Standing up...

I'm on the road at the moment and a little out of touch. The hotel has, of course USA Today, and that's where two nods come from.

Arlen Specter has threatened to withhold funding from the NSA's warrentless wiretapping program.

Christopher Shays has criticized the lack of substance in the modified lobbying reform bill.

So a brief nod for standing up for the right thing. It's a start. We need more. Redemption is possible for even the most entrenched politician. They just need to listen to their heart (and constituents).

In the words of Rep. Shays:

"Republicans are losing the moral authority to lead this place, and I can't say much more about the Democrats. It's a race to the bottom."

Keep it coming. I'd love to see this as a forum announcing the good work of individuals. At the moment they're just hard to find.

Peace,

Matt












Tags: politics,, specter,, shays,, republicans,, democrats,, lobbying,, corruption,, wiretapping,, NSA,, individualism,, individualist

Why Parties Shouldn't Rule

While the Republicans are busy creating issues, like ethics reform, personal responsibility, and immigration to distract us from what's really going on, the Democrats can't seem to figure out what to talk about.

No surprise all the way around. In order for an organization of any sort to exist cohesively, they have to have a clear message that everyone involved is aligned with. This is usually put together by the leadership of the organization in the form of three statements: The Mission Statement, The Vision Statement, and The Value Statement (though a lot of organizations miss that last part).

The challenge an organization faces is in generating those statements and gaining consensus among it's membership. The Republicans and Democrats have tried so hard to be the party of everyone, that it's impossible to gain any real consensus among their members.

Republicans have fought this weakness by creating polarizing issues and then standing for them. The Democrats haven't fought that weakness, which leads to a muddled message and no clear direction. The only thing this leads to is the ability of the opposing party to point out the weaknesses of the other's strategy.

Parties are literally unable to do this and remain the large, overarching, all-issue, conglomerates they want to be. They squabble internally, and rip themselves apart by overindulging in the stands they think they want to take. There can actually be no strategy for them to implement.

Individuals on the other hand, have no trouble putting together personal statements of Mission, Vision, and Values. That is why Individuals have strength: Strength of Purpose, Strength of Conviction, and Strength of Faith.

Our current system means that any viable individual, small political party, or alternative viewpoint cannot be a force in American politics.

That is.... Unless we call it out, put a name on it, and take action.

I suggest that anyone who understands the fallacy of the two party system do only two things:

1. Throw out any intellectual or historical allegiance you have to any political party.
2. Vote for and support the person whose stated Mission, Vision, and Values, closely resemble your own.

This is not an easy task. You will not find someone you agree with 100% - you'll need to let some things slide. You will need to do it actively - tell people what your Mission, Vision, and Values are, AND why you have chosen the person you choose to support. You will be told in very compelling and graphic terms that you are throwing away your vote if you break from the two main parties. You may discover that you've been supporting the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and you'll have to own up to that.

What you gain - Clearer vision, conscience, and ownership over your role in government. A stance that is defensible in the face of the issues. A way of clearly communicating your vision and individual value within our society. A way of making positive statements when discussing the issues - an elimination of debates that involve "bashing the opposition."

Try it - you'll rest easier. All you need to give up is your way of looking at the world, and all you need to accept is your inalienable right to question everything - including yourself.

Peace,

Matt



Tags: politics, republicans, democrats, parties, government, values, mission, vision, rights, individualism, individualist, credo, liberty, freedom

In case you thought no one was listening...

After having written this post on making sure you are heard, I came across these two links:

CIA mines 'rich' content from blogs

MoodViews: Tools for Blog Mood Analysis

Speak Up! You are being heard!

Peace,

Matt



Tags: CIA, privacy, politics, blogosphere, voice, individualism, individualist, freedom, liberty

Give Me Liberty.... A Call for everyone to be Heard

An editorial in USA Today titled American Inquisition, is the first direct call to disarm our runaway loss of individual rights and liberty that I've seen in the mainstream media.

It compares our current situation with that of the Spanish Inquisition rather eloquently. Despite what many believe are the political leanings of USA Today, we should read the undercurrent that lead to the ability to print this.

