Electoral Reform Priorities per Karita Hummer

Most objective observers concluded long ago that had the full recount of the Florida votes in 2000 been allowed to take place before the winner was certified, Al Gore would have been president rather than George Bush. The unprecedented intrusion of the U.S. Supreme Court barring the completion of the recount already underway may have changed the course of history for years to come. It is impossible to know at this vantage point whether a Gore presidency would have been so successful that he would have been re-elected in 2004, whether the Republicans would have nominated GWB for a second time in 2004, or any scenario you can imagine would have followed had all the votes in Florida been accurately counted.

The outcome of the 2004 presidential election has elicited an incredible amount of discussion, debate, and controversy. The outcome in Ohio was no doubt the most critical in terms of the final tally of the Electoral Vote but Ohio was by no means the only state in which plausible allegations of voting irregularities were present. 

Lest it appear that demands for electoral reform are only an evidence of sour grapes by disgruntled democrats who are unwilling to accept the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections, it should be noted that many of the issues that cast doubts on these elections have plagued elections at the local and national level for decades or more. Some of the more plausible allegations pre-date the use of electronic ballots; some involve serious questions as to the true outcome of the 1960 presidential election in Illinois, LBJ's first congressional race in Texas, and many do not allege wrong doing by either major party but the denial of equal voting rights to segments of the population such as minorities, ex-offenders, etc.

It is likely that lack of confidence in the electoral process is a contributing factor in the disgracefully low turnout of Americans on election day. It seems clear that the problem is a bi-partisan issue and therefore the solution must be a bi-partisan solution. Neither party should expect any advantage for their candidates from the electoral process itself. Every patriotic American should insist and demand that our electoral system be structured to provide every American an opportunity to cast a ballot with confidence that their vote will count, and be counted. It is in that spirit that Karita Hummer, Donna Jones, and others involved in the online group A Better Future for All have developed a set of proposed priorities for reforming the way we conduct elections. At my request, Karita has summarized the results of their work and proposes the following five issues as priorities for action. 

I am issuing an urgent request to all who read this posting to respond with your comments and help us develop a consensus regarding the most important non-partisan actions that, if taken, would make our elections more transparent, more credible, and help to insure that the will of the voters is indeed reflected in the final tally for every election.

 [I  am also including a response from Jeff Zamrzla following Karita's list.]

What do you think?

1. Insist on Voter Verified Paper Ballots, with such provisions as recommended in bills submitted by Congressman Rush Holt (H.R. 550) and Senators Clinton and Boxer (S.450), and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH)( H. R. 930) their bill’s provisions being
• all voting systems provide a voter-verified paper ballot (VVPB), 
• the VVPB is the official ballot of record for use in all recounts or audits, and
• mandatory, manual recounts of the VVPBs be performed in a randomly-selected set of 2% of all precincts nationwide.
2. State Election Officers at the highest level should not be in a dual relationship, overseeing elections and holding positions in their respective parties and campaigns.  (Much like Jeff's point)
3. Stiffen penalties for vote tampering and voter suppression and make such offenses a federal crime. (This would hold for LBJ, Daley, Tammany Hall, Blackwell, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush or Karl Rove, to name just a few electoral scoundrels (if you don't mind the word).
4.  Ensure that Software Codes for Voting Programs are publicly disclosed and/or are accessible.  (Much like Jeff's point)
5. The right to vote should become a constitutional right – as Jesse Jackson, Jr. asserts

Hope this is helpful.

 

Karita

 

--- Jeff Zamrzla wrote: >

 

Number one -

 

All hardware and software need to be owned by the county or entity that purchased it. Right now, hardware is purchased, and software is completely proprietary. That is a big mistake; the software should be open to inspection by the best in the business to give all confidence. The hardware needs to be open for inspection by the best in the business as well. > > > >

 

Number two -

 

open up the elections offices to non-partisan observers to observe the tabulators. These will be persons highly skilled in mathematics, probabilities, and computer science. These persons will have the tools to recognize the smell of a skunk when they smell it and the ability to stop a hackers' attempt to change the vote. > > > >

 

Number three -

 

All conflicts of interest, whether perceived or real, must be resolved. After the way in which Florida, Ohio, and a few other states were won in the last two elections, I have no faith in an elected official, such as the Secretary of State of any state, when that elected official takes on a side job of being involved in a partisan campaign. 

 

Where are we going? and How will we get there?

Friends,

When I established the Better Future group in November 2004 I had no idea where it would go, who would respond, how effective we would be, or whether it would even be around 9 months later.

At times I have been thrilled by the passion, eloquence, and commitment expressed in messages posted on the group list. At times I have been distressed by the narrowness of some of the postings. At times I have wondered if I did the right thing in establishing the group.

Well, in my musings I decided to share a few random thoughts about where we are and where we might be going.

