| |
|
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
|
|
A new national poll finds overwhelming support (74%) for public financing of elections, the result no doubt of soaring campaign costs, lobbyist scandals and the desire for fairer, cleaner elections.
The result is bipartisan with eighty percent of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans support this reform.
What's important to emphasize is why voters said things would improve with public financing of elections. 82% of voters believe it is likely, as a result of publicly financed elections, that candidates will win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise.
79% said it would allow candidates with good ideas rather than just the rich and powerful to have a shot at winning elections.
77% said that special interests would not receive as many favors, tax breaks and deals from politicians.
This last point is important. Public financing of elections are NOT a policy that will increase government spending; in fact, it's almost guaranteed to pay for itself many times over with less tax and government contract giveaways and more honest, cheaper services. 77% of the public recognize that are present system of legalized bribery costs the public every day, so replacing it with public financing will be a cost-saver.
Progressive States has a fact sheet on how public financing works in states like Maine and Arizona which have implemented it. It's time every state enacted these reforms. 
(Via TPMCafe - The Coffee House.)
4:11:22 PM 
|
|
High Infidelity: What if three admitted adulterers run for president and no one cares?, Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce). Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.
Until relatively recently, a self-confessed adulterer had never sought the presidency.
[. . .] Despite the scandalous details, whether the press will air them is still an open question. When it comes to personal morality, liberal commentators have long argued that the press has one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans (and another one entirely for the Clintons). It's possible that the mainstream media will fail to apply the same scrutiny to the known transgressions of Gingrich, Giuliani and McCain as the Times did to rumors about Hillary Clinton's husband. SO, will the press give Republicans the same treatment they give Democrats? Did Bush get the same treatment Clintodid? HA!
(Via Seeing the Forest.)
11:51:07 AM
|
|
Will anyone interview former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage about this in 'Murica? Because they did in Australia:
THE level of violence in some areas of Iraq is worsening dramatically and US forces may soon be asked to leave by the Iraqi Government.
In an exclusive interview with The Australian, former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage has given a gloomy assessment of the situation.
"The British used to make a big deal of walking around in their berets in the south," he said. "Now they won't even go to the latrines without their helmets. The south has got much rougher, it's mainly Shia on Shia violence."
Mr Armitage said much of the violence came from differences over how the Islamic religion should be interpreted.
And he said he believed the Iraqis would soon ask the US to leave their country.
(Via Rising Hegemon.)
11:49:58 AM
|
|
 Dione and Rhea. Image credit: NASA/JPL/SSI
(Via Universe Today.)
11:48:21 AM
|
|
September 2004:
And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.) In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you’re saying, and you better mean what you say.
June 2006:
The United States military is quietly carrying out the largest military offensive in Afghanistan since U.S. troops invaded the country in 2001.
"The Taliban has made a comeback, and we have the next 90 days to crush them," said a senior U.S. military official.
The offensive, "Operation Mountain Thrust," involves almost 11,000 U.S. troops and is focused on four southern Afghanistan provinces.
Ninety days is half a Friedman Unit (an F.U.)
(Via Rising Hegemon.)
11:46:52 AM
|
|
Jim Lippard reports on another alleged case of an ISP engaging in network discrimination. Apparently, for the last few months Craigslist has been loading unbearably slowly for certain Cox cable customers. Pro-regulatory types jumped on it as evidence that new regulations were needed. The story ricocheted quickly around the blogosphere, and even ended up on the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
But Lippard tells us the rest of the story:
In fact, we know now that it’s a combination of a bug in a firewall driver produced by Authentium software and unusual (but not incorrect) behavior by the Craigslist webserver setting the initial TCP window size to 0. The facts of the problem came out (at least between Craigslist, Cox, and Authentium) at the time the problem was first reported, was fixed in a beta release within weeks, and has only affected Cox customers who use Authentium’s security suite…This issue was a user software application issue that had no more to do with network neutrality than a browser incompatibility issue, a webserver disk failure, or a fiber cut. Each of these things can prevent a user from reaching some specific content, but none is imposed by the network provider or remedied by act of Congress or the FCC. Those who continue to treat it otherwise even after knowing the details are demonstrating questionable judgment and integrity.
It’s funny how all the examples of purporting to demonstrate the need for more regulation fall apart upon closer inspection.
(Via The Technology Liberation Front.)
8:56:26 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Steve Michel.
Last update: 7/1/2006; 9:39:35 AM.
|
|
|
