Amendment 4 - the "Case Study"

Opponents of Amendment 4 cite St. Pete Beach as a "case study" into "the evils of Amendment 4."  They say that the 10,000 person community became mired in endless litigation, just a small taste of what would happen with a statewide mandate.

The St. Petersburgh Times sums up the background for us:

In 2005, St. Pete Beach's five-member City Commission was considering changing its development plan, the comprehensive plan. The commission was debating incentives to lure additional hotels that could increase the density of a development and change the allowed uses.

The talk of change didn't sit well with many residents, who collected petitions to get a series of charter amendments on the city ballot that would require voter approval for height increases and other changes to land use plans.

From there it got contentious. The city sued to stop the vote, saying the proposed charter amendments violated state land use law. A developer also sued, saying the petition process was costing him money.

The city lost its case on appeal, and in November 2006, voters narrowly approved most of the changes to the City Charter. The results: St. Pete Beach became the first town in Florida where residents directly controlled development decisions. Voters also elected two members of Citizens for Responsible Growth to the City Commission, giving them a majority.

That prompted a pro-developer group to start its own petition drive and propose its own amendments to the city's comprehensive plan. The city's elected officials — who had gone from being largely pro-development to anti-development — tried to stop them.

It got even more contentious. There were more lawsuits.

Then, another election, another change of power, and eventually, another referendum. This time, the pro-development side won.

The upshot — four years after city voters decided they wanted control over land use decisions, the entire process has been sidetracked and stymied by lawsuits and politics, petition drives and egos.

Right off the bat, something jumps out at me; voters introduced the referenda, and not the local governments.   Amendment 4 stipulates that local governments put up the referenda, not politicial action committees or concerned citizens.

Here are the relevant St. Pete Beach laws:

Section 3.15: Voter approval required for approval of comprehensive land use plan or comprehensive land use plan amendment. 
A comprehensive plan (“Plan”) or comprehensive plan amendment (“Plan Amendment”) (both as defined in Florida Statutes Chapter 163) shall not be adopted by the City Commission until such proposed Plan or Plan Amendment is approved by the electors in a referendum as provided by Florida Statute Sec-
tion 166.031 or by the City Charter or as otherwise provided by law. Elector approval shall not be required for any Plan or Plan Amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land or as otherwise prohibited by Florida Statutes including but not limited to Florida Statutes Section 163.3167.

Section 3.16: Voter approval required for approval of or effectiveness of community redevelopment plan. 
A community redevelopment plan as defined in Florida Statutes Section 163 shall not be adopted by the City Commission until such proposed community redevelopment plan is submitted to a vote of the electors by referendum as provided by Florida Statute Section 166.031 or by the City Charter.

Section 3.18: Voter approval required for increase in allowable height of structure. 
No amendment to the City’s Land Development Code providing for an increase in the allowable height (as defined by the Land Development Code) of any structure (as defined by the Land Development Code) shall be adopted by the City Commission until such amendment is submitted to a vote of the electors by referendum as provided by Florida Statutes Section 166.031 or by the City Charter.

The article actually identifies the key difference between what St Pete Beach had, and what Amendment 4 is:

Blackner walked PolitiFact Florida through how she says the new process would work.

Say a developer proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan to build a condo high-rise in the middle of town. Currently, an application would be submitted to the local government that has jurisdiction; the local government would follow its approval process — two public hearings, etc.; and then the state Department of Community Affairs would be asked to sign off on the amendment. None of that would change.

But if the developer gets his approvals, Amendment 4 would add one more step. Voters would either ratify or veto the developer's plans at the next regularly scheduled election.

What's critical to note in St. Pete Beach's case is that citizens themselves proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan — an end-run of the process established by state law.

In other words, what happened in St. Pete Beach was that citizens introduced referenda before there was actually a change of plan created by the local government, a situation that Amendment 4 does not create.

So what really happened in St. Pete Beach? Here's the basic narrative:

Back in 2007, Save Our Little Village (SOLV), a politcal action committee, submitted 6 ordinances by initiative.  This led to SOLV filing suit to compel the city to submit these measures to voters. 

But SOLV's victory in getting its initiatives on the ballot led to a lawsuit; in Pyle vs. the City of St. Pete Beach, a citizen claimed that four of the six ballot summaries were "false, misleading, and deceptive."  But by the time the suit was filed, the election was technically under way (absentee ballots had already been distributed) so the Court left the items on the ballot.  The Court pointed out that voters could reject the items having inaccurate summaries on that merit, or for any other reason.

That led to the next lawsuit, on the same issue, when voters approved the four initiatives in question.  A fourth lawsuit was filed, stating that the 4 ordinances (one created a countywide land use plan, the other three amended Land Development Regulations)  did not comply with the existing comprehensive plan.  A fifth lawsuit was filed, claiming that sections 3.15, 3.16 and 3.18 created an additional arm of the government, while a sixth lawsuit challenged the validity of the current comprehensive land use plan.