First, I want to say that it is in diversity that we must find our unity. We must value and defend the right of others in a democracy to think otherwise. For most of my 70  years I have been a democrat with progressive ideas. I was involved in the civil rights movement, even having the honor of marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. I was actively involved in LBJ's big win over Barry Goldwater; I suffered through the difficult campaign of Hubert Humphrey in which his loyalty to LBJ caused him to wait too late to publicly oppose the war and thus let the unpopular Richard Nixon win the presidency; I worked hard for George McGovern and still wonder how different the last 33 years might have been had he won; I celebrated the fact that our system worked in removing Nixon after the Watergate scandal broke and occasionally dare to imagine that the system will work again and correct the abuse of power by the present administration that John Dean describes as "worse than Watergate"; I was proud of Jimmy Carter for his insistence on human rights at home and abroad and still don't fully understand the "reagan democrats" takeover in 1980; I always viewed George Herbert Walker Bush as a wimp who was sold to the public by the dirty tricks of Lee Atwater and a young trainee of his by the name of Karl Rove; I love Bill Clinton and his unmatched communication skill; and I was more devastated by the loss of John Kerry to Shrub than I have been after any election in my memory.

A diverse field of democratic candidates over that 40 year span to say the least. They all believed in the people; they all believed in putting people first; they all believed in equality, dignity, tolerance, and human rights; they all respected the unity that comes from respect for diversity. 

I am a passionate individual who never leaves any doubt about what I believe or why I believe it. At the same time I learned nearly half a century ago that the only way to govern a diverse democracy is from the center. Democracy has a way of self-correcting. When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it will inevitably swing back again -- maybe not as quickly as I would like -- but it will self-correct. I believe that is true today as well. In fact, I see signs of this everyday. I saw signs of this in the recent special session of our Kansas Legislature in which the moderate republicans joined forces with the democrats to defeat the anti-public education efforts of the conservative republicans; I see it in the public's refusal to embrace GWB's dismantling of social security, and in the way the Congress has begun to ignore the nomination of John Bolton. 

I hear the voices in this group and elsewhere who have lost faith in the democratic party because many of those who would lead are unwilling to commit themselves to programs and policies that align with the most liberal and progressive wing of our party (the wing where my natural instincts put me); I hear those who say like Ralph Nader that the democrats are even more dangerous than the republicans (and I don't understand that logic at all); I hear those who say that unless the democrats nominate "a real democrat", whatever that is, they will sit out the future elections.

Well, I respect all of you and your passions. But what the years have taught me is that 'politics is the art of the possible!' Or as, the late Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma was credited with saying, "You have to be present before you can answer the roll," by which he meant that no matter how pure your platform, you don't have a chance of implementing it if you don't get elected.

I understand the criticism of the Democrat Leadership Council, but I am sure the republicans take great comfort in knowing that some progressive democrats are willing to make the DLC their target rather than focus on defeating the most repressive, anti-democratic, corrupt, and dangerous administration in my lifetime.

I will continue to listen to all points of view and embrace those who hold diverse points of view so long as they contribute to regaining the majority in the House and Senate for democrats and so long as they enhance our chance of replacing GWB with a democrat. 

As I have said many times, it is far too early for me to pick a candidate for the presidency in 2008. I am far more interested in working at the grassroots to defeat conservative republicans in the House and Senate and to support democrats in local and statewide races than I am in polarizing the race for the presidency at this time.

If I were living in the 30's, 40's, or 50's in Oklahoma, they would probably call me a "yellow dog democrat", one who would vote for a yellow dog rather than for a republican. At least at the national level that is where I stand. In local and state level races there are times when the candidate fielded by my party is so bad that I have no choice but to support a moderate candidate from the other party.

I warned you at the outset that I was going to share some ramblings with you. Well, I agree with those of you who are thinking I have rambled on long enough. 

Keep hope alive!

         John

John E. Cleek, Ph.D., Moderator

http://abetterfutureforall.blogspot.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/A_Better_Future/

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world: indeed it's the only thing that ever has!"  Margaret Mead

Re: What's all the fuss?

I just received a copy of an email message written and distributed on
the internet by a person by the name of Gordon Mann
<mrfiresticks@msn.com. His message of hate and lack of caring is as
powerful as it is evil! I am sharing my reply below. Following my
reply you will find the original message. You may want to read what
Mr. Mann has written before reading my reply. JEC

RE: WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS? (see original email message below)

I am convinced beyond any doubt that "you don't care!" You made your
point loud and clear. In fact you made your point much more clearly
than you will ever know because it is obvious to most "normal"
people, i.e., people with a conscience, that you are a person without
the capacity for caring. That is very, very sad.

It is very, very sad because it is people like you who masterminded
the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the hotels in Sharm el-
Sheikh. It is very, very sad because it is people like you who lack
the capacity for caring that attacked the American Embassy in Nairobi
Kenya on the morning of August 7, 1998 in which 264 innocent people
died, all but 12 of whom were Kenyans and in which some 5,000 people
were injured including my friend Rosemary Bichage.