Seemingly unrelated: according to Technorati's latest report, the number of Blogs is doubling every 6 months and a new Blog is created every second. The state of Politics in the US is one of the largest and fastest growing topics, even in personal and non-political blogs.

Why are the two related?

Because the fight against the Inquisition started in the blogosphere, and it's membership is growing.

Because there is a voice that can be given to the concerns of all people in the world of the blog.

Every blogger is, to some extent, an individualist. They share their voice with the world in the hopes that someone may listen, but not necessarily caring if anyone does. The voices are the collective cry of the human population. Some louder than others, but all poignant in what they represent.

USA Today's editorial isn't the first on the subject. It's not even the first to use the comparison. Bloggers were there first. Little voices aching to be heard.

As Americans finally wake up to what has been going on since the opportunistic takeover after 9/11, those voices will become louder.

I'm calling on every individualist everywhere - say something! Say Anything! I don't care if you are liberal, conservative, centrist, Republican, Democratic, Independent, Libertarian, extremist, moderate, optimist, pessimist, realist, intellectual, reactionary, proactive, or any other adjective I've missed.

SAY SOMETHING! Be Heard!

I'll leave you with a few quotes:

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato, Greek author & philosopher in Athens (427 BC - 347 BC)

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis. - Dante Alighieri, Italian national epic poet (1265 - 1321)

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell, English essayist, novelist, & satirist (1903 - 1950)

Find your voice and speak out! It may be the last right you have. Use it to your dying breath.

Peace,

Matt





Tags: Politics, Blogs, Blogging, Blogosphere, Voice, USA Today, Morals, Values, Privacy, Liberty, Individualist, Individualism, Credo, Diverse and Contradictory, liberal, conservative, centrist, Republican, Democratic, Independent, Libertarian, extremist, moderate, optimist, pessimist, realist, intellectual, reactionary, proactive, Technorati, rights, freedom, inquisition, American Inquisition, 911

Holding Out for a Hero

We need a Hero.

History has created a moment where great things could happen, but we need someone who can pull the sword from the stone.

Ron Fournier of the Associated Press wrote this article on our mutual search for the next great leader: As Voters' Frustration Grows, Distress Could Shake Up 2006 Midterm, 2008 Presidential Races

More and more, Americans are frustrated with politics as usual in Washington, where incompetence, arrogance, corruption and mindless partisanship seem the norm rather than the exception - a pox on both the Republican and Democratic parties.

This is it.

This is the time where independents could shine. This is the moment where we can take back our core values. This is point at which we can re-assert the rights of the individual. This is the where we can break the death hold of the two party system and start making politicians accountable for their actions.

But....


We need a Hero.

Nearly half of independents say the Democratic and Republican parties are equally corrupt. An AP-Ipsos poll in December found nearly 90 percent of all voters believes political corruption is a serious problem.

President Bush's approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency, and the public gives even lower marks to Congress. Republican and Democratic congressional leaders are held in equally low esteem.

Nearly 70 percent of the public believes the country is on the wrong track.

The in-fighting has got to go. The "My Party Above All Else" approach to politics, the voting along party lines, has all got to stop.

I don't want to vote for a party. I want to vote for a person. I'll even vote for someone I don't agree with in some areas, if they come with a back-bone and stand up and fight for what they believe in. I want to vote for an individual - a real person, not a party affiliation.

I want to vote for a HERO!

I'm not alone. Listen to the quotes of voters from Fournier's article:

"I don't see any great leaders on the horizon."

"If they stop fighting and bickering and put the American people's interests in front of where they should be, they could cure a whole lot of problems."

"I don't see either party doing anything advantageous for the population."

"I'm not happy with either party on national security."

No one is talking about people, just the parties. We all are tired of The Party.

We Want A HERO!

Do you know one?

Remember Credo 29. The person who pulls the sword from the stone won't be looking for the job. The Republicans and Democrats will hate them. They will be forced to stand on their own, and they'll only succeed by uniting the nation. They'll be independent, but surrounded by and supported by the best people available. They will walk through darkness and bring us to a golden age. They will be the stuff of legends.