Now, Citizens for Lower Taxes is correct when they say St. Pete Beach was mired in lawsuits. The city was sued - but none of these suits are the results of anything mandated by Amendment 4.

But don't take my word for it; Ed Ruddencutter, former vice-Mayor St. Pete Beach, wrote in a letter to current vice-Mayor and Amendment 4 opponent Jim Parent:

St. Pete Beach has NEVER had a serious ballot issue in accordance with what you call our, "our mini-amendment 4 experiment here in SPB", also known as City Charter Section 3.15. The SOLV comprehensive plan vote was a citizen initiative petition, in accordance with City Charter Section 7.02, and had nothing to do with our requirement for a vote on Comprehensive Plan amendments. There has never been a Section 3.15 vote on a plan change that affected serious changes on land use, height, density or intensity. The lawsuits were as a result of a Section 7.02 vote only.

Amendment 4 does not state that citizens can change the local land use code by referendum; it only mandates that once a land use change has gone through its process - which dictates that in fact the measures are drafted and reviewed by City officials - the voters have the final say on whether or not those measures can take effect.

The Florida Supreme Court described it in 2005:

...the proposed amendment at issue in this case alters only one step in an already established process.  It does not give the public the power to establish policy, collect funds, administer those funds, or adjudicate liability. - SC04-1134

Interestingly, this is the exact document linked by the Say No To 4 website, only they conclude that the court finding indicated that it adds all kinds of complexity to the process.

The "case study" cited by Citizens for Lower Taxes does not, in fact, stand up under close scrutiny. 

Now That It's Done...

Something that occurred to me awhile ago, but I didn't want to say anything in case in garnered mis-placed sympathy, is that McCain is too smart to have selected Palin as his running mate. Out of a field of highly-qualified candidates, he chose the one least likely to help him.

Unless, of course, she was supposed to help him lose the election.

What if, and this is a big 'what if,' but what if McCain also realized that America really needed a regime change?

What if John McCain, in a subtle manner, made choices throughout the election designed to turn people away? What if he also embraced Obama's vision of change, and nurtured it the only way available to him?

Food for thought, yes?

Notice which direction he's pointing: Coincidence?

ACORN: the truth behind who's nuts for them.

During a recent discussion on the upcoming religion, one of the arguments being offered up by my Republican adversary was that "Obama was trying to steal the election through ACORN."

His source? The McCain Campaign, of course. They claim that Obama is connected to ACORN.

But is he?

McCain Campaign claim: Obama directed Project Vote, "an arm of ACORN that also encouraged voter registration," back in 1992

The Truth: False! Project Vote is a separate organization from ACORN. Obama did direct project vote, but since it is a separate organization from ACORN, it is a lie to claim that Obama was working for ACORN based on his work on Project Vote.

McCain Campaign claim: Obama was a trial lawyer for ACORN.

The Truth: Not Quite. This one's a little gray; he did represent them in one case, but he was working for the firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland. And who were they working for? ACORN - and a bunch of other groups - hired the civil rights law firm to sue the state of Michigan to make them enforce a federal "motor voter" law. The way McCain tells it, you'd think Obama was on retainer to ACORN, and that's just a whopping lie.

McCain Campaign claim: the Obama campaign directed campaign money to ACORN in the amount of $832,000.

The Truth: False! They hired a group called Citizens' Services to assist with setting up various engagments (including arranging for sound and lights), and to do some "get out the vote" efforts. Citizens' Services sub-contracted the latter job to ACORN, and paid them considerable less than $832,000 for their work.

But there is someone in this election who DOES have connections to ACORN. Someone who has actively campaigned on their behalf:


John McCain. Here is is attending a March 2006 ACORN event with Florida Representative Kendrick Meek, courtesy of Politico.com, who got it from ACORN.

Need more proof? Conservative shill Michelle Malkin has a copy of the press release up on her site. I've been hard on Michelle in the past, but I have to give her credit: she did not want this to be true, but she found the evidence, and she put it up anyway.

It's originally from the Miami-Dade College website.

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Major Rally in Miami to Support Comprehensive
Immigration Reform

Senator John McCain and many others to speak at the rally at
Miami Dade College Wolfson Campus

Miami, Florida – February 20, 2006 ― Leaders from a diverse array of sectors will hold a rally in Miami on Thursday, February 23, 2006, in support of comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to keep immigration reform at the forefront of the public debate. Leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, labor, business, and religious organizations will gather to call on Washington to enact workable reform.

