Litmus Test

The Republicans are at it again. They have developed a conservative litmus test by which all candidates are measured. The misfits who do not ring the bell at 80% will find that funding will be withheld from their campaigns. Once again, while I rarely agree with the Repubs, I admire their purpose-driven agenda in many respects. I had initially planned to write an essay regarding a progressive version, but that’s already been done, so let’s just criticize theirs – it’s more fun, anyway.

I am listing the stipulations below in essence rather than in whole, so we don’t go blind reading our way through a forest of “whereases”.

1. Support for smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes by opposition to Obama’s stimulus bills and their ilk.
2. Support for market-based health care reform and opposition to ObamaCare.
3. Support for market-based energy reforms and opposition to cap and trade.
4. Support for a worker’s right to secret ballots and opposition to card check.
5. Support for legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing general amnesty.
6. Support for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan through military recommended troop surges.
7. Containment of Iran and North Korea, and elimination of their nuclear threat.
8. Support for the Defense of Marriage Act.
9. Opposition to health care rationing, denial of health care, and government funding for abortions.
10. Support the second amendment.

Let’s parse their list:

1. Good thing that the Republican Party has suddenly disavowed Bush the Lesser, since he presided over the most remarkable expansion of government since LBJ. Seems to me that the Republican-dominated Congress fought tooth and claw to give Bush everything that he demanded lest they join the ranks of the “unpatriotic”. Guess they have seen the light.
2. “Market-based health care reform” is a real winner, guys. Insurance regulation is a States’ Right. You cannot have this both ways. The individual states decide who may and may not sell insurance in their states, which has led to virtual monopolies in any number of areas. States do not have to permit the selling of insurance across state lines. As the Republicans stand firmly upon the Tenth Amendment, this will be a tough sell.
3. “Market-based energy reform” is another doozie. If I become unhappy with FP&L (Fl@rida Power and Light aka Fl@rida Plunder and Loot), I should just find a competitor, say maybe the Tennessee Valley Authority and hook up? That would be quite an extension cord.
4. The worker’s right to a secret ballot is something I can agree with. I don’t understand how anyone can think that there is more pressure at the ballot box. I’ve been involved in a number of organizing campaigns, and the hard part is collecting the cards with people’s signatures on them to be turned in to the employer. After that, balloting is pretty much of a breeze.
5. Support for legal immigration is not all bad either. After the massive amnesty of the Reagan administration, the new Americans demanded a living wage that agro-business was unwilling to pay, so they imported a whole new group of illegals to work the field for slave wages, inadequate housing, and social services provided by the local property owners. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers to this, but enforcement must start with the employers, or the cycle will repeat ad infinitum.
6. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan has a real ring to it. 30,000 troops (at $30B/year – yes, $1B/soldier/year) is not the answer. Probably the only real answer would be to reinstitute the draft, send 500,000 troops over, and damn the damage to the oil fields. ‘Nuff said, not gonna happen. The Repubs could care less about our kids (theirs aren’t going), but the oil fields are quite another matter.
7. Containment of North Korea and Iran, and elimination of their nuclear threat. Sounds good, fellows, what do you have in mind?
8. Defense of Marriage Act. Please, please explain to me how a gay couple marrying in Vermont will mess up your happy home in Alabama. I’m having some real trouble figuring this one out.
9. Opposition to health care rationing, denial of health care, and federal funding of abortions. Excellent choice – do you plan to tell the insurance companies to stop rationing and denying, because that would be one helluva start. Of course, that would significantly decrease your funding………
10. Support for the Second Amendment. Okay, the Second Amendment clearly states that citizens are permitted to bear arms in order to maintain a militia. I cannot find a thing in this amendment that guarantees your God-given right to own a fully automatic weapon, a cannon (unless you are a historic re-enactor, what the hell do you plan to do with it?), a Sherman tank or a rocket launcher (not covered by the “red glare”).

This is an open thread.