I want to tell you about Rosemary, not because you care, but because
I care! I care about every person who is killed or maimed by mindless
uncaring "true believers" whether the holy book they read be called
Koran or Quran, whether the holy book they read be called Torah, Old
Testament, New Testament, or Holy Bible. Or whether they read any
holy book or not. I care about every violation of the rights of
individuals not because they are protected by the U.S. Constitution
and the Bill of Rights but because they are human beings who should
be protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But, back to Rosemary Bichage. On the morning of August 7, 1998,
Rosemary received a call at her desk on the fourth floor of the
Cooperative Bank Building in downtown Nairobi, where she was a senior
loan officer. Rosemary, a devout Catholic mother, left her office
long enough to pick up one of her twin daughters who was not feeling
well and take her home. She could not stay with her because she had
an important report that was due that day and she hurried back to her
office to complete it. At 10:37 A.M. she clicked on her computer and
that is the last thing she remembers for the next 4-1/2 months. You
see, the Cooperative Bank Building happened to be located adjacent to
the American Embassy in Nairobi and the force of the 2,000 pounds of
explosives destroyed the Bank Building. Rosemary was thrown out of
the window of her office and landed 4 floors below on burning debris.
Along with 3rd degree burns over 2/3 or more of her body, she had
suffered brain injury, a ruptured liver and spleen, a fractured leg,
and a broken elbow.

Late that night she was found on a gurney in a small hospital
unattended because triage had determined that she had no chance for
survival. Her husband was able to identify her only by the remnants
of the clothes and jewelry she had been wearing that day. Only
through his determination she was flown to Germany where she lay in a
German hospital in a coma for four months. When she came out of the
coma they brought her back to Kenya where it was determined that she
would be sent to the United States for special medical treatment.

That is how I came to know Rosemary. She was brought to Kansas City
where she has been for the past five years undergoing numerous
medical and surgical procedures including the amputation of one leg,
the complete reconstruction of her jaw plus treatment for a long list
of severe and life threatening internal injuries. When I met her she
was more concerned about her twin daughters than herself. You see,
Jeannette and Linda, her daughters were high school sophomores when
the attack occurred. They were honor students looking forward to the
day they would enter college. Their lives were also shattered on
August 7, 1998 by a person "who lacked the capacity for caring". I am
pleased to tell you that because most people in the world do have the
capacity to care, Jeannette and Linda will begin their senior year at
the University of Missouri-Kansas City this fall having maintained
Dean's Honor Roll grades for the past three years.

And Rosemary, in spite of all of the medical and surgical procedures
and rehab including brain damage, is half way through a master's
degree in Social Work and hopes to return to Kenya to work with women
in the country she loves. And yes, Rosemary has the capacity for
caring. When she appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show she told Oprah
that "Giving up is like telling God, You were wrong in giving me a
second chance in life."

It is because most people have the capacity for caring that I
established the Bichage Scholarship Fund at the First Option Bank, PO
Box 458, Louisburg, Kansas 66053 where people who care are sending
their contributions to help Rosemary and her daughters recover from
the trauma of an attack by someone who lacked the capacity to care.

Yesterday, July 27, Rosemary and Jeannette spoke to our Rotary Club
in Louisburg to thank them for their support over the past four
years. I know it is too much to hope for, but just perhaps if
somewhere deep down inside there is still a small capacity for caring
that has been allowed to go dormant, you will consider sending a
contribution to the Bichage College Fund to help someone else whose
life will never be the same as a result of the actions of people who
"don't care at all." Maybe, just maybe, the simple act of sharing
with someone you have never met will awaken that dormant capacity for
caring.

May God forgive you for not caring!

Life must be very empty when lived without the capacity for caring
for others.

John
John E. Cleek, Ph.D., Moderator
http://www.abetterfutureforall.org/index.htm
201 N. 3rd St.
Louisburg, Kansas 66053

"What is it that the Lord asks of you? Only to act justly, to love
loyalty, to walk wisely before your God." Micah 6:8

*************

Original Message distributed widely on the Internet:

From: GORDON MANN [mailto:mrfiresticks@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:42 PM
Subject: What's all the fuss?

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not
started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September
11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not
brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac
from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly
three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or
crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I
don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime
in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for
hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his
gurgling, slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out
and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by
hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search
of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their
suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First
Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law
instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government
to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set
off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up
an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have
been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest
assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told
not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the
bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is
complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can
absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -- you guessed it
-- I don't care!"

Doesn't this sound like deja vu all over again?

From: Debra Walker <ascutney48@yahoo.com>

Date: July 24, 2005 1:07:23 PM CDT

     There are many similarities between this war and the War in Vietnam.

     The Iraq situation also parallels the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980's and 1990's.    That's particularly scary, because Soviet involvement led to the destruction of Afghanistan's infrastructure and tore apart that country's social fabric.   The chaotic environment which resulted was a fertile breeding ground for terrorists and religious extremists.   If we don't actually want to encourage terrorists, we should avoid following the Soviets' bad example.

