Austin Centrist

My main interest has distilled down to promoting election reform: Campaign Finance, redistricting, ethics, etc. To me it is the reform that optimizes the most reforms.

It is a relatively unglamorous issue that doesn't arouse sustained passion.

Several groups dance around the issue:

The Coalition
In early 2006 the steady stream of national money in politics scandals presented an opportunity for reformers that called for an extraordinary effort and cooperation. The Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG forged a working coalition and launched a campaign, Seize the Moment (STM), with a mission to focus public attention on federal public financing as the best politically viable, constitutionally acceptable, and practical response to the scandals.

When Sens. Durbin and Specter introduced the Fair Elections Now Act in March, they had support from a long list of organizations that represent millions of Americans. Below is the full list of organizations that have endorsed the legislation.

AFL-CIO
AFSCME
Americans for Campaign Reform
Brennan Center for Justice
Campaign for America's Future
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Democracy 21
Democracy Matters
Dolores Huerta Foundation
League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
MoveOn.org
NAACP
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
National Council of Churches USA
Public Campaign
Public Citizen
SEIU
Sierra Club
US Action
U.S. PIRG

In the absence of a major revision of the two-party primary system that tends to weed out moderate candidates prior to the general election, I think the way to improve our choices is to get moderate voters more involved in the party primaries. Every news story I hear asks whether the moderate candidates of either party will be able to appeal to their party's presumed primary voters. The conventional wisdom requires candidates such as Rudi Giuliani to either abandon principled positions and pander to his party's so-called base, or else kiss the nomination goodbye.

Why should we surrender the nominating process to the extremes at either end of the spectrum? Any self-described moderate who laments their lack of choices in November has an obligation to get involved early. Any voter who plans to vote in November has an obligation to help decide the slate of candidates from which they will choose in November. More voters vote in the general elections than in the primaries. Why should we be satisfied with having more voters participate in the process only after there are fewer candidates?

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh has read between the lines of the Virginia Tech killer's writings and proclaimed him a Liberal, due apparently to Mr. Cho's professed animosity toward certain rich individuals for their alleged abuses, real or imagined, toward himself and others.

Mr. Limbaugh pre-emptively complained that the "drive-by" media will pick up on his comments and accuse him of comparing liberals to psychopathic killers. That may not have been the substance or intent of Mr. Limbaugh's comments. But even if one takes pains to appreciate the context and nuances of the remark, the question has to be asked: "What good does it do anybody to guess at the shooter's politics?" Even if he were known to vote one party or the other, what would that have to do with this case that seems fundamentally about untreated mental illness? Hid political affiliations seem about as relevant as the killer's preferred athletic shoe or soft drink. The reflexive calls for and against sticter gun control laws are crass and premature this soon after the tragedy, but at least at some appropriate time they will form the basis of a useful debate. The same cannot be said of Mr. Limbaugh's characterization of Mr. Cho's political leanings.

Mr. Limbaugh makes a comparison to remarks made by president Clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. President Clinton suggested that the incendiary rhetoric of the right may have played a role in inspiring such crimes, or at the very least fomenting a political culture that facilitated them. Mr. Limbaugh obviously feels the remarks were directed (wrongly) at him, that it would have been wrong to associate his relentless verbal assaults on "big government" with Timothy McVeigh's physical assault on same. The problem with that view is that McVeigh's crime was explicitly a political crime, and McVeigh's politics were explicitly known and explicitly in agreement with Limbaugh's expressed views. McVeigh made no secret of his politics and chose a political target for his attack. Cho Seung-hui did not put himself on one side or another of any political debate, at least not in the process of justifying his crimes. He never identified himself as liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. He said he acted in part to avenge some class of victims, but he never identifies them as victims of big government or big business or any of the standard bogeymen of either political pole. He availed himself of, and defiled, both the First and Second Amendments.

A special shout-out goes to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for exploiting this tragedy in only a slightly more intelligent way than Limbaugh. Gingrich blames the culture of liberalism of the last 40 years for the rampage, but refrained from aligning Cho with the political forces that created that culture.

Both men have displayed remarkable insensitivity, ignorance, and/or cynicism. I hope both men receive stern rebukes from Virginia governor Tim Kaine, who warned against just this sort of political exploitation in the days following the shooting.

Whether realistic or not, my hopes for the new year are:

1. a chance, any chance left, that some form of stability can come to a democratic Iraq.

2. a still-divided Congress that chooses compromise over stalemate.

3. more attention paid to regions like Darfur by both this nation and the international community.

4. less attention paid to celebrity couples, celebrity babies, celebrity crazy-talk, celebrity fights, celebrity public nudity, etc.

5. a Texas legislative session that is just slightly less insane than the last two.

A happy New Year to all.

I want to wish everyone in the blogosphere the very best this holiday season.

This is a feature I would like to try out. From time to time I'll post an article from a left- or right-leaning blog with arguments that I either:

a) agree with, or
b) don't necessarily agree with, but believe bring up valid issues for centrists to contemplate.

My first feature falls under the first category. Redstate has an interesting and somewhat amusing take on the nativity scene debacle at the Washington Capitol:

I was sitting browsing sites and stumbled over an Associated Press item quoted in NewsMax.com. This little ditty follows on the heels of the SeaTac Airport kerfuffle over Christmas trees in the terminal. You may recall the flap over a request, later withdrawn, to include a menorah at the airport. The powers that be did what bureaucrats usually do, the wrong thing, removed all the Christmas trees. In any event after the threat of a lawsuit went away, and the public had responded 'vigorously', the trees were replaced.