A Bitter Battle – The Liberal Leadership

Leadership Contenders (Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey, and Tony Abbott)

These are the men who will contend the liberal leadership at the party meeting schedule for 9am tomorrow morning, though currently Joe is not a solid candidate. It is at the time of writing this entry that Mr Hockey is currently meeting with fellow MP’s and Senators including: Greg Hunt, Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop, Tony Smith, Nick Minchin and Steve Fielding.

It is in this meeting that many in the media believe the future of the Liberal party is being scrutinised and analysed, as to how to appease the two sides of the debate, a debate running at three weeks in length. Mr Turnbull, the current leader and pro-ETS moderate who wishes the party to uphold its deal with the Rudd Government to pass amended legislation. Mr Abbott, the former health minister and howard heavy hitter, who recently change camps to the anti-ETS camp, who wishes the senate to not pass the legislation. Mr Hockey, the shadow treasurer and possible “cuddly” leader of the Liberal party, is a Turnbull supporter and moderate, who is in favour of the ETS, though wishes to delay passage of the legislation.

It was at approximately 7:30pm AEST that the media began reporting the possibility of a free vote being given to senators, essentially a conscience vote similar to those given to contentious issue such as abortion and gay rights. However, at a press conference held at approximately 6:40pm in which Mr Abbott confirmed his candidacy and said that he would not accept a free vote, and it was not an issue. Mr Abbott is seen to have the least chance in a run off vote against favourite Joe Hockey, due to his image in the public. Though the Minchin camp, who represent the right wing of the party may throw their might behind the Member for Warringah (Mr Abbott).

It is the strong possibility that from the party-room tomorrow morning Mr Hockey, who in my mind is currently the most valuable asset the party has to being a future prime minister, will be elected party leader but face the single biggest defeat in electoral history. This is why I believe that Mr Hockey will be committing political suicide by standing, as in my opinion the party will not disappear, but electoral support will. As a leader of a mainstream political party, any faults are reflected in the approval of the leader as seen in leaders such as Kim Beazley, Alexander Downer and more recently Malcolm Turnbull.

If Mr Hockey is elected and cannot unity the party and repair what seems to be the endless problems in the party, he will effectively face a leadership contest after the next election from contenders such as Peter Dutton, Christopher Pyne, and Tony Smith, all are inexperienced in regard to ministerial responsibility, and some may even loose their seats. Hence why Mr Hockey should allow Mr Turnbull to either continue or allow Mr Abbott to lead the party to certain electoral defeat thus keeping his leadership potential and ability in tact, rather than falling on a short sword before his time has come.

However, if Mr Hockey is elected and somehow turns the party and the opinion polls around to pre-2007 elections of 42% then he will effectively have achieved the impossible, and he shall be dubbed the greatest political leader in Australian history. In the UK the opposition has cycled through 2 leaders before finally coming to David Cameron, who has delivered the party from lagging behind Blair and his PR unit, to flogging the blind Scot Gordon Brown. Opinion polls currently place the conservative party at a party polling level of 42% which in British politics is immense. It shows that it takes some time for the conservative parties to find their feet in opposition and to regain their ability to call into question the movement and policy of the government.

Conservative Shadow Cabinet

It took two leaders, William Hague and Michael Howard before the conservative were able to find form and to remodel themselves on a moderate level with new leader David Cameron. David Cameron a renowned moderate liberal conservative in a party which relied on its Thatcherite roots, and Churchillian manner on opposition. It is this progress which I hope the Liberal party takes, finding their feet on a policy front through the election of a leader who represents a moderate who can help with factional disagreement. I see Mr Hockey in a similar light as to Mr Cameron who represents a new generation of young progressive conservatives who believe in aiding the environment and have effectively rendered the issue a “non-issue” in the United Kingdom.

It shall be tomorrow morning which define the future of the party as a whole, as I see it their is no-one who is an expendable resource and at the same time a uniting force within the party. It is at times like this that every single young liberal looks to the horizon and simply stares and hopes to see a car drive toward them, with a licence plate simply marked “CSTLLO”. It should have been Mr Costello who should have defeated Mr Turnbull and taken the party onto a path of centre aligned policy in line with public opinion and feeling. However, currently is either one extreme, pro-ETS, or another anti-ETS, or the Liberal party sacrifice one of the parties only hope of being re-elected at the 2013 election.