WE WANT A HERO!

I just don't know where to find one.

Peace,

Matt




Tags: Hero, election, democrats, republicans, independents, individualism, partisan, politics, Diverse and Contradictory, individualists, united, credo, corruption, government

An interesting view inside the business of lobbying

This provides a fascinating view of the business of lobbying, at least for Abramoff's former firm:

E-mails Show Abramoff Using Donations in Effort to Force GOP Help for Client

Regardless of all of the allegations of wrongdoing (on both sides of the aisle, by the way) I find the business of the business very telling.

We all know that lobbyist have a major role in how our country decides what to do, but look at the strategies and the players:

First the lobbyists internally:

"The tribes that want this (not just ours) are the only guys who take care of the Rs," Abramoff deputy Todd Boulanger wrote in a June 19, 2002, e-mail to Abramoff and his lobbying team, using "Rs" as shorthand for Republicans.

"We're going to seriously reconsider our priorities in the current lists I'm drafting right now if our friends don't weigh in with some juice. If leadership isn't going to cash in a chit for (easily) our most important project, then they are out of luck from here on out," he wrote, referring to political donation lists.

They know they have power, but look at how this is worded to the internal team. This particular project - federal school funding for one of their clients - was one of their most important projects at the time, and it was in jeopardy. The lobbying firm was telling the lawmakers - this is important to our firm, and if you can't help us on this, we won't help you with our other clients and projects.

That's power. The validity of the lobbying effort and the importance of the legislation or funding didn't enter into it. The support was necessary for Abramoff's group to look good to a lucrative client, and they weren't hesitant about making that clear to lawmakers in an effort to influence them.

Abramoff's team turned to Congress, getting Michigan Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow to persuade their party's leaders to request the money in a spending bill. Democrats controlled the Senate in 2002.

Abramoff then turned to Republicans, including Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana, to overcome the administration's objections and secure $3 million specifically for the Saginaw when the GOP regained control of the Senate the next year.

No surprise that when the balance of power shifts, so does the focus of the lobbyists. As I said in this post, whatever party is in power always seems to have corruption and ethics scandals. But think about it - why try to "influence" someone with little or no ability to help your agenda?

The plan had hit a snag in summer 2002 when a single GOP House appropriations staffer, Joel Kaplan, objected.

That's when the team got mad. They contacted the NRCC - the fundraising arm of the Republicans, to discuss strategy. Based on that they stepped up donations and published a list showing the donations made by their clients to Republican candidates. They enlisted DeLay to try to talk to the staffer. They called the White House to talk to the staffer.

Then the congressional leadership stepped in:

In early 2003, Kaplan's new boss, House subcommittee chairman Charles Taylor, R-N.C., ended any problems in the House when he signed onto the Saginaw money. Burns' office took up the fight in the Senate.

It was basically all over except for the posturing (and the donating). No staffer can put up with that kind of pressure:

The two lawmakers wrote a letter in May 2003..."We hope our collective response has cleared up any unnecessary confusion."

unnecessary confusion is, of course, any opposition.

All of this is what lobbyists are hired to do - like it or not. People with influence can sell it. There isn't even anything technically wrong with that, although I'd like to think common sense and civic duty should override "influence". But then again, I'm an optimist.

My larger problem with the system is that groups that are not political insiders (like women, minorities, tribes, individuals...) have to hire lobbyists to get anything done. That's where the money comes in. Money for Abramoff and his group, and money for lawmakers:

A month before the letter, Abramoff's firm threw Taylor a fundraiser on April 11, 2003, that scored thousands of dollars in donations for the lawmaker's campaign, including $2,000 from Abramoff and $1,000 from the Saginaw. The tribe donated $3,000 more to Taylor a month after the letter.

Burns, likewise, got fresh donations. Several weeks before the letter, Burns collected $1,000 from the Saginaw and $5,000 from another Abramoff tribe. The month after the letter, the Saginaw delivered $4,000 in donations to Burns.