      When you consider the conflicts between Sunnis and Shi'ites, combined with the presence of American troops, a third parallel comes to mind:  Northern Ireland.    Conflict between Catholics and Protestants was bad enough before British soldiers were sent in.   The British soldiers rapidly alienated the Catholics and provided a convenient target for the IRA's wrath.    Left alone, the Catholics and Protestants probably would have worked out their difficulties, but British military intervention made a bad situation worse.

      Given all of these recent experiences and more like them, it's extremely discouraging to realize that so many Americans are such slow learners.       

John E. Cleek, Ph.D.

Re: Doesn't this sound like deja vu all over again?

From: Jim Salisbury <jimsalz@yahoo.com>

Date: July 24, 2005 12:14:40 PM CDT

Yes! Ironically the post-Vietnam pseudo-lessons of
"supporting the troops" and not "politicizing" war
have led us to ignore the real lessons of Vietnam. Yet
the administration keeps blaming the media and
insisting we're (in effect) winning - no wait,
according to them we already won. Now we're just
looking for (i.e. creating) terrorists.
     This administration continues to amaze. If Kafka
were alive today, we'd think he was writing
non-fiction.

Doesn't this sound like deja vu all over again?

Anyone who is old enough to remember how the debacle in Vietnam developed cannot help but get an eerie feeling that history is repeating itself in Iraq. In spite of official reassurances from the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and assorted other White House "sources" that we are winning, the rapidly deteriorating/escalating guerilla warfare makes such reassurances sound hollow. 

The tragedy is that the longer we continue operating on the assumption that our continued presence is essential to prevent civil war, the more likely it seems that civil war will become inevitable. We do not honor our brave men and women who are in harms way every day by deluding ourselves into believing that we have no alternative but to "stay the course" and finish what we started. Sound familiar? Of course it does. We could be listening to President Johnson and Defense Secretary McNamera forty years ago.

Every day that passes while our leadership ignores the reality that "staying the course" is not a mark of bravery but of abdication of responsibility moves us closer to the precipice of having no options left. We must ask ourselves which is worse, to "stay the course" and eventually evacuate our forces in humiliation as we did in Saigon while the "insurgents" take charge of the country, or acknowledge that our mission to depose a brutal dictator was accomplished long ago and begin focusing on an orderly disengagement and withdrawal strategy? 

Civil war may still develop regardless of what we do. But the longer we stay and pretend that we can prevent it from happening the more complicit we become if it does occur.

And the more billions of American resources we will divert from urgent and unmet needs at home.

What do you say to the last American to die in Iraq?

 The following excerpt is from a news story in today's New York Times followed by an excerpt from a story published on July 21, 2005. 

Defying U.S. Efforts, Guerrillas in Iraq Refocus and Strengthen

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/middleeast/24insurgents.html?th&emc=th>

By DEXTER FILKINS and DAVID S. CLOUD

Published: July 24, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 23 - They just keep getting stronger.

Despite months of assurances that their forces were on the wane, the guerrillas and terrorists battling the American-backed enterprise here appear to be growing more violent, more resilient and more sophisticated than ever.

A string of recent attacks, including the execution of moderate Sunni leaders and the kidnapping of foreign diplomats, has brought home for many Iraqis that the democratic process that has been unfolding since the Americans restored Iraqi sovereignty in June 2004 has failed to isolate the insurgents and, indeed, has become the target itself.

After concentrating their efforts for two and a half years on driving out the 138,000-plus American troops, the insurgents appear to be shifting their focus to the political and sectarian polarization of the country - apparently hoping to ignite a civil war - and to the isolation of the Iraqi government abroad.

And the insurgents are choosing their targets with greater precision, and executing and dramatizing their attacks with more sophistication than they have in the past.

American commanders say the number of attacks against American and Iraqi forces has held steady over the last year, averaging about 65 a day.

But the Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are killed.

"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge."

At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government 27 months ago.

The danger is that the violence could overwhelm the intensive American-backed efforts now under way to draw Iraq's Sunni Arabs into the political mainstream, leaving the community more embittered than ever and setting the stage for even more violence and possibly civil war.

Go to   <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/middleeast/24insurgents.html?th&emc=th>

to read the entire story.

[snip]

Today's NYT story is even more alarming against the backdrop of a story on July 21 regarding the lack of readiness of Iraqi  security forces to handle their own defense. For months we have been assured that the training of Iraqi forces was a top U.S. priority in Iraq. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that something is terribly wrong with the management of the training if the Pentagon's own assessment is that half of the forces are "still being established" while the "other half of the police units and two-thirds of the new army battalions" are incapable of independent action to meet the security needs of their country.

Iraqis Not Ready to Fight Rebels on Their Own, U.S. Says

By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: July 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 20 - About half of Iraq's new police battalions are still being established and cannot conduct operations, while the other half of the police units and two-thirds of the new army battalions are only "partially capable" of carrying out counterinsurgency missions, and only with American help, according to a newly declassified Pentagon assessment.

