circles)? The insistence on only condemning state terrorism is often criticized as resentful or vindictive but, however admirable the forgiveness of a Nelson Mandela might be, those who have suffered should also be allowed the right to rancour (not that the resentful are always victims) what they cannot be allowed is to disregard the truth, which must remain uppermost in any remembrance.

In reviewing the 70s, memories should thus not be limited to Argentina's World Cup triumph 28 years ago this coming Sunday (a day Argentina also played Holland).

Here's the main PR value of the Miami terrorism arrests, and it's a great value:

Sources told CNN that the arrests culminated a monthslong undercover operation. The suspects believed they were dealing with an al Qaeda operative but the person was actually a government informant, the sources said.

Spreading doubt in a decentralized process just creates more dissuasion in getting involved in that process. Doubt does not stimulate development. This could reduce the number of potential domestic terrorists.

Of course, if this story backfires and embarrasses the U.S. somehow, the value will be destroyed. Law enforcement and the Justice Department have to be right on this, or else.

There must be something very very dreadful in Republican polling about the issue of WMDs and Iraq. I suspect it's a longterm ramification - perhaps something such as if people are asked whether Republicans are more or less truthful than Democrats, and answer less truthful, and then are asked for an example as to why they believe that, that WMDs in Iraq comes up often as the star example.

And so, we are going to be treated with an overwhelming campaign to build a mountain out of rabbit turds. I really don't expect the American public to change their minds about this issue at this point.

I really can't think of a "favored" candidate for either party, at least since Humphrey, with a greater upside for pulling apart the nominating political party.

Like Arthur Miller.

The planners of Boise, Idaho ought to talk to the planners of Sacramento, California. Having lived in Sacramento 25 years ago, and having visited Boise the past few days, I feel completely unqualified and yet completely comfortable saying the similiarites between the two, Sacramento 1981 and Boise 2006, are pretty obvious. I'm sure Sacramentans have seen mistakes over the past 25 years they wouldn't want to repeat. Perhaps Boise is, or will, try to learn from those.

Democrats: Just Say No.

Streaking at events, such as the World Cup, is moronic. There was a time - back in the 1970s - that there was a novelty to such actions. The novelty is gone. There's no message. There's no philosophical point.

It is just disruption of an event that everyone else wants to continue.

Still... I don't think that people should feel comfortable that serial streakers had their passports taken because of the possibility they may streak at the World Cup.

English police have got to grips with a streaker, stripping him of his passport to stop him going to the World Cup, they said Tuesday.

Craig Bowler, 28, was banned from domestic and international matches after charging naked across the pitch as Wimbledon played Sheffield United in September 2003.

He should have surrendered his passport to police before May 31 under the terms of his football banning order.

But he failed to do so and he was arrested Friday and questioned by officers. He will appear in court next Tuesday.

Serial British streaker Mark Roberts has also been banned from travelling to the World Cup in Germany.

Hey... doesn't NTodd live in Vermont?

This may come as a surprise to many people, but if you wanted to bike, roller blade, stroll or sunbathe on the Burlington bike path in the buff-- it's perfectly legal.

Phinneas Sosin expects 100 bicyclists will join him for the second annual bike ride through Burlington to protest energy policies-- all of them completely naked.

"The parts of the nakedness, I believe, is a real symbol against commercialism," says Sosin.

"Simply the fact that you're unclothed is not against the law," says Bill Sorrell, D-Vt. Attorney General.

Sorrell says there is no Vermont law that prohibits public nudity, unless you're a flasher.

I'm not sure it's possible to quite put the Fitzgerald decision not to prosecute Rove in context at this time. It just seems to me that there's too much left to play out.

But I do think this: Karl Rove's future doesn't look very enjoyable to me. There's an old saying about Hollywood stars and seeing the people they stepped on while climbing the entertainment ladder a second time, when on their way down. Those people aren't very nice the second time around. Karl Rove seems destined for this, politico-style. And a large segment of America will enjoy it, too.

This whole Ann Coulter thing this week is pretty depressing. It is depressing that the media gave it enough respect to allow for other conservatives to actually "recontext" her comments and support what she said.

But most of all, it is depressing about why these conservatives did this. They don't think twice about ripping apart a former colleague based on a variety of reasons - but going to far in attacking your political opponent is not one of these reasons. What's depressing is that it's abundantly clear that these "media conservatives" don't know what too far is, or don't care, and yet the news media at large gives them credibility. When will Ann Coulter go too far for these people? Is it even possible?

Or will they follow her to the point that she advocates "camps" for her political opponents...

At least for now. But the monarchists are likely to continue trying.

Give credit where credit is due: this is good news for America and Iraqis. But it remains to be seen how much good news, or how long it remains good news.

If terrorism in Iraq simply grows a new head and remains unabated, then it'll likely be a point in which America will admit to a need to revise the plans, both in Iraq and the effort against terrorism, and realize that killing the leaders won't stop the "colonization".

The human species has a long, long, long way to go to reduce the acceptance of the use of violence as a response to a minor difference. From the Turkish Daily News:

According to 2003 data on population and health from the Health Ministry, burning meals, spending too much money and refusing to have sexual intercourse are among the reasons for women's exposure to violence.