But, in saying that I look forward to the Bradfield by-election this weekend, as it may be new member Paul Fletcher who will 100% without doubt being thrown into the shadow cabinet. Maybe in the future he will emerge as a possible leader due to the unfortunate demise of all other potential candidates through the 2010 election result, loosing urban seats and loosing Mr Hockey the leadership.

Thank You,

Please check www.news.com.au around 9:15am, for a full report undoubtedly.

]]> http://shakespeare.yougov.com/2009/11/30/new-polling-results/ Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:32:47 +0000 nfpba http://shakespeare.yougov.com/2009/11/30/new-polling-results/

A new YouGov poll for the Telegraph shows voting intentions, with changes from our last poll, of CON 39%(-2), LAB 29%(+2), LDEM 19%(+1). A two point change in Conservative and Labour support isn’t itself significant, but it fits into a wider pattern, with recent MORI and ICM polls also showing support for Labour increasing.

On a uniform swing these figures would leave the Conservatives just short of an overall majority, but while this is a much less comfortable position for the Conservatives than a 14 point lead, in reality I expect that it would still deliver them a majority. Polling results are projected into election results using a uniform national swing, but the Conservatives could out perform this if they manage a larger swing in the key marginal seats they need to win.

The Conservatives have very few winnable marginals in Scotland, and our polling shows they are doing much worse there. But if they do worse in one place, they must be doing better elsewhere to arrive at the topline figures. Alongside our national polling, we also carried out a poll of Lab-Con marginals in the north – the 32 Labour held seats that the Conservatives would need to win to secure an overall majority. We found voting intention in those seats to be CON 42%(+8), LAB 36%(-8), LDEM 12%(-5). This is the equivalent of an 8% swing to the Conservatives, compared to a swing of 6.5% in the nationwide poll – if marginals elsewhere behave like those in the North, this would deliver an easy Conservative majority.

Opt-Ed by Joe Klein

Time—Over the past few weeks, Barack Obama has been criticized for the following: He didn’t go to Berlin for the 20th anniversary of the Wall’s coming down. He didn’t make a forceful enough statement on the 30th anniversary of the U.S. diplomats’ being taken hostage in Iran. He didn’t show sufficient mournfulness, at first, when the Fort Hood shootings took place, and he was namby-pamby about the possibility that the shootings were an act of jihad. He has spent too little time focusing on unemployment. He bowed too deeply before the Japanese Emperor. He allowed the Chinese to block the broadcast of his Shanghai town-hall meeting. He allowed the Chinese President to bar questions at their joint press conference (a moment memorably satirized by Saturday Night Live). He didn’t come back with any diplomatic victories from Asia. He allowed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 plotters to be tried in the U.S. criminal-justice system rather than by the military. He has dithered too long on Afghanistan. He has devoted too much attention to — and given congressional Democrats too much control over — health care reform, an issue that is peripheral to a majority of Americans.

And all this has led to a dangerous slippage in the polls, it is said, a sense that his presidential authority is ebbing.

As a fully licensed pundit, I have the authority to weigh in here … but I demur. Oh, I could sling opinions about every one of the events cited above — some were unfortunate — but it would matter only if I could discern a pattern that illuminates Obama’s presidency. The most obvious pattern, however, is the media’s tendency to get overwrought about almost anything. Why, for example, is the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall demolition so crucial that it requires a President’s presence? Which recent U.S. President has gotten the Chinese to agree to anything big? (In fact, Obama has secured significant diplomatic cooperation from the Chinese on North Korea, Afghanistan and Pakistan.) Was his deep bow indicative of anything other than his physical fitness? (My midsection, sadly, prevents the appearance of obsequiousness in such circumstances.)