Only "a small number" of Iraqi security forces are capable of fighting the insurgency without American assistance, while about one-third of the army is capable of "planning, executing and sustaining counterinsurgency operations" with allied support, the analysis said.

The assessment, which has not been publicly released, is the most precise analysis of the Iraqis' readiness levels that the military has provided. Bush administration officials have repeatedly said the 160,000 American-led allied troops cannot begin to withdraw until Iraqi troops are ready to take over security.

[snip]

Hearings on Security Implications of Revealing Covert Agent's Identity

Hearing on Security Implications of Revealing Covert Agent's Identity 

If you missed the hearings that were conducted on Friday, July 22 and aired on C-span you may view the archive of the hearing by clicking the above link or going to 

<http://www.c-span.org/>

The archive will probably only remain active for the next 15 days. The expert witnesses present a compelling and distressing picture of the damage the White House has done, not just to Valerie Plame, but even more important, to our ability to obtain intelligence necessary for national security.

This is a must-see.

     John

John E. Cleek, Ph.D., Moderator

http://abetterfutureforall.blogspot.com/

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." 

- Albert Einstein

Questions for Karen Hughes

The American Progress Action Fund has done a good job of summarizing
the questions that should be clarified before Karen Hughes is
confirmed for any high office including Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy, a position for which the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is conducting hearings today. I am posting their summary
below.

John
John E. Cleek, Ph.D., Moderator
http://abetterfutureforall.blogspot.com/

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results."
- Albert Einstein

Questions for Karen Hughes

July 22, 2005

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up the
nomination of Karen Hughes to become Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy. At a time when the United States ' reputation in
the international community is eroding, it is vital that our public
diplomacy efforts meet the highest levels of credibility. The Senate
needs to pay keen attention to her role in very questionable ethical
practices by the White House message machine over the past four
years. As Hughes played such an important role in the White House,
there are some important issues that need to be discussed before the
Senate votes on her nomination.

Karen Hughes needs to clarify her involvement in the Valerie Plame
scandal. The New York Times reports this morning that Hughes has been
interviewed by the federal prosecutor investigating the leak of
former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. In her book, Ten
Minutes From Normal, Hughes discussed the leak, calling it "wrong"
and "unfair." Hughes earlier said the leak was "disruptive to
democracy." Given what we know about Karl Rove's involvement in the
leak, how does Hughes respond to her previous comments that she knew
Rove wasn't involved in the leak because "Karl has said he was not
involved."

Hughes must accept accountability for the manipulation of Iraq
intelligence. Hughes took a leading role in crafting Bush's
statements to convince the American people of the Iraqi threat. Bush
made a number of misleading statements, including saying that Saddam
wanted to "use al-Qaeda as a forward army." The most famous of these
statements was that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa , a
claim made in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Hughes was
involved in drafting that speech, and should be asked if she concedes
that these statements were exaggerations.

Finally, Hughes should be asked about her role in smearing critics of
the White House. Former Bush counter-terrorism Chief Richard Clarke
publicly criticized the White house about its counter-terrorism
strategies, and they struck back with a vengeance. The New York Times
reported that Hughes "was an advocate of the howitzer treatment" of
Clarke. The White House released classified information that cast
Clarke in a negative light, but refused Clarke's request to
declassify his correspondence with Rice prior to 9/11.
To visit the Talking Points archives, please click here.

RSS Feed for American Progress Action Fund.

To unsubscribe from this mailing, please click here 

China's revalues its currency

The decision of the People's Bank of China to raise the value of the Yuan by up to 2% per day is certainly a small step but it is the first tangible evidence of the intention of the chinese leadership to eventually trust the market to establish the relative value of its currency. My understanding is that a special high level government committee has been holding daily meetings for some time considering whether, when, and how, to move away from the fixed exchange rate for the yuan without producing internal turmoil. 

The decision to re-state the rate on a daily basis with up to a 2% adjustment, and to express the rate in terms of more than a single currency is by no means equivalent to a floating exchange rate any more than the periodic adjustment in interest rates by the Fed is a floating interest rate. The rate will be set by the government officials each evening and will supposedly reflect market conditions.

I was hoping for bolder action that would allow market conditions to actually drive the change but this is at least a step in the right direction. 

However if we are expecting that this modest step or even far bolder steps regarding the exchange rates for the chinese yuan are going to dramatically impact our enormous trade imbalance with china we are expecting what is not going to happen. The exchange rate is only a small part of the problem. And not all aspects of the problem are within the control of the chinese government. 

In my estimation the two most significant drivers of our current account deficit are our voracious appetite for petroleum. At today's prices, imported oil accounts for 1/3 of our trade deficit. I am convinced we will see no significant improvement in this area until bold and future oriented action is taken to dramatically focus attention on alternatives. What impact do you think a $50 (or $100) per barrel tax on  imported oil would have on both consumption rates and the deficit? Go figure and you may decide it would be worth the short term pain of increased gasoline prices. A $50 per barrel import tax would produce in excess of $215 billion in taxes per year assuming no drop in demand due to the higher prices.