This is what got everyone in trouble. The fact that it looks like money changed hands to influence legislation. It's actually sad that you have rules like that - Backroom handshakes, legal; Payment to handshaker, legal; Payment to handshakee, not legal.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone just legislated in the best interests of those they represent and according to a moral code, a Credo if you will, that stated a simple set of beliefs and guiding principles?

Wouldn't it be nice if we discussed the issues we disagreed on with the goal of finding a mutually acceptable solution rather than a mutually profitable one?

Wouldn't it be nice if government was of the people, by the people, for the people?

I think so.

Peace,


Matt




Tags: Abramoff, lobbying, politics, bribery, scandal, e-mails, liberty, government, democrat, republican, Diverse and Contradictory, individualism

Another Motive for the Hype

In keeping with Credo Number 19, I offer up this little gem from the Associated Press:

Database at Center of Immigration Reform

Let's see - a national database of anyone with a social security number or work permit, that is accessable to anyone who is an employer and is run by the federal government. And not just any department, but the Department of Homeland Security.

Ooohh Boy.....

Alright, there's been enough bashing of DHS that I'm not going to take the obvious bait of pointing out how well they've managed communication and information so far. But I do want to disect this a little bit:

"A voluntary version of the Internet-based system has been up and running on an experimental basis since 1996"

Experimental since 1996? 10 years and we don't know if it works yet? Google would have had that up and running in less than 10 weeks! Okay... we'll just file that under concern number one.

"The system is linked to companies' records so employers cannot add employees to the payroll - be they janitors or CEOs - until the check is completed."

So, if they have any errors, such as misspelling your name, you can't be hired until someone in a government office corrects it? In addition to slowing down the pace of American business, we'll quickly have a major issue of people made homeless! Of course that won't effect the economic numbers since they won't technically be unemployed. That's the scariest thing I've heard!

"Department of Homeland Security employees conduct manual searches for applicants who are not automatically given the OK. Those still not cleared can contact the government to sort out the problem."

AHHH! I take it back - that is the scariest thing I've ever heard!

"The idea of such a program has long been tossed around. But businesses and civil rights groups argued that it would be too cumbersome for employers and would violate the privacy of American citizens and legal immigrants."

This is the key to the matter. While I find it hard to believe that anyone would see this violation of privacy as a good thing. The government sees that changing as people get more used to banking and shopping online.

Not mentioned is the hype about immigration that feeds the frenzy for such a notion as well. The article quotes the HR person at one company describing a decrease in applications:

"Brown said the use of the program - which requires the company to post a sign alerting applicants it may run their names through Homeland Security databases - has been accompanied by a slight decrease in applications.

"Once they see that you're about to put that through the program, they will say, `Just stop' or that they want to withdraw their application," Brown said."

The implication is that it is because they are illegal or undocumented - but there isn't anything to indicate that. But that's one way that DHS can sell a program that is otherwise untenable. Stay tuned for more innuendo I'm sure.

So, this program which has been included in several of the immigration bills that are out there - including those by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., must at least make fiscal sense. Well, lets do the numbers -

It's outsourced to Computer Sciences Corp. at 52 cents a head. 5 government staffers do manual follow up checks - let's say at $45k a year (low, but what the heck). 40 others are available for over flow - okay let's call that equivalent to another 3 staffers.

"In the past six months, the program ran 662,000 inquiries, with about 21,000 requiring a second manual check, said Gerry Ratliff, who heads Homeland Security's status verification office."

So 662,000 times 52 cents = $344,240.00 Plus the 8 staffers at $45k, gives us a grand total of $704,240.00. That's $1.4 million per year for the current 5000 companies.

What happens when we reach the 57 million new hires estimated? Among other things that's $29.6 million in revenue for Computer Science Corp.

(Note to self - buy stock)

DHS estimates they'll only need another 34 staffers for verifications - a minor $1.5 million or so.

Total cost: Well over $30 million, compared to the $1.4 they're spending now. Right?