Read on . . .

So imagine my surprise to find that Governor Christine Gegoire recently began the Hanukkah holiday by lighting the first candle of a menorah in the state capitol building. Seeing the menorah in the capitol a gentlemen of the Christian persuasion requested that a nativity scene be included in the holiday display; his mistake appears to have been in assuming that there was some actual Christian connection to Christmas. He was turned down on the grounds that including a nativity scene might appear to endorse a particular religion. The refusal was ostensibly because the state's legal department had not had an opportunity to consider the matter.

So as I was sitting here chuckling over more stupidity by government, something fairly serious occurred to me. Now I am not Jewish but throughout my life several of my closest friends have been and remain so to this day. It has always been my impression that Hanukkah, while not as important as Yom Kippur, was still like an actual Jewish religious holiday, dude. And that the menorah, as an apparatus of that holiday, was therefore a religious symbol; I know this because it isn't used as a centerpiece when I drop by my Jewish friends' for franks and burgers on Tuesday. The state saw no problem in having a menorah in the capitol and having the governor participate in the lighting ceremony on the first night of Hanukkah; and I don't either. But the incorporation of a nativity scene smacked too much of religion.

So here's where we get to the problem. If the nativity scene is prohibited because it is religious, but the menorah and the Hanukkah ceremony were included then they are clearly not religious. If I were Jewish I think I'd be upset; my holiday doesn't count as religious?

But what do I know, I'm not a government bureaucrat.

Aside from the humor, the article brings up a point - any and all peaceful expressions of religion on public grounds should be welcomed. I have argued before that just because a public entity allows a religious-themed presentation on its grounds, it is not endorsing a particular religion, so long as:

1) it extends the same invitation to set something up to all other religious groups;
2) no person is forced to recognize as truth, pay homage to, etc., the display; and
3) taxpayer dollars do not go toward erecting the display.

Now, if government and not private funds went toward those displays in Washington, then we have a problem, and if anyone knows for sure, please clarify.

In the end, when government officials begin atempting to sort out what constitutes a religious display and what does not, they run into the trouble that Washington did. This holiday season, let's accept, not exclude.

Two developments on the campaign finance reform front:

Panel says issue ads OK during elections
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal court on Thursday loosened restrictions on corporations, unions and other special interest groups that run political advertising in peak election season.

The 2-1 ruling said groups may mention candidates by name in commercials as long as they are trying to influence public policy, rather than sway an election.

The ruling came in a challenge to the so-called McCain-Feingold law designed to reduce the influence of big money in political campaigns. The law banned groups from using unrestricted money to run advertisements that name candidates two months before a general election or one month before a primary.

Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, has been fighting the law since 2004, when it sought to run an advertisement urging voters to contact Wisconsin Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats, and ask them not to hold up President Bush's judicial nominees.

Because Feingold was running for re-election in 2004, the ad was prohibited. Wisconsin Right to Life argued that it wasn't trying to influence an election and said the law restricted its constitutional right to petition the government.

While the Right to Life group has a point, there still needs to be some type of regulation on such issue-oriented ads to halt those disingenuous ones that are trying to influence elections. I hope this ruling does not lead to the complete dismantling of the regulation.

The other major event comes from California:

Ca. court: Campaign laws apply to tribes
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A split California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Indian tribes, some of the state's biggest political donors, are bound by campaign-finance disclosure rules.

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices upheld a lower court decision that said tribes were subject to campaign-finance enforcement lawsuits from the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency that oversees elections.

The case is significant for California's political culture.

The more than 100 tribes in California, some flush with casino revenues, are major campaign donors that have reported giving at least $200 million to candidate and ballot measure campaigns during the past decade. Most already disclose donations of at least $10,000 a year, in compliance with state regulations.

The tribes sued by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to comply with disclosure rules argued they are sovereign governments, immune from most state intervention, including lawsuits to enforce state laws.

I have to agree with this ruling. These tribes may have sovereign status, but if they want to engage in campaign financing, they should have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

With 435 House seats up for re-election only 40 are in any meaningful risk of changing parties. This is in part because of redistricting, the periodic reconfiguring of political boundaries to enhance the control of the party in power.

While I am in favor of a less partisan redistricting process this may not make as much difference to the outcome of elections than a few other election reforms, among which my favorite is the Blanket Primary. My aim is shared with the original framers of the constitution who wanted the House elections to be a referendum by the public on the direction of the government. Any favoritism to incumbents defeats that objective.

Blanket Primary - The top two vote-getters from each office advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. This means that the general election could be between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican.

Open Primary - Voters need not publicly declare their party affiliation but must vote for candidates of only one party. The opposite is a closed primary, in which only registered members of a party may vote.

Instant Runoff Voting - single winner elections in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. In an IRV election, if no candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on), until one candidate achieves a majority.

Condorcet - this system measures which candidate has the broadest support. It compares each candidate pair-wise with each other candidate.

Borda Count - this is similar to how college football teams are ranked. A first place vote is worth 4 points, a 2nd is worth 3 points, a 3rd 2 points and a 4th is worth 1 point. The candidate receiving the most points wins.

Approval Voting - each voter votes for as many candidates as they like. The candidate with the most votes (plurality) wins. Approval voting only measures whether a candidate is acceptable to the voter; it does not distinguish between a candidate who is intensely liked and those who are more weakly approved of.