The other primary driver of the current account deficit in recent years has been the Wal-Mart syndrome.

If you saw the PBS special detailing the way in which Wal-Mart has essentially become a chinese based supplier, you know how successful they have been in doing it and saying they didn't. Their primary motives are not to provide consumers with lower prices. That is simply a strategy to make Wal-Mart the most profitable monopoly in the world. They drive their prices down in order to drive their competitors out of business so they can raise their prices and profits. We need new anti-monopoly legislation that more adequately addresses the conditions they have created. They are not acquiring their competitors to eliminate competition. They don't need to do this. By buying their products so cheaply they can often sell at prices below the price their competitor's pay at wholesale. The most vulnerable are not other large retailers like K-Mart and Target. The most vulnerable are the mom and pop, locally owned, stores that have been the life blood of small town America. We all know what impact this strategy has had on mainstreet businesses across small town America.

A third factor in the current account deficit is the lack of an aggressive and intelligent export marketing strategy on the part of American business. I like the Motorola philosophy. They sought to challenge overseas competitors in their competitors home markets to keep them occupied at home and thus they would be less able to focus on competing for Motorola's domestic market.

Unfortunately the current administration has little interest or concern about the problems of the average American household. There was a time when the philosophy was: If it's good for General Motors, it's good for America. Today the philosophy seems to be, if it's good for big business and corporate profits, it doesn't matter whether it's good for America.

        John

John E. Cleek, Ph.D., Moderator

http://abetterfutureforall.blogspot.com/

Louisburg, Kansas

"Where there is no vision; the people perish."  Proverbs 29:18

On Jul 22, 2005, at 3:20 AM, Trey McAtee wrote:

Here's the funny...

 

The People's Bank of China raised the value of the yuan by 2 percent on yesterday, to 8.11 to the dollar. But more important, the bank said that each evening, it would set a new trading range for the yuan to move within on the next trading day. To add to the uncertainty, each day's new range may not necessarily be expressed in terms of dollars, the bank warned. It did not provide examples, but the euro would be the most likely alternative.

 

From today's NYT

 

They honestly can't swing too wildly anytime soon, but the writing is on the wall... we're getting set up. No one's going into panic yet because the theory is they'll hold the volatility and the increases in value to around what they did in the mid 90s.

 

Should be interesting...

 

Rove: The Story Is Not Going Away

I am sharing a portion of the American Progress Action Fund Talking Points as it is the best summary of what we know about the growing scandal in the White House. A year ago I read John Dean's book, "Worse Than Watergate," but only now are the facts coming to light in a way that reinforces the point that John Dean made based on his inside role in the Watergate Scandal.

It may be too late for GWB to learn from Richard Nixon's experience that once the news is out, a coverup is impossible -- and only compounds the crime.

We need Howard Baker to ask his famous question, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

     John

John E. Cleek, PhD, Moderator

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/A_Better_Future/

http://abetterfutureforall.org/index.htm

"You can fall asleep to dream or you can dream to change the world."   Frantz Fanon

Begin forwarded message:

From: American Progress Action Fund <progress@americanprogressaction.org>

Rove: The Story Is Not Going Away July 21, 2005 The CIA leak scandal has already made its return to the front pages after a one-day respite, throwing a wrench in the reported White House strategy to push Plamegate out of the public eye by rushing their Supreme Court nomination. The White House can try and deflect attention from its complicity in the CIA leak, but they cannot escape the fact that White House staff leaked classified information on a sensitive national security matter and lied about it. While the White House stonewalls, the public record exposing their involvement in the leak grows. We now know that Karl Rove disclosed Plame's status to at least two reporters, contradicting two year old White House denials that Karl Rove had "no involvement" in the leak. We know that White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer read a classified State Department memorandum which revealed information about Plame's CIA status in a paragraph marked '(S)' for secret, a day before Karl Rove confirmed this information to the columnist Robert Novak. We know that the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, confirmed Plame's status to at least one reporter. We know that the CIA classified Valerie Plame's identity as covert and she wasn't, as Rove's defenders say, just a desk jockey at Langley. We know that President Bush promised to fire "those involved" in the leak and is now backing away from that promise. And we learned in today's Washington Post, that the State Department's own investigations "already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger" in February 2002 -- nearly a year before President Bush tried to terrify the American people by including that claim in his State of the Union speech. In the end, this matter all comes back to Iraq. The White House got into this trouble through its concerted and coordinated effort to smear anyone questioning its erroneous intelligence about WMD in Iraq [USA Today 7/24/03]. Continuing to stonewall and smear opponents will not get them out of it. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will determine if the White House officials' leaks violated the law. But it is undeniable that the White House has violated the public's trust. President Bush should put an end to the stonewalling and explain to the American people the facts about his White House's role in this grave matter. To visit the Talking Points archives, please click here.