Stepping back a bit, I do see a metapattern that extends over the 40 years since Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy began the drift toward more ideological political parties: Democrats have tough first years in the presidency. Of the past seven Presidents, the two Bushes rank at the top in popularity after one year, while Obama and Bill Clinton rank at the bottom, with Jimmy Carter close by. There is a reason for that. Democrats come to office eager to govern the heck out of the country. They take on impossible issues, like budget-balancing and health care reform. They run into roadblocks — from their own unruly ranks as well as from Republicans. They get lost in the details. A tax cut is much easier to explain than a tax increase. A foreign policy based in bluster — railing against an “axis of evil” — is easier to sell than a foreign policy based in nuance. Of course, external events count a lot: the ratings of Bushes I and II were bolstered, respectively, by the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the flattening of the World Trade Center. Reagan’s rating — 53% and headed south — was dampened by a deepening recession.

More @

On November 29 at By Common Consent, Aaron B. wrote a hilariously entertaining post on the differences between liberal and conservative Mormons.  Aaron strives to answer the question of which one is more annoying.  He starts out by saying,

During a recent conversation among LDS friends, I bemoaned a certain type of LDS churchmember that I find deeply “annoying.” I used this word in a very specific sense. I described as “annoying” certain right-wing Mormons who seem unable to conceptually distinguish between their own deeply-held political preferences and the doctrines of the LDS Church. I know you know the type I’m talking about.

He continues with,

given an equal number of LDS conservatives and LDS liberals, you are likely to find the annoying quality I abhor in the first group in much, much larger quantity than the second.

Granted the nature of this blog, one can conclude that I agree with his sentiment.  It is true that the most annoying aspect of LDS conservatives is their tendency to wrap their ideologies in the doctrines of the church; however, there’s another often overlooked annoyance which is exhibited by all conservatives, not just mormons.

Conservative dissent isn’t creative.

The main difference is that when conservatives protest it’s put together so lazily.  When liberals protest, they are putting on a production.  Take for instance the two videos included in this post.

Conservatives:

When I watch this video, I can’t decide if I’m at the World Cup (“U-S-A, U-S-A”) or if I’m at some strange church that requires their members to wear red, white and blue.  Not to mention, it seems that many don’t fully understand why they’re even there.  Annoyance level = Off the charts.

Liberals:

Not only do these activists put on a show that reveals a lot of thought, they make people smile.  Minute 2:26, for instance, shows a family of all ages laughing and thoroughly enjoying their chant of mockery.  Annoyance level = Low.

BREAKING (00:27): BBC reports that Conservative candidate Lobo wins.  AP, Reuters and all major American networks silent at this point as they likely mourn the victory of Democracy over Chavez styled socialism and work on their spin.  Lame Stream Media again shows it’s failure and lack of relevance in the Internet world.  Even Honduran liberal opposition is reported to be happy with results and views Lobo as a “uniter”.  Hopefully, this little gem of democracy and refusal to bow to international socialist tyranny will set an example in South America and the USA.

============================================================

The Associated Press: Honduras hopes to move past coup with election.

The Honduran government deserves great respect for persevering with restraint and measured, stoic resistance to international pressure, including severe pressure from the Obama administration, while they work through the election of their next President.

Manuel Zelaya was forcibly deposed after a vote by the Honduran government to remove him which was approved by their Supreme Court.  The Honduran Constitution was written with the blood of past third world coup’s and military juntas where dictators often tried to takeover.

In this case, Honduran law made it illegal for Zelaya to run for a subsequent term.  The law also provided that if a sitting President tried to change the law, he would cease to be President.  Zelaya tried to change the law by calling for a populist referendum allowing him to run again that was shut down by his constitutionally provided for removal.

Ballots had been provided by Hugo Chavez (and the apparently had already been filled in voting for approval to save the voters time), Zelaya’s role model.

Honduras stood firm despite intense pressure from Chavez, Noriega, Castro and Obama – who were all aligned in their condemnation of the Honduran legal process.

According to Reuters, Porfirio Lobo, a conservative landowner, is leading in the election.

An article posted online tonight in the Wall St Journal is captioned: “In Elections, Honduras defeats Chavez“

Unless something monumental happens in the Western Hemisphere in the next 31 days, the big regional story for 2009 will be how tiny Honduras managed to beat back the colonial aspirations of its most powerful neighbors and preserve its constitution.