Cumulative Voting - this system was used in Illinois for 110 years until 1982 to elect Illinois House of Representatives. Voters had three votes to give to three candidates and could distribute the votes any way they wished - all to one candidate, one each, or two and one. There is a push now to revive it. See the Drive to Revive Cumulative Voting.

Voters should select their representatives rather than elected officials selecting thier voters.

Columnist Dave McNeely believes the State of Texas should take a serious look at revising its problematic congressional redistricting methods:

Every few years - actually, every two years, for the past decade or so - there is an effort to have Texas join the dozen other states that have set up some redistricting process other than the legislature.

Having legislators draw their own districts is contentious, expensive, bloody, and
perhaps more than anything else bears out the adage that people should not watch
the making of laws or sausage.

McNeeley also addressed the state's judge selection system (Texans elect their judges):

As for changing the method of selecting judges from election to appointment, we're already part-way there anyway. Five of the current nine members of the Texas Supreme Court reached that bench initially by appointment.

Every Republican district court judge in Dallas County who was opposed by a Democrat was knocked off the bench. While a case can be made that there's some virtue in electing judges at least within a county, it would be interesting to see how many Dallas County non-lawyers could name even five of their dozens of judges.

I happen to agree with McNeely on both issues. A process whereby people draw a congressional map while holding a direct political interest in how the district lines fall is an unsound one. The current method in Texas has proven to be messy, time-consuming, and unnecessarily costly to taxpayers. There are a number of non-partisan systems that can be used to redraw districts, and each one should be evaluated to find the best fit for Texas. And while each has its own flaws, they certainly cannot compare to a system that allows a then Texas congressman and House Majority Leader to orchestrate a mid-census power grab, or leads to a mid-session circus where state Democrats bolt across state lines to avoid a quorum.

As for the state's judicial selection system, sometimes you can have just too dang much democracy. I know that sounds bad, but think about it. We expect our representatives to speak for us and serve our interests. But this is not what we expect our judges to do; rather, we count on them to be impartial interpreters of the laws our elected representatives make. To do this, judges need to be both qualified and non-partisan (the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is notorious for not being these). Judges appointed by more knowledgeable legislators have a better chance of meeting these criteria than those elected by a public who generally has little to no clue who they are. And I agree with McNeely that the institution of an appointment process should begin with the higher courts.

You can find the full column here.

Hello!

My name is Clint Carrens. I posted regularly with Paul on Austin Centrist back when it started, but for various reasons lost the time to be a regular blogger. With a recent change in jobs, though, I have found myself more capable to keep up with current events and write about them. Plus, I've really missed the blogosphere.

With Paul moving over to The Moderate Voice (though he may post here from time to time), I hope to keep the content here fresh and updated. I look forward to sharing my thoughts with everyone willing to drop by.

The Moderate Voice, won the Weblog award for best Centrist Blog with 52.71 % of the 17677 votes.

Come visit if you enjoy civil discussions of controversial issues.

I have been invited to start Blogging at The Moderate Voice

It has a stimulating pool of co-bloggers and commenters. It is also one of the more prominent forums for Centrism and Moderate Politics.

I may occasionally post here on Austin Centrist but, for the time being, TMV will be my main gig.

Six new Democrats seek middle ground in Texas House
Winners preparing for '07 session include Austin's Valinda Bolton
By W. Gardner Selby
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, December 11, 2006

Dallas lawyer Allen Vaught could be excused for having butterflies over his looming induction into the Texas House.

But Vaught, an Army veteran whose service included a tense stint as the de facto mayor of Fallujah, Iraq, said, "If I can work with bickering tribal leaders when people are shooting at me, I can probably go to Austin and work with Republicans and Democrats and get things done."

He and five other Democratic representatives-elect, including consultant Valinda Bolton of Austin, won seats last month that Republicans had hoped to hold or corral. The Democrats' January arrival (plus the return of Donna Howard of Austin to the previously Republican seat that she captured in February) will shrink the GOP's edge in the House to 81-69, assuming that a Republican wins the seat that is open after the death of Rep. Glenda Dawson, R-Pearland. A special election is scheduled for Dec. 19.

The influx of Democrats will moderate the majority and lead to a more moderate House, veteran legislative consultant Olan Brewer said.

Lobbyist Bill Ratliff, a former GOP state senator who doubled up for a spell as lieutenant governor, agreed, partly because voters scuttled some "more extreme" members.

"Inevitably, that moves the House a little more to the center," Ratliff said.

Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said to "look for the emergence of a bipartisan majority" that will come up with "things that make sense."

Rep. Sid Miller of Stephenville, vice chairman of the House Republican Caucus, said that at least one conservative cause won't advance in part because of the new Democrats: state-funded vouchers that would enable selected low-income students to attend private schools.

Miller said issues that previously divided members along party lines — including redistricting, abortion and same-sex marriage — are not likely to return.

"I look for some more healing, really a more congenial attitude in the Legislature. . . . We're going to have a lot less fireworks," he said.

The newbie Democrats, who ran in districts that narrowly lean Republican or Democratic, see the appeal of the middle of the road.

Paula Hightower Pierson, who defeated Rep. Toby Goodman of Arlington, credited independent voters for "saying, 'We don't want fussing and fighting. We want moderate-thinking people who will work together, who are honest and who will go and do the job we sent them to do.' "

The 56-year-old businesswoman hopes to step up state oversight of convicted child predators.

She doesn't see her swearing-in as a coronation.