The rally will feature Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the headline speaker along with elected officials, immigrants and key local and national leaders. Sen. McCain is one of the chief sponsors of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act; bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation introduced last Congress and scheduled for consideration by the Senate in the coming weeks. A similar rally with Sen. McCain is planned for New York City on February 27.

WHO: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL.), and immigrant, religious, community, business and labor leaders.

WHAT: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Rally

WHEN: Thursday, February 23, at 6:00 p.m.

WHERE: Miami Dade College – Wolfson Campus

Chapman Conference Center

Bldg 3000

300 NE 2nd Avenue

EDITOR’S NOTE: Miami Press Availability: Sen. McCain will be available for interviews starting at 4:15 p.m. on location, Feb. 23.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act was introduced in the Senate by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) and in the House by Representatives Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). It addresses border security and illegal immigration while bringing the 11 million undocumented immigrants out from the shadows and onto a path to legal permanent status; setting up legal channels and realistic caps for workers and family members to enter in the future; providing for tough enforcement; and enabling more immigrants to learn English and prepare for citizenship. (More)

The rally in Miami is being sponsored by the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC) in partnership with ACORN, Catholic Legal Services - Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia Vota en Acción, Service Employees International Union, and UNITE HERE.

For more information call 202-383-5984 or visit www.cirnow.org http://www.cirnow.org/

MDC
Media contacts: Juan C. Mendieta, Communications Director (305)
237-7611 or Beverly Counts Rodrigues, Director of Media Relations (305)
237-3949
# # #

This and other news releases from MDC’s Media Relations Department are available on the web at www.mdc.edu.

MAJOR RALLY IN MIAMI TO SUPPORT COMPREHENSIVE
IMMIGRATION REFORM

Leaders from a diverse array of sectors will hold a rally in Miami on Thursday, February 23, 2006, in support of comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to keep immigration reform at the forefront of the public debate. Leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, labor, business, and religious organizations will gather to call on Washington to enact workable reform.

---

Someone might want to let John McCain know that we know he's lying to us. It's embarrassing, really. Like catching a little kid in a bag of candy with chocolate smeared all over his face, and having him say "I dint eat no candy, honest!"

George Washingon on Political Parties

From George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

On political parties:

"Let me... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party...

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But... in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

While it is true that both of the major parties are playing fast and loos with the truth, the fact is that the Republican Party isn't merely exaggerating, or mis-stating, facts.  It's making stuff up out of whole cloth.  And lying isn't something any of us should support.

But whatever your opinions on the matter, they do not matter if you do not vote.  Be sure to cast your vote this election day.

December the Twenty First

December the 21 is the winter solstice and the shortest day of the year. And forty-four years ago, I was born on this day.

In most of the US, it's usually gray, short, and cold day. Fortunately, my dad was working on the space program, so I was born in Daytona Beach. My parents brought me home Christmas Day, and my mother has always said I was the best Christmas Present she ever got. Well, I was certainly the most expensive ;-)

You might think I got gypped, being born so close to Christmas; but Mom and Dad made sure that I always had a birthday party, and they worked hard to make sure that it didn't feel like it was being combined with the holiday in any way. Except for that one incident with the Egg Nog Ice Cream; but since I love egg nog, Dad got a pass on it from Mom.

Me. Age 22 hours.

While I know about a handful of celebrities who share my date de naissance, I didn't know about all the historical events that occurred on it, at least according to WikiPedia:

Notable Events on this date:

• 1620 - Plymouth Colony: William Bradford and the Mayflower Pilgrims land on what is now known as Plymouth Rock in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
• 1844 - The Rochdale Pioneers commence business at their cooperative in Rochdale, England, starting the Cooperative movement.
• 1861 - Medal of Honor: Public Resolution 82, containing a provision for a Navy Medal of Valor, is signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln.
• 1865 - Kappa Alpha Order is founded under the name of Phi Kappa Chi at Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) in Lexington, Virginia.
• 1872 - Challenger expedition: HMS Challenger, commanded by Captain George Nares, sails from Portsmouth.
• 1883 - The first Permanent Force cavalry and infantry regiments of the Canadian Army are formed: The Royal Canadian Dragoons and The Royal Canadian Regiment
• 1912 - The movie Das Mirakel premiered in Germany.
• 1913 - Arthur Wynne's "word-cross", the first crossword puzzle, is published in the New York World.
• 1917 - Meiji Dairies, a Japanese dairy industry company, is founded.
• 1936 - First flight of the Junkers JU-88 bomber prototype.
• 1937 - The film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is premiered at the Carthay Circle Theater in Los Angeles.
• 1958 - French presidential election, 1958: Charles de Gaulle is elected President of France as his Union des Démocrates pour la République party gain 78.5% of the vote.
• 1962 - Rondane National Park is established as Norway's first national park.
• 1967 - Louis Washkansky, the first man to undergo a heart transplant, dies in Cape Town, South Africa, after living for 18 days.
• 1968 - Apollo program: Apollo 8, the first manned mission to the moon, is launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. At 2h:50m:37s Mission elapsed time (MES), the crew performs the first ever manned Trans Lunar Injection and become the first humans to leave the Earth's gravity field.
• 1970 - Elvis Presley meets with President Richard Nixon to discuss the war on drugs.
• 1970 - The F-14 Tomcat flies for the first time.
• 1971 - The United Nations Security Council chooses Kurt Waldheim to succeed U Thant as Secretary-General.
• 1973 - The Geneva Conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict opens.
• 1979 - Lancaster House Agreement: An independence agreement for Rhodesia is signed in London by Lord Carrington, Sir Ian Gilmour, Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo, Bishop Abel Muzorewa and Dr S C Mundawarara.
• 1987 - The passenger ferry Doña Paz sinks after colliding with the oil tanker Vector 1 in the Tablas Strait in the Philippines, killing 1,565.
• 1988 - A bomb explodes on board Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, killing 270.
• 1991 - Charilaos Florakis is elected honorary president of the Communist Party of Greece.
• 1992 - A Dutch DC-10, flight Martinair MP 495, crashes at Faro Airport (Portugal), killing 56 people.
• 1994 - A homemade bomb goes off on the # 4 train on Fulton Street in New York City.
• 1995 - The city of Bethlehem passes from Israeli to Palestinian control.
  

Notable Births on this date:

• 1118 - Thomas Becket, Lord Chancellor of England and Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1170)
• 1401 - Tommaso Masaccio, Italian painter (d. 1428)
• 1596 - Petro Mohyla, Moldovan Orthodox Metropolitan Bishop of Kiev and Galicia (d. 1646)
• 1603 - Roger Williams, English theologian and colonist (d. 1684)
• 1714 - John Bradstreet, Canadian-born soldier (d. 1774)
• 1778 - Anders Sandøe Ørsted, Danish politician (d. 1860)
• 1795 - Leopold von Ranke, German historian (d. 1886)
• 1804 - Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (d. 1881)
• 1805 - Thomas Graham, British chemist (d. 1869)
• 1811 - Archibald Campbell Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1882)
• 1815 - Thomas Couture French painter and teacher (d. 1879)
• 1818 - Amalia, Queen of Greece (d. 1875)
• 1832 - John H. Ketcham, American politician (d. 1906)
• 1843 - Thomas Bracken, Irish-born New Zealander poet (d. 1898)
• 1850 - Zdeněk Fibich, Bohemian composer (d. 1900)
• 1851 - Thomas Chipman McRae, American politician, 34th Governor of Arkansas (d. 1929)
• 1859 - Gustave Kahn, French poet (d. 1936)
• 1872 - Sidney Ainsworth, British actor (d. 1922)
• 1872 - Don Lorenzo Perosi, Italian composer (d. 1956)
• 1872 - Albert Payson Terhune, American author (d. 1942)
• 1873 - Blagoje Bersa, Croatian composer (d. 1934)
• 1876 - Jack Lang (John Thomas Lang), Premier of New South Wales (d. 1975)
• 1878 - Jan Łukasiewicz, Polish philosopher and mathematician (d. 1956)
• 1885 - Frank Patrick, hockey player (d. 1960)
• 1889 - Sewall Wright, American biologist (d. 1988)
• 1890 - Hermann Joseph Muller, American geneticist and Nobel laureate (d. 1967)
• 1891 - John William McCormack, American politician (d. 1980)
• 1892 - Walter Hagen, American golfer (d. 1969)
• 1892 - Rebecca West, American writer (d. 1983)
• 1896 - Leroy Robertson, American composer (d. 1971)
• 1905 - Anthony Powell, British author (d. 2000)
• 1909 - Seicho Matsumoto, Japanese mystery writer and journalist (d. 1992)
• 1911 - Josh Gibson, American baseball player (d. 1947)
• 1914 - Ivan Generalić, Austro-Hungarian-born Croatian painter (d. 1992)
• 1915 - Werner von Trapp, member of the Trapp Family Singers (d. 2007)
• 1917 - Heinrich Böll, German writer and Nobel laureate (d. 1985)
• 1917 - Sophie Masloff, American politician
• 1918 - Donald Regan, American White House Chief of Staff (d. 2003)
• 1918 - Kurt Waldheim, Austrian United Nations Secretary-General and Federal President of Austria (d. 2007)
• 1920 - Alicia Alonso, Cuban ballerina
• 1920 - Bob Bindig, cartoonist
• 1920 - Jean Gascon, Canadian actor (d. 1988)
• 1921 - Vampira (Maila Nurmi), Finnish-born actress
• 1921 - John Severin, American comics artist
• 1922 - Paul Winchell, American ventriloquist (d. 2005)
• 1923 - Intizar Hussain, Urdu writer and colomnist of Pakistan
• 1926 - Joe Paterno, American football coach
• 1932 - Edward Hoagland, American essayist
• 1935 - John G. Avildsen, American film director
• 1935 - Yusuf Bey (Joseph Stephens), American activist (d. 2003)
• 1935 - Phil Donahue, American talk show host
• 1935 - Edward Schreyer, Canadian politician, Premier of Manitoba
• 1937 - Jane Fonda, American actress
• 1937 - Donald F. Munson, American politician
• 1939 - Lloyd Axworthy, Canadian politician
• 1940 - Frank Zappa, American musician (d. 1993)
• 1940 - Ray Hildebrand, American singer (Paul & Paula)
• 1942 - Hu Jintao, Chinese president
• 1942 - Reinhard Mey, German singer
• 1942 - Carla Thomas, American singer
• 1943 - André Arthur. Quebec radio host
• 1944 - Michael Tilson Thomas, American conductor
• 1944 - Bill Atkinson, English footballer
• 1946 - Carl Wilson, American musician (The Beach Boys) (d. 1998)
• 1946 - Christopher Keene, American conductor (d. 1995)
• 1947 - Paco de Lucía, Spanish musician
• 1947 - Bryan Hamilton, Northern Irish footballer
• 1948 - Samuel L. Jackson, American actor
• 1948 - Willi Resetarits, Austrian musician
• 1948 - Dave Kingman, baseball player
• 1949 - Nikolaos Sifounakis, Greek politician
• 1950 - Jeffrey Katzenberg, American producer
• 1950 - Lillebjørn Nilsen, Norwegian singer-songwriter
• 1951 - Nick Gilder, English musician (Sweeney Todd)
• 1952 - Joaquín Andújar, baseball player
• 1953 - Betty Wright, American singer
• 1954 - Chris Evert, American tennis player
• 1955 - Jane Kaczmarek, American actress
• 1955 - Kazuyuki Sekiguchi, Japanese musician
• 1956 - Lee Roy Parnell, American country singer
• 1957 - Tom Henke, American baseball player
• 1957 - Ray Romano, Italian-American comedian
• 1959 - Florence Griffith Joyner, American sprinter (d. 1998)
• 1960 - Louis Demetrius Alvanis, London-based pianist
• 1960 - Roger McDowell, Former Major League Baseball Pitcher
• 1960 - Andy Van Slyke, baseball player
• 1961 - Francis Ng, Hong Kong actor
• 1961 - Ryuji Sasai, Japanese composer
• 1964 - Rob Kelly, English football manager
• 1964 - Fabiana Udenio, Argentine actress
• 1965 - Andy Dick, American actor and comedian
• 1965 - Anke Engelke, German comedian
• 1966 - Kiefer Sutherland, British-born Canadian actor
• 1966 - Karri Turner, American actress
• 1967 - Mikhail Saakashvili, Soviet-born President of Georgia
• 1969 - Julie Delpy, French actress
• 1969 - Mihails Zemļinskis, Latvian footballer
• 1970 - Jamie Theakston, English television presenter
• 1971 - Mathieu Chedid, French musician
• 1971 - Fenton Keogh, Australian celebrity chef
• 1971 - Brett Scallions, American singer (Fuel, The X's)
• 1972 - Latroy Hawkins, baseball player
• 1972 - Dustin Hermanson, baseball player
• 1973 - Karmen Stavec, German-born Slovenian singer
• 1973 - Mike Alstott, American football player
• 1974 - Karrie Webb, Australian golfer
• 1975 - Paloma Herrera, Argentine ballet dancer
• 1976 - Mirela Manjani, Greek javelin thrower
• 1978 - Mike Vitar, American actor
• 1979 - Jay Ross, Manager of Network Operations for LATTV
• 1981 - Cristian Zaccardo, Italian football player
• 1981 - Lynda Thomas, Mexican singer
• 1981 - Sajid Mahmood, English cricketer
• 1982 - Mike Gansey, American basketball player
• 1984 - Darren Potter, Irish footballer
• 1985 - James Stewart Jr., American motorcycle racer
• 1988 - Edward Speelers, British Actor

Holidays and observances:

• Roman festivals - Divalia in honour of Angerona
• R.C. Saints - O Oriens, Saint Petrus Canisius; formerly feast day of Thomas the apostle
• In the Northern Hemisphere, the winter solstice, sometimes known as Yule, occurs on or very close to this date. In the Southern Hemisphere, the summer solstice occurs around this time. It is also an important festival in the Chinese calendar.
• Yalda, originally a religious holiday for Zoroastrians, is now a social holiday in Iran.
• A baktun of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar will end and a new one will begin on December 21, 2012.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Don't Jump On The GOP Bandwagon

...especially while we're trying to pull its wheels off.