Yesterday’s elections for president and Congress, held as scheduled and without incident, were the crowning achievement of that struggle.

Glenn Beck, about two or three weeks ago, was obviously trying to incite conservatives and Republicans to war, at least two prominent liberal radio show hosts noticed this. This man is more evil than liberals, as he uses Christianity to try and justify his war-mongering, which can mislead people into thinking that true Christians are war-mongers. Though making such a stereotype is not justifiable despite Glenn’s subtle, but obvious calls to violence. And how can this man be expected to be taken seriously when he spends his time, often, which moronic co-hosts, mocking others and making childish jokes in snide arrogance? He bashed and bitterly mocked hundreds of thousands of 9/11 Truthers and he thinks he’d be safe in a war after that? I’m sure plenty would be gunning for him for his hypocritical, arrogant, traitorous, mocking.

Even on his new book, Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, he shows himself to be a moron. What is meant to be conveyed by such a picture? A pouting general with a black eye? Meaning? I think it means: “Look at all these gullible idiots who will buy my books and listen all day long to me no matter how obvious I make it that I’m preaching for fame money.“

True Christians are caught between violent anti-Christians, liberals, and fundamentalist false Christians. We should find another country to move to the moment it becomes clear that these three groups intend to go to war with each other, lest they attack us in their narcissistic role-play, with some pretentious excuse like, “If your not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.”

Meanwhile, we should pray often that there will be no civil war, or not any time soon, and that the state governments and federal governments will stop being oppressive and turn to God. Though that is not going to happen any time soon according to the Bible, prayer from enough decent and righteous Christians will help slow the increase in bad behavior by non-Christians and also keep other Christians from sinning as much.

From THINK PROGRESS:

In recent days, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has indicated that she may be open to a conservative presidential dream ticket in 2012: Palin-Beck (or Beck-Palin). “I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I’m not there yet,” Palin told Newsmax. “But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He’s a hoot.” Fox and Friends plugged the idea yesterday morning and asked Palin whether she would run with Beck. She kept the door open, saying, “I don’t know. We’ll see, we’ll see.”

But just a few hours later on his radio show, Beck shot down the idea, saying he was “absolutely” ruling out a Palin-Beck ticket. He explained that if he had the number two job, Palin would always be “yapping” like they were in “the kitchen”:

Original DVD cover

BECK: I don’t think things are hoots. I don’t. I don’t think it’s a hoot. I would never use the word hoot, and I respectfully ask that every time my name is brought up she would stop using the word “hoot.” [...]

No, no I’m just saying — Beck-Palin, I’ll consider. But Palin-Beck — can you imagine, can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? What? Come on! She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”

A woman’s appropriate place on a presidential ticket, according to Beck, is in the number two spot. Otherwise, she should just “yap” away in a kitchen somewhere. Apparently, being a vice presidential running mate behind a woman is a serious challenge to Beck’s manhood.

When Newsweek ran a picture of Palin in a running outfit on its cover this month, Palin and many others criticized the magazine for being sexist. Beck joined the outrage, saying the “attack” on Palin was “dizzying” and “devastating.” He said Newsweek had reached “the highest of the lows” and added that the magazine now “sucks.”

(Transcript and audio at THINK PROGRESS link)

The Calman Commission’s tax recommendations were couched in pretty limited terms.  They were founded on the principle that the purpose of the financing arrangements should be to support the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.  (It had a pretty conservative understanding of what that relationship should be, but from the political and constitutional point of view this principle has much to commend it.  Some economists would disagree, however.)  Based on this principle, the chief fault the Commission identified with the present arrangements was the lack of financial accountability of the Scottish Government and Parliament, although they are politically accountable for their actions.  That’s why, it argued, the Parliament should be responsible for raising some of its own spending.  This wasn’t to give it significant financial autonomy, but to ensure that it was accountable.  (It’s worth adding that this was an argument that Labour politicians showed no interest in at all until May 2007, after which they quickly got very interested in it.)