"It's a time to be humble," she said. "I don't want to plan on a lifelong career. I'd be willing to vote for term limits," which would restrict members to 10 or 12 years of service.

Corpus Christi lawyer Juan Garcia likewise touted an independent streak in voters. Garcia, who upset Rep. Gene Seaman, said that rather than focusing on "red" Republican issues or "blue" Democratic topics, "people wanted to talk purple. Maybe the message is we're past party."

Garcia, 40, intends to focus on ensuring that every legislative vote is recorded so constituents can easily track results online. He also hopes lawmakers give the thumbs up to a medical school in a soon-to-shutter Navy facility near Corpus Christi.

Ellen Cohen, 66, CEO of the Houston Area Women's Center, unseated Rep. Martha Wong. She expects to focus on health care and issues affecting the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, which is in her district.

Voters, she said, "wanted somebody who was going to represent the district in the Legislature and not somebody who was representing her party in the district." Cohen took issue with Wong's support in committee of a ban on gay marriage. The ban was put in the state constitution by Texas voters but did not win majority support from voters in Wong's district.

Cohen, a 37-year breast cancer survivor, also reminded voters of Wong's support for a measure requiring abortion providers to issue leaflets stating that a link exists between abortions and breast cancer, a claim considered unproven by the National Cancer Institute.

Joe Heflin, a former county judge from Crosbyton, defeated Jim Landtroop in a West Texas district long represented by Democrat Pete Laney, a former House speaker who did not seek re-election.

Heflin, 54, whose slogan was "one of our own, one of our best," stressed his desire to serve with integrity. He said he was helped by voters who came to his side in reaction to advertising depicting as scandalous his legal representation of people charged with crimes.

"I am a conservative Democrat. I know what West Texans think, what they do, what they're all about," said Heflin, who listed education and water issues as priorities.

"People are starting to realize, 'You know what, there are a whole lot of us in the (political) middle here,' " he said. "There are a lot of good conservative Democrats. The hard partisan politics is playing negative to people. They were ready for representation, not straight party-line representation."

Bolton, 47, said the increase in Democrats edges the statehouse toward bipartisanship rather than domination by either party.

Democrats largely controlled state government into the 1990s. Republicans captured their first post-Reconstruction Senate edge in 1992, a decade before voters elected a GOP majority in the House.

"We don't have a long history of being a really vibrant two-party state," Bolton said. "We're going to find ourselves in an (election) cycle or two of really having a two-party system, meaning more debate, more mainstream policymaking, more middle ground — which is where most people live."

She hopes to give some counties more control over growth and to rally support for higher teacher pay. Bolton, conceding that she has much to absorb, said: "You can be well-qualified to take a new job but also recognize you have a lot to learn. That's me."

Vaught, 35, dubbing himself a Texocrat, disagreed on the stump with Rep. Bill Keffer's vote against expanding business taxes to pay for lower school property taxes. Like the other Democrats, Vaught also opposed authorizing school vouchers. He hopes to focus on improving insurance access and cutting costs, though he said: "I realize I am a freshman legislator. I'm not going to go in there and change the world."

wgselby@statesman.com; 445-3644

Thank you Paul. I am not going to bore you with a lot of history here, just a quick summary of events in the last 30 years which led up to the present.


Lebanon is the smallest country in that part of the world, approximately the size of the area encompassing Southern California (3 counties of Los Angeles , Santa Barbara and Ventura ). The 4 million inhabitants are comprised of 34% Shiites, 27% Christians, 29% Sunnis, 7% Druze and 3% other religions. There are approximately 13 million Lebanese expatriates living outside Lebanon , mainly in Europe, US, Brazil and Australia . Lebanon is the only and the oldest true democracy in the whole Middle East . All representatives are voted by the citizens. Then these men and woman elect a president who selects a Prime Minister. The latter forms a government where all various religions are represented based on the percentages in the population, compared to the electoral system in the US (based on state population). The Christians, Druze and Sunni Muslims are the original religions of Lebanon . The Shiites came largely from Iran in the 20th Century. They reproduced at a immense rate and became a single majority in the late 70s.

Throughout its history, and because of its size and military weakness, Lebanon had been toyed with by the neighboring Arab countries, who managed to always fight their grievances and inter problems inside Lebanon .

The Christians have a close relation with the West, mainly France and the main stream Arabs-such as Egypt , Saudi Arabia and Jordan . The Shiites Allegiances are to Iran and Syria . Although the Shiites are very patriotic, their allegiances are first to their religion and their Mullahs in Iran . The Christians and Druze are extremely nationalistic, their allegiance is to their national origin first then to their religion. The Sunnis are also very patriotic, but their allegiances are first to their identity as Arabs then Lebanon .

The civil strife started in Lebanon immediate after 1967 Israeli/ Arab war, when the Arabs decided to send most Palestinian refugees to live in camps they set up in Lebanon . Most Lebanese were forced to agree to the decision as a challenge to Lebanon 's Arabism (to be accepted as a true Arab country) after all, the country is part of the Arab world. In the early 70's the well armed Palestinians (the majority Sunni Muslims), headed by Yasser Arafat, convinced most Muslims, that Lebanon should be governed by Muslims because the Christians became, at that time a minority. Both the Shiites and Sunnis banned together and brought in the Druze with them to fight the Christians. The Palestinians offered their fighters to fight on the Muslims side. In the late 70s, the Syrian army entered Lebanon offering to stop the civil war. It did not take too long before the Various Lebanese sects, Christians, Muslims and Druze realized that they were been played by the Palestinians and Syria . The Palestinians wanted to set up their own state in Lebanon and Syria wanted to annex Lebanon back ( Syria never accepted Lebanon as an independent country. (There was never a Syrian embassy in Lebanon ).