People, when we embrace the methods of our enemy to win the goal, winning becomes pointless.  If the Democrats have to lie like Republicans to win the election, they've already lost everything that matters.

Lookin' good, but time to wash her mouth out with soap

While it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for Romney, he himself has always supported an exception for rape to any of the medieval anti-abortion laws his party has endorsed.  And he still does. Deborah Wasserman Schultz is indeed lying to voters when she insists otherwise. 

Does that mean that the GOP won't try to keep women barefoot and pregnant if we're stupid enough to elect him?  Of course not.  But we don't need to lie about Romney's stance on the matter.

Instead, we should be dissecting some of his ACTUAL stupid stances; like how he argued against the ACA's mandate that all health insurance plans offer birth control to women at no cost by claiming it violated the First Amendment. 

"I don't need facts while I carry this!"

And while Romney indeed made a joke about no one asking for his birth certificate during is visit to his home town, it's not the same thing as Sherrif Joe "I'm A Fucking Idiot" Arpaio insisting that the State of Hawaii was wrong when it verified the authenticity of a birth certificate issued by the Stage of Hawaii.  

Yes, Romney is strangely attractive to birthers.  But it seems he has never questioned Obama's citizenship, even while courting the lunatic fringe.

It was a joke.  Romney was joking, or trying to. Nobody accused him of jumping on the birther bandwagon last time,   so lighten up.

The only way we can change the tone of these damaging excuses for elections is to actually change the tone of them; we must turn our backs on lies and deception; for every whopping fib they tell, we must counter with a truth.  We must dazzle them with honesty.

We can't afford to keep having our leadership win by the expedience of telling more lies - or more credible lies - than the opposition; we need leaders who win by being better, not more devious.

The Problem with "Anyone But..." Part 2

In a discussion about the Republican Party and its tendency to bolster its positions with whopping lies, the other party confessed that they didn't particularly care for Mitt Romney.  "But anyone but Obama will be a better choice."

This is a flawed argument, one only held by those too lazy to actually think it through.  So let's continue to examine the folly of voting for "Anyone But."  We've examined some of the fallout from Florida's gubernatorial election when people voted for "anyone but Alex Sink."  Now it's time to look at the bigger picture.

Anyone But Obama

"Anyone but" Obama is another disaster waiting to happen.

"...voting Republicans is not necessarily a vote for all of the above, it's simply a vote AGAINST Obama. I am in favor of women's right, prescription contraception, etc..."
 - my right-wing relative

Here's the thing; in the United States, we do not have a mechanism for "voting against" a candidate.  You can only vote FOR candidates. 

And when you vote FOR a candidate, you are not only indicating that you support that candidate, you are standing behind their party, and their party's platform.  All of it.  There's no cherry picking; when you vote for a turd, you're getting in bed with it. You are stating implicitly that your ideals are those of the turd. That's the system.

For now, we won't discuss the merits of Obama - and yes, he does have a list of accomplishments that should qualify him for a second term.  After all, Republicans are not actually repudiating any of them, they're just ignoring them and pretending they don't exist.  And for now, so will I.  And we'll save an examination of the Republican candidate for later; after all, the convention hasn't happened yet: it's remotely possible that they won't select Romney after all.



But let's take a look at what you're really getting with "anyone but Obama;" the Republican Party itself. Let's look at what the Republican Party REALLY stands for, not by listening to Romney spout off his nonsense, not by reading what they've put up on their website, but by looking at what they've actually been doing.



What The Republican Party Really Stands For:

Increasing the Deficit
Catches you by surprise, doesn't it?  They all keep saying that they're fighting the deficit.  But in fact, while they didn't create it, they've been supporting it since the 1970s. They call it "starving the beast," and the theory is that rather than reduce spending to save money, reduce revenue to force less spending.

"Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."
- Alan Greenspan to Senate Finance Comittee, July 14, 1978

"The focus of the fight to restrain government has shifted from limiting government spending to limiting government receipts..."
George Will, July 27, 1978

Think of it as a diet plan; the GOP was going to force America to reduce its deficit by starving it of revenue.  After all, you can't spend what you don't have, right?

Well, no.  As we've found, spending has continued.  Ronald Reagan, who rolled "starve the beast" into his Reaganomics package, embraced the cuts, but didn't curtail spending.  In fact, in his first term, federal spending ballooned to 23.5% of GDP.  By the end of his term, Reagan had realized that the approach wasn't working, and raised taxes through the rest of his administration, but the damage had been done.  Republicans have become programmed to believe that reducing revenue will lower the deficit, even though this is clearly not the case. 