"President Bush's budget request calls for adding $115 million to the program's current budget of $20 million to make it mandatory across the country."

What? My numbers must be off. Wait - I didn't use my government budget calculator to get the numbers. Apparently $1.4 million = $20 million. So, when the numbers increase 20 times, you'll get ($20 million time 20) $400 million. Okay wait - the budget says $115 million.

Alright now I know why I don't work in the governement budget office.

Regardless, the idea isn't palatable. Rights to privacy alone should be enough to shut this down. Factor in the cost to the taxpayer and the huge logistical problems, and it's no longer feasable. Add in the potential damage to our economy and it's downright frightening.

Don't let all of the hype about immigration and illegal workers make us do something stupid. We could seriously damage ourselves and everything we stand for with this.

Please, stop this now.

Peace,


Matt




Tags: database, homeland security, Kennedy, McCain, immigration, illegal workers, economy, liberty, privacy, credo, hype, Bush, liberty, politics, Diverse and Contradictory, taxpayer, budget

Managing the Issues - The Immigration Hype

I'm about ready to declare a unilateral moratorium on the subject of immigration. It is hard for me to fathom that people and the media can be so taken in by the introduction of a single subject debate that it becomes the top priority of our country.

There is a lot of press on the new AP-Ipsos poll AP-Ipsos poll, but I can't find anyone who reads it right. Let's start here:

"When people were asked this past week to name the top national problem that came to mind, 13 percent said immigration -– four times the number who said that in January."

"Only 14 percent now say the economy and related issues are their top concern, compared with 24 percent in October."

Incredible. Since January, this issue has overtaken the economy on what we are concerned about? This has got to make the politicians and demagogues spinning this issue really happy.

Now while it's possible for an issue to rise in importance that fast, what amazes me is what it overtook - namely the economy. The entire immigration debate has been an economic argument about whether illegal immigrants take our jobs, use our resources, and don't pay taxes or provide the backbone to our economy. Those are the sides people are taking. The visibility has brought out the fringe element that either wants to close the borders to immigration, legal or otherwise, or feel we should be a pluralistic nation - but those are distractions.

Somehow we've found a way, however mistaken, to put a face on our economic concerns. We don't have a problem with our economy - we have an immigration problem. Give me a break!

I find it hard to believe that so many people are being drawn into these spurious arguments! And yet, according to a recent Rasmussen Report:

"Fifty percent (50%) of Americans say the immigration issue is very important."

"The survey found that a majority (54%) oppose the current U.S. law that grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the United States. Thirty-six percent (36%) favor this policy."

"Just 27% of Americans believe the U.S. should provide foreign aid to help create jobs in Mexico."

Incredible. How can the hype over this issue turn us from the Land of Opportunity into Xenophobic Nationalists. The vast majority of us came here as immigrants - not all of them legally.

Native Americans must be shaking their heads in disbelief. I'm sure they'd love to deport all of the immigrants from about 1400 AD on.....

But the politicians and demagogues have done a great job on building this up. This was the premise of the Rasmussen Report survey:

"A Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey asked Americans to choose between two hypothetical candidates with differing positions on the immigration issue.
One candidate favors building a barrier along the Mexican border and forcing illegal aliens to leave the United States. The other candidate favors expanding the ways that foreign workers can legally get jobs in the United States.
Forty-six percent (46%) of Americans said that they prefer the candidate with the harder line on illegal aliens while 38% opt for the candidate who wants to expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs.
However, those who say the immigration issue is very important in determining their vote prefer the pro-enforcement candidate by a much larger margin, 67% to 23%. This suggests that the short-term political advantage on the immigration issue lies with those who want a tougher enforcement policy."

So poll-minded politicos now have the strategic information they need to create their election campaign. At the same time, the more people who start to see immigration as an important issue, the more certain their voting habit will be, and the more certain politicos can be about the best strategic position to take.

I'm begging everyone - put away the hype. Look at how you are being manipulated. Please don't fall down the path of letting the election determine what you think is important. Don't confuse economic issues with immigration issues. Don't confuse war issues with patriotic issues. Don't confuse politics with morals.