During the Chaos of the civil war, the Palestinian Guerillas stepped up their attacks on northern Israel . Israel took that opportunity and invaded Lebanon under the premise of chasing the Palestinians away from its border. Arafat had no problems destroying Lebanon in his fight against the Israelis.

Enter Hezbollah. Comprised of Shiites from South Lebanon who have always endured the brunt of the Israeli attacks. Their fighters fought the Israelis and helped remove them from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah also rebuilt homes, built hospitals and schools and injected a lot of money in the Shiite community; all these resources came from Iran . They also kept arming to keep up the resistance against the Israelis. Their justification for the resistance: a small swath of land in South Lebanon which the Israelis occupied during the 1967 war. That area, called Shebaa Farms, had always been a source of conflict between Lebanon & Syria who always claimed it to be Syrian land. But now that the Israelis occupy it, Syria decided it is Lebanese, and are helping Hezbollah get it back (incredible isn’t?)

The Syrians on the other hand stayed in Lebanon , set up and ran a puppet Government and president who answers only to the Syrian Intelligence apparatus. The head of Syrian Intelligence in Lebanon then was the defacto governor of Lebanon . After ousting the Israelis, most Lebanese turned their sights on Syria who was financing ad arming Hezbollah to protect its interests and keep the pressure on Israel . Remember how many time Colin Powel had to call on Syria to rein in Hezbollah whenever they started shelling the Israelis. When then Prime Minister Hariri, a Sunni, spoke publicly to get Syria out, he was killed with 22 other people from his motorcade, by a huge bomb, reportedly set up by Syrian Agents and their Hezbollah counterparts. The majority of Lebanese people went to the streets asking the world to help get Syria ejected from Lebanon . Most Shiites, mainly Hezbollah’s people, did not participate. At the end, Syria was there master; she was facilitating the arms and dollars shipments from Iran . It should be noted that not ALL Lebanese Shiites are supporters of Hezbollah and Iran , but a great majority are. The Shiites are not liked or Supported by the main stream Arab countries, in facts the Shiites are usually repressed by all Arab regimes. The independent government now free of Syrian control turned on Hezbollah to get rid of their arms as there was no need to have the militia any longer. The Israelis would give up Shebaa through political negotiations. That angered Syria , no one was negotiating with Israel until Syria gets its Golan Heights back.

The ousting of Syria was an unacceptable blow to Iran and Syria . When the now independent government asked the world court to investigate the killing of Prime Minister Hariri and other Anti-Syrian politicians, Hezbollah , Syria and Iran became very nervous as the Investigators uncovered that Syrian agents were responsible, with orders directed from the Syrian president. The world was fed up with Iran and their quest for nuclear arms. Hezbollah was ordered by Iran and Syria to start a fight with Israel to shift the focus back to the Israeli conflict. The war Hezbollah fought with the Israel was against the wishes of the rest of the Lebanese, who now had an issue with Hezbollah and its leader, unilateral decision to involve the country in a war. Israel on the other hand, did not help the situation by destroying all infrastructures whether it was Shiite, Christian or Sunni. After the cease fire, the Lebanese again tried to disarm Hezbollah, but their leader, Nassrallah decided to topple the government and install a government who is pro-Syrian /Iranian. Whenever Nassrallah talks, the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon is always next to him, Its obvious he is speaking on behalf of Iran , who he pledge allegiance to in the first place. So Hezbollah is fighting Iran ’s Ahmadinajad war against Bush in Lebanon . For Hezbollah the fight is religious, Islam against the west. The rest of the Lebanese do not want the war, they want to live in peace with the Arabs/ Israelis and the rest of the world.

Contrary of what most of the world believes, Hezbollah and its allies do not represent the majority in Lebanon . That majority including the expatriates are overwhelmingly against Hezbollah and its masters in Iran and Syria .





I want the rest of the world to know that the key holder to interrupting Iran and Syria ’s plans in the area is Israel . She can stop all their justification for war, resistance and that BS, by saying “ok, Lebanon can have Shebaa Farms back”. By doing that, The Hezbollah supporters then will have a tough time selling their arms and their “resistance” propaganda. Now Hezbollah fighters will then go to Iran or Syria to continue their fight against the Israelis somewhere else.




----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Silver
To: Etiennez
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:39:33 PM
Subject: Re: Get eductated


You are right about how little I know about Lebanon.
I would like to invite you to write a few hundred words describing the situation in Lebanon. I am willing to post it on The Moderate Voice so others can learn from you, ask questions and give feedback.
Paul


----- Original Message ----
From: Etiennez
To: pjsilver@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:31:25 PM
Subject: Get eductated


You shouldnt comment on subject you obviously know nothing about. The protestors are Shiites moslims who want to topple a Sunni/christian/Druze gov which represent the majority of Lebanese. The Hisballah Shiites make up only 35% of the population. Lebanon is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Israel is not, it is a Jewish only country. so to allow the Iranian shiites (ie hizballah) to win in Lebanon, we basically alowing Iran to make a foul out of us again. they are gaining power by us appeasing them always. Sooner then later, with this attitude, you will be asking the christians to move out of the US and Europe.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

-W.B Yeats

I thought of this today
as folks discussed
if Iraq is in a civil war,
and wondered if it could ignite
the entire middle east?