We can demonstrate the fallacy of the approach; the Clinton administration pushed through a big tax increase, resulting in a drop in federal spending to 18.2% of GDP by the end of his second term, clearly disproving the notion that higher taxes lead to more spending.  But that didn't stop George W. Bush from slashing taxes, driving spending up 20.7%.  Other studies have since confirmed that lower tax rates actually increase spending and spending costs.

And before you blame the Democrats for not decreasing spending, you should be aware that the Republican Party has rejected Pentagon proposals to retire unnecessary aircraft and ships.  In other words, the military doesn't have a use for these vehicles, but the GOP wants them to remain in service anyway.  In fact, the Republican controlled House Armed Services Committee is pushing a budget $4 billion more than the Pentagon itself says it needs!

From Defense News, May 10, 2012:

Asked about the proposed missile defense site during the briefing, U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “I don’t see a need beyond what we submitted in the last budget” and the current “suite of ground-based and sea-based interceptors” is sufficient.

At the same time, the House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., has developed a 2013 defense spending bill that comes in $3.1 billion above the Pentagon’s request.

So clearly the Republicans aren't trying to cut down on spending.  If the GOP was really serious about reducing the deficit, they'd raise taxes, agree to budget cuts proposed by government agencies, and raise or remove the $100,000 cap on the Social Security contribution.  They'd also seriously consider ending the expensive and wholly ineffective War on Drugs.  By de-criminalizing drugs, we'd save the money spent trying to stop them, and gain revenue from new taxes on the production.  It worked for alcohol, there's no reason it couldn't work for drugs.

But the GOP isn't considering any of these things, therefore we can conclude that they are not interested in reducing the deficit, even though they claim they are.  Actions speak louder than words, and the actions are damning.

Government Intrusion
While they claim to believe that government must be limited, the Grand Old Party sure has put a lot of effort into pushing government into the most private moments of our lives.

A prime example of this are all the initiatives mandating invasive ultrasound procedures on women.  These procedures serve no medical purpose whatsoever.  They are intended solely to shame women out of having abortions, a private decision that is already difficult and painful enough for most women.  But the Republican Party has pushed laws in several states requiring that before they can undergo an abortion, they have to have a plastic wand shoved up into their vagina and view the resultant image.

Isn't this just what you want to have done to you following a rape?

It just doesn't get much more intrusive than being penetrated against your will in order to force you to see something you already know is there and have already decided to remove, in my humble opinion.  But it doesn't end there; Republicans in several state legislatures have been pushing "personhood," which defines human life beginning not at the moment a fertilized ova implants itself in a woman's placenta, but at the moment of fertilization.  Unstated is the fact that since most oral contraceptives work by preventing the ova from attaching to the placenta, most forms of female oral contraception could be declared illegal.

The GOP is getting right into our bedrooms, and literally forcing their way into a woman's private parts.

Limiting Equal Rights - They're Not For Everyone
Shockingly, 40 years after John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, which mandated that someone doing the same job should receive the same pay, Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, intended to strengthen protections against pay inequities.  It's hard to believe that anyone could reject the concept of equal pay in this day and age, but there it is.

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Republicans have also been working hard to disenfranchise voters.  In Florida, Governor Scott has been pushing for clerks to purge voters from the rolls using a badly flawed list of suspects; so far, less than 1% of the supposedly illegal voters have turned out to be actually illegal voters.  But that hasn't slowed him down any.  He's ignoring cease and desist orders from the Department of Justice, and has ordered a legal defense of his purge.

To date, 22 statutes and 2 executive actions have been approved in 17 states since 2011, and as many as 74 similar bills are pending around the country. 

As noted in the Washington Post, April 30 2012:

If photo ID laws were going to be the solution, though, Republicans had to invent a problem. The best they could come up with was The Menace of Widespread Voter Fraud.

It’s a stretch. Actually, it’s a lie. There is no Widespread Voter Fraud. All available evidence indicates that fraudulent voting of the kind that photo ID laws would presumably prevent — someone shows up at the polls and votes in someone else’s name — just doesn’t happen.

This is born out time and again; in Florida, for example, out of a list of about 1,600 suspected ineligible voters, only 13 were found to have actually been ineligible to be on the voters' rolls, and only 8 of those people had ever actually voted.

Republicans are also firmly opposed to the rights of gays to marry.  They call it The Defense of Marriage Act, but it does little to defend anything; all it does is prevent some people from enjoying rights enjoyed by millions of other Americans.  Worse, there are moves to amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal in the handful of states that do allow it. 