The most interesting finding of the research is that 63 percent of women aged 15-19, 39 percent of women aged 45-49, 32.5 percent of women in western Turkey and 49 percent of women living in eastern Turkey think their husbands are justified in beating them for various reasons.

State Minister for Women Affairs Nimet Çubukçu, in response to a question submitted by Republican People's Party (CHP) deputies Gökhan Durgun and Sami Tandoğdu on Sunday, provided information about acts of domestic violence accompanied by statistics from the police and the gendarmerie.

According to the data, burning meals, spending too much money, neglecting children's care and refusing to have sex are just some of the reasons husbands beat their wives.

I can't claim to be a regular churchgoer, but it just seems to me that the Christian faith establishments are not discussing nor debating what they can do with their members to reduce the threat of domestic-grown terrorism in our country. In particular, are there things that a Church can do to try to calm the environment from such acts of violence? Where's the debate and discussion?

CBS is reporting that more U.S. terrorist attacks are expected, probably by the end of the year:

U.S. officials believe Canadian arrests over the weekend and three recent domestic incidents in the United States are evidence the U.S. will soon be hit again by a terrorist attack. Privately, they say, they'd be surprised if it didn't come by the end of the year, reports CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart in a CBS News exclusive.

The first of the domestic incidents, all of which drew little attention at the time, began with the holdup of a string of Torrance, Calif. gas stations last summer. Muslim converts who bonded together in prison planned to use the robberies to finance attacks on 20 Army recruiting stations.

There was also some information about a couple of other plots discovered, and this:

Analysts now conclude similarities between all the cases were dramatic: All were self-financed, self-motivated, and in each case the men were seeking out others to join their cell.

In short, Osama bin Laden didn't pay for these plots, recruit for them or even know of them. They were all totally homegrown — even amateurish. But if four, including the one in Canada, have been uncovered in just 11 months, officials fear there are inevitably other plots that have not been and are maturing even now.

The next attack here, officials predict, will bear no resemblance to Sept. 11. The casualty toll will not be that high, the target probably not that big. We may not even recognize it for what it is at first, they say. But it's coming — of that they seem certain.

So America has homegrown terrorists in our midst. That brings me to a question that I've really not heard a debate about, and it a serious question that I think the various Christian faiths ought to be discussing with their worshippers:

How would Jesus work to prevent terrorism? What should Christians, who follow the word of Jesus, do to reduce terrorism?

I'm very serious. We know the war machine response. What about the institutions that promote love and caring? What should the proper response be, according to Jesus?

More proof that Congress is full of them...

This nation is building a divide, and Congress is actively increasing it. That divide is between the haves and the almost-haves and the have-nots. The key is the almost-haves, the middle-class that is being cut off from opportunity by a wealthy governing class that has determined that their job is to talk about opportunity but not provide any opportunity that might negatively impact the wealthy governing class. Once the almost-haves realize that they are being cut off from economic opportunity afforded previous generations - and are sliding the other direction - it's likely to get pretty damn ugly for the haves, which, of course, leads into further expansion of the police state.

I'll be interested to see where this story is in a week, a month, a year. Will we know more about the plot? Will we know how, at least in general, authorities determined the plot? Will we know if new intelligence tactics in the United States contributed valuably to this investigation? Or will we be told to accept that these arrests prove that the Bush Administration is doing everything right, and to quit asking questions?

How much detail will our government give Americans about their participation in this investigation and the arrests - and how much credit will they declare?

I believe that government should do all it reasonably can to provide policy to support the family. Each generation is a range of building blocks for the growth of the nation, and a quality generation is as important as any other resource available, period. Tax breaks, housing policy, education policy, etc., all goes towards that. Much more can be done in our country and isn't.

But I don't believe that writing checks to parents who had babies is smart policy, or even IS policy, even for the goal of increasing the birthrate. The policy of Ukraine just strikes me as incredibly short-focused.

There are different publications that come out regularly that grades the activities and accomplishments of members of Congress. I'd like to see a publication that reviews voters. Probably the easiest way is to review them by county, with the criteria being:

Number of members of Congress elected that were eventually convicted of a crime after initial Congressional election, regardless of Congressional status at the time.

Average years in Congress for elected members of Congress per county.

Number of lawsuits brought against members of Congress elected per county.

There could be other categories, but the point is to try to assess some minimum standards of attentiveness in voters around the country.

Democratic Party Congressional candidates ought to be all over this, all over the nation. Shouldn't this seem at least mildly incompetent to the average voter? How can DHS make a case for a Homeland Security funding strategy that seems counter-intuitive, especially when they hide behind the screen of classified information? Sure, Kansas might feel safer, but does no one remember what happened to the economy the LAST TIME New York City and Washington DC was attacked? There was a national impact.

It's true that an attack in Orlando or Omaha would have national economic impact as well, but the scale is considerably different.

So candidates for Congress should press that they will require accountability to Congress for the funding. Especially when a Rand study indicates that seven of the 10 highest-risk cities will lose funding under the DHS plan while six of the 10 lowest-risk cities in the Rand study will see increases in funds.