Today three prominent articles on Centrism.

Can the GOP Find Its Center? By E. J. Dionne Jr.

"Pro-market libertarians and pro-family social conservatives are more aware than ever that their respective values and interests do not coincide."

GOP must return to its centrist roots By Governor Christine Todd Whitman

"President Bush has to lead the Republican Party back toward its traditional, philosophical roots of respect for and belief in the individual, fiscal responsibility, pragmatic and realistic foreign policy, and real environmental stewardship."

The Center of What? by David Sirota

"That’s really the problem with the term - and with Washington’s definition of it. “Centrism” as defined in the political dialogue today means “being at in the middle of elite opinion in Washington, D.C.” But if you plot this “center” on the continuum that is American public opinion, you will find that it is nowhere near the actual center of the country at large. The center of elite Washington opinion is ardently free trade, against national health care, opposed to market regulation, for continuing the Iraq War, and supportive of the flattest tax structure we’ve had in contemporary American history. That center is on the extreme fringe of the center of American public opinion, which is ardently skeptical of free trade, for universal health care, supportive of strong market regulations, insistent that the war end soon, and in favor of making the tax system more progressive."

What I mean by "Centrist" is using market forces as much as possible to promote opportunity and fairness. If market forces are ineffective then I support regulation. For instance:

Fair trade that liberates globalization while providing a sufficient safety net for American workers: Health Care, Education, Retirement security...

Barney Franks ideas of a grand bargain to reduce regulation in exchange for increased wages and benfits.

Expanding health care by reducing obstacles to competition and efficiency, and some government involvement to adjust risks. For instance I like the proposal for the government to indeminify the insurance companies for catastrophic costs in exchange for making basic care universally available.

An economic emphasis to foreign affairs that maximizes dialogue, market forces, rules of law and, inevitablity, civil liberties.

A simplifed tax system that eliminates most of the favors to specific industries.

I am not married to any of these specific remedies. But I do believe that the solutions in the Center are characterized by a reconciliation of the Democratic aims of nurturing society with the Conservative methods of nurturing market forces.

One of the more frustrating aspects of blogging are the cynical comments. Not those that correct facts or question assumptions. These I embrace. But rather those folks for whom hope is futile, and the glass is always less than half full. I often wonder why cynics bother to blog or comment. They seem to need to convince others to validate their bleak vision. To me it is pitiful.

Recently I started blogging at The Moderate Voice because I have a better chance of encountering optimism, hope, open mindedness, and constructive criticism...

And so I share excerpts from the transcript of Meet The Press with Governor Schwarzenegger. I am inspired by his sense of possibilities, self discipline, adaptability and vision. I can hear him in meetings: "Tell me what it takes to make a deal..." As an executive it is hard to image a better role model for a future President.


RUSSERT: (Reading a quote) “Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 17-point victory alone commands some attention, since it is easily the most impressive score by any Republican in a Democratic-leaning state this year - and it suggests a future for pro-environment, pro-business, fiscally conservative and socially moderate politics. ...“The key to Mr. Schwarzenegger’s victory lay not in seducing the left, but through his mastery of the state’s rising independent center.”

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: "...But what was wrong was the approach. To go and to say to the legislators, “I give you two months, and if you don’t agree with all of those things that I put on the table here in my State of the State address, then I will go to the people.” Well, the people really, you know, rejected that. They basically have said to us, “Don’t come to us with every initiative and with every idea. You fix it in the capital. That’s why we elect you, to go to the capital, and Democrats and Republicans work together.” And that’s exactly—we all got the message.

Last November, the Democrats and the Republicans got the message that the people want us to work together at the capital. And this is what we did. We sat down and we looked at each other and said, “Let us do this year the work of the people that the people really want us to do,” and that’s exactly what we have done. And both of the parties worked together, and I think we have accomplished so much because of that. And I think it just—I think if there’s any lesson in there is that we have to look—nationwide, we have to look at it much more like what is it that the people need, rather than what is good for our party. You know, that is, I think, the key thing here.

MR. RUSSERT: As you chart this independent course, a lot of conservative Republicans get upset with you. The National Review wrote this about Arnold Schwarzenegger: “Behold the new Arnold, a man bearing little resemblance to the revolutionary who toppled Governor Gray Davis just three years ago. He’s politically compliant, eager to please, and anxious to avoid a fight. One might say ... a girlie man.” That’s the National Review. How do you deal with those kinds of words?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: They’re absolutely correct that I’m eager to please the people. I’m eager to please the voters because I’m a public servant. I don’t see myself as a politician. I see myself as a public servant. I serve the people of California. I serve Democrats and Republicans, and if someone says that, that I’m eager to please, yes, I am. I’m there to please the people. That’s what this is all about. People send us to our capital to represent them and to work for them. That’s what we are going to do.

"I hold out my hand in peace to our Palestinian neighbors in the hope that it won't be returned empty," Olmert said.

"We cannot change the past and we will not be able to bring back the victims on both sides of the borders," he said. "All that we can do today is stop additional tragedies."

Al Jazeera on Israeli offer

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has said Israel is ready to "withdraw from considerable territory", free Palestinian prisoners and release funds to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for the return of a soldier seized in June.

He also said a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was possibile if peace talks were begun.