The thing about our bill of rights; any amendment is supposed do one of two things, and preferably both: 1. It must protect a citizen from harm.  2. It must improve the life of a citizen, or allow them greater opportunities to have justice, domestic tranquility, safety, and improve their general welfare.  A ban against gay marriage does none of these things.  The only purpose of such an amendment would be to stop someone from having rights.  That is about as great an assault on American values as I can imagine; an amendment that exists for the purpose of preventing some people from having rights granted to others. 

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812.

Fuck the Constitution, Let's Have a State Religion
Another problem with this movement is that the "traditional definition" the GOP adheres to is on derived from a religion; specifically Christianity.  Other religions have other definition; for example, they permit multiple spouses.  That means that in order to define marriage as "a union between one man and one woman," the state must adapt a specific religious view, a de facto violation of the First Amendment, which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

If we are to follow a strict Constitutional approach to the matter, the State should treat all marriages in the same manner as any contract under contract law; they should simply record the fact of it.

Time and again, Republicans seek to sneak Creationism, that is, the biblical story of where everything came from, into our educations system.  They feel that evolution, the scientific explanation of how life developed from simpler forms into the myriad organisms we have now, should be downplayed in favor of their religious views. 

Their tactics are actually as pathetic as they are blatant; try to diminish evolution by emphasizing that it's "only a theory" and elevate Creationism by claiming, well, let's quote Republican Senator Stephen Wise:

"If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking."

The flaw in this reasoning is that creationism isn't "another side."  It's a religious conviction, period.  It has no place in science, even if you substitute "creationism" with "intelligent design."  It's similar to insisting that children be taught the parable of the loaves and fishes as an alternative to "2+2=4".

Fuck Science, Too.
Here is what qualifies Evolution as a valid scientific theory; first, we can devise experiments to test it, and second, we can make predictions based on it.  You can't do that with Creationism. 

Evolution predicts that organisms adapt over time so they can survive; an example of that is the flu virus.  Each year, the Centers for Disease Control have to update flu vaccines because the various strains of the flu evolve so that they are not affected by prior versions.  We're having a minor crisis with infection due to the over-use of anti-biotics.  Dish soap may kill 99.9% of bacteria initially, but that leave room for the .01% to breed.  And sure enough, we're now seeing strains of bacteria that aren't affected by our current inventory of anti-biotics.

Creationism can't be tested in this manner; no predictions can be made using it, not even if you call it "Intelligent Design."  That's because it's not science, it's a religious conviction.

Republicans have expanded their pro-religion anti-science stance to the weather: I'm talking of course about Global Warming.  When a state appointed science panel issued a report warning that sea levels could rise as much as 3 feet, North Carolina Republicans responded by introducing legislation that would mandate that flood rates could only be calculated by a single state agency, and that that agency could only use the historical record back to 1900 to calculate those rates and would be forbidden from referring to the best current data on the subject.

Not since the Pope excommunicated Galileo for stating that the earth revolves around the sun have we seen such a misguided attack on science. 

Preventing effective Government
Politics has been described as "the art of the compromise." And in fact, Congress itself is the result of a compromise; half the founding fathers wanted representation based on the population of each state, which would result in states with larger populations having more sway than smaller states. The other half wanted each state to have an equal voice, allotting each state the same number of representatives, regardless of population.  In the end, both sides compromised, adopting both plans.

Larry David described compromise as "a solution leaving both parties equally dissatisfied."

But so-called Tea Party Republicans have deadlocked our government by refusing any compromise.  In years past, Democrats and Republicans would work with each other to come up with bi-partisan solutions, where each side compromised so that effective legislation could be enacted.

Of course, many Republicans will state that it's the Democrats who haven't compromised; but this is largely because Republicans aren't using the same definition as everyone else.

Republican Tea Party Senator Richard Mourdock is a clear illustration of this.  His take on what it means to be "bi-partisan" is intriguing, to say the least:

"I hope... that bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, lower taxes  ..."

Demanding that the other side adopt your point of view is  not bipartisanship, and it's certainly not compromise. 

As self-proclaimed conservative David Brooks noted, Democrats have compromised:

"The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.
...
Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget
deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can
campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid,
has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or
even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way.
...
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no. "
-- The New York Times, July 5 2011

The Washington Post was even blunter:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
-- The Washington Post, April 27, 2012

What "Anyone But Obama" Means For Us

So to sum it up, here's what a vote for "Anyone But Obama" is actually supporting:

• No end to the deficit.
• Government intruding into our personal lives.
  
• Renewed abuses of our civil rights.
• A de facto end to freedom of religion by advancing the causes of one religion over others.
• Stifling scientific achievement if it contradicts currently held views of the reigning party
• Ensuring that effective governance can't occur by refusing to work with the opposition.
  

Maybe this won't change your mind; maybe you even approve of the actual agenda of the Republican Party.  But one thing is certain; if you vote for "anyone but Obama," you'll be contributing to this glorious mess.

No, he's not sitting.