Security Clearance is Serious Business

It is not a matter of piling on or taking advantage of an unintentional or harmless mistake to ask the President to enforce a high standard of accountability and integrity among the members of his staff.

Anyone who has followed the career of Karl Rove, especially his 'dirty tricks' in the race of George W. Bush against Ann Richards or in the Republican primary in South Carolina against John McCain knows that the smear tactics he employed against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie are a part of his longstanding method of operation. What makes things different this time are that he employed these tactics not in the heat of a political campaign but in a manner that undermines our national security.

One does not need to have top security clearance to run a political campaign. But you cannot be a top policy adviser to the president of the United States without such security clearance. Thus for the president to set the bar so low as to say that regardless of the poor judgment, regardless of the clear evidence of culpability in the outing of an undercover CIA agent, regardless of the obvious effort to stonewall and coverup, his only standard will be conviction of a crime, is ludicrous and calls into question the qualifications of the president for the office he holds.

Can you imagine a president of the United States with his security clearance lifted? 

I have been reluctant to reach this conclusion, but when the president announced that he would only fire Karl Rove or Scooter Libby if they were convicted of a crime, he pushed me to the tipping point. It was bad enough for him to say, I want to wait until the investigation is concluded before deciding what course of action to take. But now he says, Regardless of what either of these political operatives working from the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President have done, if they can escape criminal conviction, I will take no action!

Mr. President, you are no longer running for office. You need a policy adviser who meets the highest standards of integrity; a policy adviser who knows the difference between national interest and personal interest; a policy adviser whose honesty is beyond reproach. It is time for Karl Rove to step aside regardless of whether the president has the courage to ask for his resignation or not.

You can register your views on this topic by following the links below.

John

John E. Cleek, Ph.D., Moderator

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/A_Better_Future/

"Let's tell the American people the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that this is the eve of great decisions, not easy decisions -- like resistance when you're attacked, but a long, patient, costly struggle which alone can assure triumph over great enemies of men: war and poverty and tyranny -- and the assaults upon human dignity which are the most grievous consequences of each."  Adlai Stevenson

Begin forwarded message:

The People Email Network Security Breach ACTION Alert

We didn't vote for Karl Rove, did you?  We didn't see his name on any ballot and not "Scooter" Libby either.  We don't know whether they will be ultimately convicted of treason for leaking the identity of a vital undercover CIA officer trying to protect us from WMDs.  What we DO know by Rove's OWN ADMISSION is they were reckless, negligent and malicious in confirming the agent's identity in clear violation of official White House security policy.  Now the president says he will not take any action until someone is convicted of this crime.  How low has the ethical bar sunk to where that has become their standard?  Why don't we tell our members of Congress they must demand the leakers be fired?

http://www.usalone.com/rove.htm

The White House says they want to know the facts, but if they've asked their own staff even a single question in the last two years maybe that's their idea of the kind of secrets they have to protect.  Their denials have become so laughable the press corps is actually doing that, laughing out loud at the stonewalling.  Well compromising our national security for petty smears of administration critics is no JOKE.  Anyone who can't be trusted to handle classified information in the interests of the country BY DEFINITION should not have a security clearance, and as a result can no longer work in any position that would require one.  Please tell your members of Congress to call for Rove and Libby to be fired immediately.

http://www.usalone.com/rove.htm

Are We Playing Their Game?

At times it appears to me that those who control the direction of our country may be intentionally distracting the opposition from the real issues we should be confronting. As long as they can keep us engaged in defending the strawmen they set up we will have less time and energy to plan our positive progressive strategies.

I know the argument, I've made it myself, that we cannot afford to allow any of their distorting and fabricated attacks to go unanswered. But I am less sure of the wisdom of this logic every day. I am doubting whether we are wise to let the other side pick the battle ground and the weapons to be used.

Maybe I am coming at the same issue that Lakoff addresses when he talks about the importance of framing. 

I would like some of you to reflect on this issue, please don't respond by simply repeating what we have already said to each other. I have heard those arguments. I am trying to stimulate us to revisit the issue of strategy and maybe do some outside the box thinking.

  John

John E. Cleek, Ph.D., President

Board of Education, USD 416

Louisburg, Kansas

johncleek@mac.com

 "What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other idea for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy."  John Dewey

Americans Ready for Progressive Direction

The Campaign for America's Future has released the results of a new poll that indicates that a majority of Americans are ready to embrace not only progressive issues, but a broad progressive argument about the country's future.

Read an overview of the key findings of the poll at

www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/lake_poll_july2005.pdf

Among the findings that I find encouraging are the following:

• 70% agree "Rising health care costs are jeopardizing many families' economic security."

• 65% agree "Real family values means valuing families by having affordable health care and jobs that pay well enough to actually let families spend time with each other."

• 68% agree "We need to invest in the best education system in the world in order to remain a super power."

• 77% agree "We need to develop new, sustainable, and renewable energy sources to put us on the forefrong of new economy and create energy independence."