It is the first time Olmert has offered to exchange prisoners for Gilad Shalit, whose capture in a cross-border raid by Palestinian militants triggered an Israeli offensive into the Gaza Strip.

Jackie Rowland, Al Jazeera's Jerusalem correspondent, said Olmert's speech followed pressure from the US to change its policy towards the Palestinians.

She said: "The Americans have recently been making it clear to the Israelis that they really want to see progress. That there needs to be a restart of the peace process."

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera that the Palestinians were ready to negotiate a final peace deal.

He said: "We hope to also take the ceasefire to the West Bank in the next few days and we stand ready, if Mr Olmert wishes, to resume negotiations."

Olmert was speaking a day after a truce, brokered by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was observed in Gaza, designed to halt the Israeli offensive and end rocket fire into Israel by Palestinian fighters.

So far I have avoided watching Michael Richard's racial rant because I like watching Seinfeld and didn't want to contaminate my memories and joy. I find the situation ironic because the Kramer character was a symbol of open mindedness, with friends who were small, Cuban, oriental, fat, rich, and poor.

I am a racist in recovery and have been one most of my life.

I have black friends and business associates. I owned a bar and had many black customers. I believe most of them are smarter and more sophisticated than I am. I am always respectful. I was raised by socially liberal middle class New York Jewish family who prided themselves on their embrace of all people. 99.9% of the time no one would suspect the viciousness hiding under the surface of my personality.

But once in a while, in moments of anger or fear, I lose control and revert to my inner 13 year old getting shaken down for lunch money by a gang of black guys. This formative event was an emotional experience seared into my memory. Blacks were the first and most dramatic experience I ever had of danger and threat. I lose it. I think ugly thoughts and if I am alone I say ugly things under my breath. And for a short time I loath myself about it. No one would ever know I have this affliction.

I can empathize and sympathize with Michael Richards. He lost it and his darkest most evil demon was instantly revealed to the entire world and negated a life time of bringing joy to others. I can also sympathize with the target of his wrath. It had little to do with them or their behavior.

It seems to me that most people are friendly, fair and generous when they are feeling safe, secure and prosperous. But take any of those away and they can become mean, petty, and xenophobic.

It is amazing to me that the world works as well as it does.

Politicians and spectators are on the edge of our seats to see how the Democrats manage their new and surprising influence. Will they wisely steer as close to the center as possible or will they veer left and risk alienating the moderates who voted merely to give them a chance, not a mandate.

While it appears that the Democrats have wisely moved towards the center vacated by the GOP they can still blow it if they lose control of their wingers.

So is the GOP preparing to leap into the breach? Apparently not.

All I have read is that the GOP appears to be hunkering down on the far right. The GOP leaders have made statements that seem to focus their intention on scuttling any Dem legislation, but I have read nothing about how they will prepare to attract moderate/independents in '08. With the decimation of the ranks of GOP moderates in the last election there doesn't seem to be any serious high level intention to try to replace them. The Republican Main Street Partnership and It's My Party Too are the two moderate GOP organizations but seem to be silent on the topic.

As a Centrist I am somewhat ambivalent about whether the cause is moved forward by moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans. But if the GOP is going to abdicate the center then I need to focus my attention and resources where it is likely to do the most good.

Thomas Barnett is an international strategist with a growing fan base.

He recently commented on an article by Henry Kissinger about negotiating with Iran. He agrees that to a great extent, "all the talks need to do is buy us time and a forum for starting what will inevitably be a long-term forum for regional security discussion, much like the OSCE forum was in Europe. ...No, this forum won't magically make our rapid departure from Iraq possible, and no, it won't stop Iran from getting the bomb. The regional forum concept is not designed for magical outcomes, but slowly building the collective will for permanent security regimes to arise in the region that settle the endemic conflicts and allow enough political stability for economic connectivity to ensue, which in turn will fuel social change already underway and political change that seethes just below the surface (the great fears of the despots)."

"Realism is just idealism stretched over time. It is a belief in inevitabilities that prefers inaction to action and cynicism to morality. But such delays do not constitute diversions much less defeats.

...To me, the outcome will never be in doubt, just the timing."

Triggered by the recent hiring by Lieberman of former McCain staffer Marshall Whittman both the Washington Note and Tapped have extensive commentary about a possible McCain/Lieberman independent run for President.

If it happened they would probably position themselves as Centrists running independent of the extremes of their parties. This might be appealing. But some may question these credentials.

I admit that in theory I am excited about elevating Independence, Centrism and Moderation to this kind of prominence. But I want to see the beef. I would like to see their compromise remedies for 15 or 20 of the most controversial issues. Can they demonstrate that they have a philosophy and approach that deserves to be supported at the expensive of moderates in the existing parties?

From the Boston Globe

"...the chiefs of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler went to Washington to meet with the president and supported a suggestion John Kerry proposed during his presidential campaign: a reinsurance arrangement to pay for chronic or catastrophic healthcare costs, thereby effectively taking those cases out of private health-insurance plans.

...The Plan called for having the federal government pay three-quarters of the additional expenses for patients whose healthcare costs exceed $50,000 a year, provided savings from that cost relief helped reduce health-insurance premiums.

Removing those costs from private plans could have big effects. Although they constitute less than 1 percent of all cases, catastrophic care accounts for 20 to 30 percent of healthcare expenses.

If the government were to pick up most of the bill for catastrophic care, health-insurance premiums wouldn't be under such constant pressure. According to some estimates, premiums would be 10 percent lower than if private plans continued to pay for such care.