And most of all - Don't forget that no issue has only two sides.

Peace,

Matt


hype, immigration, Rasmussen, AP, Poll, Credo, demagogue, politics, deportation, morals, election, Mexico, manipulation, Diverse and Contradictory

Site Changes

I've made some layout changes to the D&C site, bringing the purpose and the CREDO - our guiding principles - to a more prominent position.

I've also added a section to list out the "Followers of The CREDO". Let me know if you need to be added.

As the movement takes hold, there will be more changes and updates.

Thank you for your time.

Peace,

Matt


CREDO, Diverse and Contradictory, Individualism, Movement, Sovereignty

In other news: Pigs Fly!

Apple opens the door to Windows XP

Whether this is a concession to the overwhelming domination of Microsoft software in the marketplace or not, Apple just broke a major barrier to regaining some of it's hardware market share.

I've been intrigued ever since they moved to an Intel processor, but the question is: What's next?

Is this the pre-cursor to a buy-out or merger? Doubtful - that would give MS too big a market share, although it could be argued that they're already there.

Stay tuned as we track the path of these airborne bovines.

Peace,


Matt




Tags: Apple, Microsoft, Pigs, Diverse and Contradictory, Windows, Intel, Business Boot Camp

Stupidity has no bounds

There isn't anything to add to this:

Child Porn Sting Nets Homeland Security Staffer - Los Angeles Times

A Deputy Press Secretary! Give me a break!

"Doyle gave the detective his office phone number and his government-issued cell phone number so they could have telephone conversations."

What planet could this person have been from to not realize the magnitude of the mistake? The Department of Homeland Security encompasses a number of agencies that have investigative and surveillance capabilities, yet this idiot seemed to think that government issued telecommunication systems were secure enough for this kind of activity!

I guess we are fortunate that he was that stupid and could be stopped.

Please see Credo number 17.

Peace,


Matt



Tags: stupidity, credo, homeland security, child porn, Diverse and Contradictory

Staring down the obvious

This caught my attention:

GOP vows to tackle ethics reform - The Boston Globe

"House Republican leaders yesterday proclaimed a fresh start for their legislative agenda, vowing to act quickly to reform ethics laws following the news that Representative Tom DeLay -- the focus of much of the ethical debate in Congress -- is planning to resign his seat."

It's a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have left, but you can understand why they want to come out strong on this issue. Besides it's not their only issue:

"House majority leader John Boehner....adding that ethics reform will be merely the first of many initiatives this spring, including a new fiscally responsible budget plan."

Catch that?

First - they now have permission to fail on ethics reform because it's not the only issue they're working on it is "merely the first". Merely. Not the most important. "Merely" one of quite a few.
Second - the other items include "a new fiscally responsible budget plan". See Credo number 10. This ought to be good. It's not like there haven't been years worth of opportunities.

But the posturing is not one sided:

"Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. ''We are running to end the Republican culture of corruption and restore integrity to our government."

Please - don't make me list out Democratic foibles too. The reality is that whatever party is in power has corruption and ethics scandals, and whichever one isn't in power plays the morally righteous underdog. It's getting old...

Posturing doesn't help anyone - see Credo number 32. It also seems like all politicians have lost sight of Credo number 31, but that only proves Credo number 29.

Ultimately, I'm amazed that either side would expect anyone to believe their hype, but then, they do seem to have a grasp of Credo number 17.

Peace,

Matt




Tags: Delay, Congress, Ethics, Credo, Diverse and Contradictory, Republicans, Democrats, Budget, Politics

From the mouths of babes

This is just amusing:

What kids think of their bureaucrat parents
From - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity

Peace,

Matt

The Credo in Action

Now that the D&C Credo is partially published, it's starting to show up in action.

This post by Sean Aqui of Midtopia, utilizes credo points, 2, 13, 14, 20, 21, 23, 29, and 33.

More updates as the word gets out.

Peace,

Matt


tags: credo Midtopia Diverse and Contradictory