What do you think?

An Invitation to Post

I have initially added to this blogsite team the names of the members who have access to the Partnership Group Site. I am still searching for a format and protocol that will facilitate our policy statement formulation. I have re-posted a couple of the items that I originally posted on the Better Future for All website. I am placing them here with the hope that this format will stimulate us to comment on the papers drafted by other members of the team and thus do a group edit leading to concensus.

To that end, I encourage others of you to post policy statement drafts in this format. My suggestion is that we may need to break lengthy topics that cover many sub-topics into a series of posts to keep each thread as focused as possible. I don't have a magic length in mind at this point.


The Bridge Builder

A Consistent Ethic of Life

We honor and respect life in all of its forms and refuse to interpose the power of the state or our collective will on the individual

--to override the individual's request to be allowed to die without medical intervention;

--to carry a child to term in spite of medical advice against doing so;

-- to abort a fetus regardless of the conditions of impregnation;

We honor and respect life by providing the best available medical care at all stages of life to every individual regardless of their ability to pay for it;

We honor and respect life by insisting that

--no child go to bed hungry or malnourished;

--no child enter school unprepared to learn;

--no child fail to succeed in school for reasons over which we, the people have control;

We honor and respect life by providing a social safety net for the weak or disabled at all stages of life;

We honor and respect life by guaranteeing every citizen access to a job -- and the assurance that if they work full-time they will be above the poverty line.

We honor and respect life by protecting Social Security that has reduced by 50% or more the number of seniors living in poverty.

Reflections on Ground Zero

In the summer of 2002, my then 17 year old son and my then 21 year old grandson and I went down to Lower Manhattan and spent the better part of an afternoon at Ground Zero. We read many of the notes pinned to the wrought iron fence and tacked to trees, etc. We looked at the gapping hole in the ground that had been the base for the Twin Towers of the WTC a few short months before. As we looked at the pictures of loved ones lost with notes of remembrance from family our hearts were heavy and our thoughts were complex. We didn't say much, we were too deep in thought.

Having lived and worked in Oklahoma City and having a sister who worked for several years in the Federal Court House Building in Oklahoma City, my first trip to the site of that building site after the devastating bombing was equally sobering and shocking. The memorial constructed there was a fitting one and anyone standing among the shadows and the streams of light cannot walk away unaffected.

Several years ago I stood on the site of another Ground Zero in Europe -- the site of the concentration camp at Auschwitz. It was an eerie feeling that caused me to be sick at my stomach as I realized the magnitude of the slaughter of human life that had taken place there.

It was not a Ground Zero but my first time to stand in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington at dusk and read aloud the words of Lincoln inscribed on those walls brought tears to my eyes and a feeling of unsteadiness as I reflected on his words from the Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural.

I recalled how I felt when I visited Pearl Harbor, another Ground Zero, for the first time and realized the pandemonium that swept that harbor and took the lives of unsuspecting young Americans.

I have not been to Nagasaki or Hiroshima, although I have visited Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, and other cities in Japan at least 50 times over the past 20 years. But when I spent time a few months ago doing internet research and viewing pictures of the devastation of those cities and the enormous loss of innocent life wrought by the two atomic bombs we dropped there, I had that same feeling of emptiness and helplessness in my stomach.

I don't even want to try to add up the number of human lives taken by these tragic examples of humankind seeking to "get even" with those who are perceived to be our enemy. I know that every life lost in this way is an affront to the sacredness of life and a waste of enormous proportions. I also know that there has never been, nor will there ever be, a war that will end all wars.

And then I thought about an interview I watched with General Tommy Franks several months ago. In his disarming and downhome Texas drawl, General Franks comes across as a man of homespun wisdom that seems compelling. But as he spoke, I realized how far his philosophy was from the teachings of the one who walked the dusty paths of Galilee and Judea some 20+ centuries ago.

General Franks said that he asked every audience to reflect on how they felt immediately after hearing of the attack on the World Trade Center. Then he said, his advice was, don't ever forget how you felt because it is that feeling that motivates us to respond. What did you want to do at that point? [Of course for most people the natural response would be, get even.] So, he concluded, that is what we must do!

I also thought about the spectacle of a president whose nation had been attacked and was looked to for moral leadership using the language of the frontier, Wanted Dead or Alive; We will hunt you down and we will kill you!

That is not moral leadership!

As long as that is the attitude we bring to the table after we have been attacked, we will continue to have more and more Ground Zeroes. They that live by the sword will die by the sword. If we follow the pattern of an eye for an eye, eventually everyone will be blind.

It is the prophetic vision that the time will come when men shall beat their swords into pruning hooks and their spears into plowshares and the lamb shall lie down with the lion.

My fervent hope and prayer is to live long enough to see our nation claim the moral high ground in international relations and declare that we will no longer brag about having the strongest military force in the world, but instead will be considered by the world to have earned the role of the moral leader of the world.

Amen.