Health-coverage costs are a recognized drag on US firms competing with companies from nations where health coverage is a government responsibility. It is a particularly pronounced burden in the auto industry, adding as much as $1,500 to the price of a new vehicle.

...a plan like this could cost at least $40 billion a year and couldbe paid for by repealing the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000."

In Florida’s 13th Congressional District Vern Buchanan, the G.O.P. candidate, narrowly defeating Christine Jennings, the Democrat.

The problem is that the official vote count isn’t credible. In much of the 13th District, the voting pattern looks normal. But in Sarasota County, which used touch-screen voting machines made by Election Systems and Software, almost 18,000 voters — nearly 15 percent of those who cast ballots using the machines — supposedly failed to vote for either candidate in the hotly contested Congressional race. That compares with undervote rates ranging from 2.2 to 5.3 percent in neighboring counties.

The most important right American citizens have is the right to vote. It is the right from which all other rights derive, and it is the right we are risking blood and treasure overseas to promote. We should not allow this right to be taken for granted. I sent Christine Jennings $50 to help her fight for a fair election.

Christine Jennings

I regularly visit the websites for the Republican Main Street Partnership and It's My Party Too. The two leading Centrist Republican political groups. I keep hoping for some indication that they are as devoted to achieving progress as they are towards regaining power. But so far - no cigar.

The new Democratic class in Congress is the most centrist it has been in recent memory. There is reasonable chance for agreement on fiscal restrain, tax reform, control of entitlements, and dozens of other relatively non controversial issues. But I am seeing or hearing nothing from the GOP about excitement over the opportunity to find common ground with the Dems. Rather the GOP leadership has been public about looking for ways to scuttle any Democratic initiatives, and position the GOP to take back the Congress in 2008.

I realize partisan groups need to promote their party, but at some point you have to do more than just try to keep your job - you have to do your job.

Democrats To Watch

Outstanding article identifying the most influential Democratic players in the new Congress. A must read to learn about who is likely to make things happen - Who are the deal makers, who are the experts...

Today is the 43th anniversary of his assassination.

I miss being overwhelmed by his talent, skill and promise.

"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
- President Lincoln

Jason Steck at Tutakai is an eloquent writer who posted these Thoughts on Pragmatism

Moderate Principles: Pragmatism

"...I first wish to focus on pragmatism, as this gets to the heart of the anti-moderate critique. Those hostile to moderates argue that pragmatism is the antithesis of principle, a wishy-washy acquiescence to the status quo that declines to find ways to move forward. The truth, however, is that pragmatism has a long history as a moral philosophy grounded in a basic humanism that it holds as morally greater than adherence to a transcendent ideal.

...Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks the simple question, "what works?" Rather than setting aside reality in the name of principles, they focus upon the messy work of reconciling the impossible with the possible. Pragmatists do not eschew idealistic principles, rather, these are the motivational force that defines whether something "works". That which "works" and is thus in accord with pragmatic principles is whatever actually (as opposed to just ideally) improves human lives.

Of course, this inevitably calls for compromises and acknowledges tradeoffs -- it is not possible to improve human lives on all dimensions simultaneously. But these compromises and acknowlegdements are principled, not opportunistic or "wishy-washy".

The charges against pragmatism as unprincipled are thus revealed as not only untrue and unfair, but also hypocritical. Where pseduo-principled ideologues stand high atop their constructed moral perch condemning everything as insufficient in the face of their higher Truth, principled pragmatics accept the drity work of applying principles to the real world."

Social Security Up for Discussion - Treasury Chief Says 'No Preconditions'

The Social Security fund may become insolvent in the future because baby boomers are starting to retire putting a demand on claims.

Meanwhile the number of employees contributing to the fund has been declining for many years.

The Dems control Congress and are aligned against diverting money from SS for private accounts. The SS fund is afterall suppose to be a safety net in case all of your investment choices tank.

The President does not want to alienate his base even more by raising taxes.

So what's left?

Look for lifting the cap that limits Social Security payroll taxes to the first $90,000 of income, thereby raising total taxes, but not tax rates, for high-income workers.

Look for a gradual rise in the age when SS benefits start, now at 62. Life expectancy has risen substantially since SS began in the 1930s.

Look for means testing, in which benefits may be limited, or eliminated, to those for whom SS benefits are pocket change.

Collectively these remedies allow significant improvement in the fiscal health of SS while allowing the GOP to claim that taxes were not raised.

Meanwhile we should be aware that the baby boom will pass in 20-30 years while a surge of industrious tax paying immigrants flood into the labor pool.

While I don't expect this to appeal to the GOP base, it might resonate with Moderates, Centrists and Independents.

Excerpt from A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives by Michael Moore, the film maker:

•We will always respect you. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

•We will let you marry whomever you want (even though some among us consider your Republican behavior to be "different" or "immoral"). Whom you marry is none of our business. Love, and be in love — it's a wonderful gift.

•We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook too, and we will balance it for you.

•When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on some amateur Power Point presentation cooked up by men who have never been to war.

•When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that afflict you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

•When we clean up our air and water, you too will be able to breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. When we put an end to global warming, you will no longer have to think about buying oceanfront property in Yuma.

•Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

•We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

•We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, take up another sport.

•When we raise the minimum wage, we will raise it for your employees, too. They will use that money to buy more things, which means you will get the money back! And when women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

•We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't practice those beliefs. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me"). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism, starting here at home.

•We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and break the law. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side first. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one."