Three Campaign Reform Myths

McCain-Feingold is a good start. Then again, if it were up to me (this is just a start):

1) 6 week campaign cycle
2) No campaign ads
3) Weekly debates
4) Only public money (i.e. the little check box on your tax return)

The convention watching party that Seth and Sarah put on was a great success. Sara posted some pictures from the event: Link
The turnout was fantastic at the convention party and it seems that the Democrats (at least locally) are really charged about the November elections.

This may be a bit premature, but I keep thinking about what's going to happen after the November elections. Let's assume that John Kerry wins the presidency. Then what? I know that the big donors (Soros, etc.) have been thinking beyond this election and how to shape the party. What are we doing on the local level to ensure that our voices are heard and to use the momentum to keep raising money and pushing a progressive agenda? I'm sure there are plenty of people thinking about this, but I haven't heard much.

John Edwards wasn't bad last night. He seemed rushed for the first few minutes. The networks have shrugged off the conventions this year and you can tell that the big speakers are trying to fit their speeches into the time slot.

Don't forgert the convention watching party tonight at Pato's Tacos on 38 1/2 street (right past Fiesta on the east side)! Hope to see everyone there (all 3 people that read this blog).

Yikes! $420 billion!

"The White House will project soon that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion, congressional aides said, a record figure certain to ignite partisan warfare over President Bush's handling of the economy."

The link

It seems that Iran had fallen off the map for a while. Does that mean that we've forgotten about the 9/11 commission report already?

I missed Obama Barak's speech at the Democratic convention last night, but I heard that it was exceptional. From what I've read, Mr. Barak was very inclusive and energizing. I did catch Bill Clinton's speak on Monday night. I don't know if it's because I've been subjected to GW's sophomoric speaking style (you see?), but in my opinion Bill knocked it out of the park. Eloquent.

Tonight John Edwards is slated to speak. I haven't heard a full speech of his. I'm looking forward to hearing his "Two Americas" speech.

Speaking of John Edwards, I had an argument with a couple of doctors last night about the effect of malpractice lawsuits on the price of their insurance premiums and the cost of health care. I have yet to see anyone present me with some statistics showing the correlation between malpractice jury awards and the cost of health care. I have seen that malpractice awards have been capped in California since the 1970's (proposition 139 was it?) yet insurance premiums did not go down until 1988 when the California legislature passed sweeping insurance reform.

Thanks go to Scot for this link. Styled after early propaganda cartoons:

Brother, Can You Spare a Job

Important News for Austin Women

Halliburton is being subpoenaed for documents relating to its business operations in Iran. I'm starting to get worried now. Is Halliburton already there laying the framework for "rebuilding" the country after an invasion? I'm not sure that we can stomach another war and I just don't see the necessary resources to carry out an operation in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Then again, when has the Bush administration looked before they jumped?

It seems that the 9/11 commission is going to state that some of the hijackers had "passed through Iran" in late 2000 or early 2001. I realize that the regime in Iran has been and is probably still involved in some "terrorist activity", and I'm not going to defend the regime. The problem is when Time magazine prints the headline "9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran", there are 3 things I see: 9/11, al-Qaeda, and Iran. A casual glance and you'd think that Iran was behind the attack. Maybe the hijackers crossed the Pakistani or Afghan border with Iran at some point. Does that mean that the Iranian people were complicit in the 9/11 attacks and that we should invade the country and possibly kill tens of thousands of Iranians as well as thousands of American troops? I know how insane (I knew there was a reason that I removed his link from my site) that sounds, but I'm afraid that this is the sort of logic that the Bush administration and the neo-conservatives use to create their foreign policy. Afterall, these cold warriors would love to have a nation-state to blame. I hope I'm completely wrong and they realize that there is a wonderful democratic movement growing in Iran and "containment" of the regime is the best policy.

On another note, I started reading Gore Vidal's Imperial America. Vidal is not only entertaining, but his vast knowledge about American imperial history gives a rather unique view of our current excursions into the Middle East.

Will Delay pay? The Link

"Kenny Boy" might have to pay.

I wonder if his old friend is going to help him out in an election year.

"The 71-year-old judge declared that members of the public should, without regard to their political views, expel Mr. Bush from office in order to cleanse the democratic system"

Here's an article about a rather controversial speech by Guido Calabresi, a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

The Link

Thanks to Howard Bashman

Read this last night and wanted to share:

"It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances."

Federalist Paper #4, John Jay writing as Publius

I decided to change the template for the blog. Let me know what you think.

When changing templates Blogger didn't let me save anything, so all the comments have been lost. Sorry about that...

Wow