What the Commission proposed was a package including:

• The power for the Scottish Parliament to set 10 points of personal income tax on earned income, on all tax rates (and with UK income tax being reduced to compel the Parliament to make a decision)
• In lieu of trying to extend that to unearned income (which is administratively difficult), allocating 50 per cent of tax from income on savings and share distributions of Scottish taxpayers to the Parliament
• Devolution of some smaller taxes linked to particular locations: stamp duty land tax, aggregates levy, landfill tax and air passenger duty.
• Further powers to borrow, to smooth out fluctuations in tax receipts and to fund capital investment, to be used on a ‘prudential’ basis in the light of ability to repay monies borrowed.
• A proportionate reduction in the size of the block grant to the Scottish Parliament, to allow for fiscal devolution.
• A power to legislate to bring in further taxes, with consent of the UK Parliament.
• Enhanced institutional relationships, including turning the existing six-monthly quadrilateral meeting of finance ministers into a fully-fledged Finance format of the Joint Ministerial Committee.

The UK Government’s response, in the white paper Scotland’s Place in the United Kingdom, looks like it’s a very substantial endorsement of those recommendations.  The Government proposes a devolution of 10 points of income tax; of most of the smaller taxes; a general willingness to consider new taxes; and a borrowing power for capital investment.  But in reality there are some significant departures.  Some have been widely discussed already.  The borrowing power, for example, will only be available if taxes are explicitly increased to cover its use.  That’s not an autonomous borrowing power; indeed, such a constraint makes it very hard to use politically, just as the 3 per cent Scottish Variable Rate has been.  And that may mean it actually reduces capital investment by the Scottish Government, even though HM Treasury has been concerned for some years about capital under-investment by the Scottish Executive/Government.  It doesn’t really widen the range of choices available to the Scottish Government to fund their programmes, which is part of the problem with the present arrangements.

More important, though, are some of the less obvious changes.  First, the package of taxes recommended be devolved by Calman isn’t accepted.  The white paper omits air passenger duty (not hugely valuable: Calman gives a figure of £94 million a year), and a share of income tax on savings and distributions.  That’s worth £500 million a year according to Calman, but its importance is as much for giving the Scottish Parliament a broader tax base covering the whole of income tax and not just personal income tax, as it is for the money it adds.  A significant part of the attraction of Calman was that it devolved a reasonably meaningful bundle of taxes.  Calman ruled out devolution of most of the major sources of tax revenue, on economic, legal or administrative grounds.  That meant VAT, corporation tax, capital gains tax and national insurance all went off the table pretty quickly, and the options narrowed to income tax alone, among the larger taxes, and some small taxes which provide limited revenue and have limited wider economic impact.  This change significantly narrows the fiscal powers of the Scottish Parliament, the incentives it would have to increase its tax base, as well as the levers it would have to do that.

Second, the white paper puts heavy emphasis on the use of estimates – notably for the amounts of tax revenues.  It also proposes an ongoing adjustment of the amount of the block grant for the period of each spending review, rather than the once-and-for-all reduction advocated by Calman. There are some good arguments for this incremental approach, both as a way of managing the transition and at a time when tax receipts are likely to be lower than in the past and fluctuating for some time to come. But many of the arguments given for using forecasts rather than real values of taxes are to do with administrative simplicity rather than economics or constitutional principle.  (A week before the white paper was published, the Scotland Office and HM Revenue & Customs quietly issued a paper on the administrative problems posed by disclosing and using real data rather than estimates and forecasts to underpin fiscal devolution.  Those interested will find it here.)  The effect is to turn real tax powers based on actual revenues into virtual ones based on estimates that, in truth, are pretty hazy.

Third, there’s the question of how we get there from here.  Calman did recommend a staged implementation process, with a sustained effort to improve the quality of data about tax revenues.  Without doubt there’s a lot of work to be done on that, and on collection issues. While the white paper emphasises the difficulties of transition, it doesn’t spell out either a timescale for introduction of the new regime, or have a particularly detailed analysis of the issues that need to be resolved to bring it in.  Refusing to act on anything until it can act on everything is an unconvincing position.  These proposals are a bit like St Augustine of Hippo’s prayer – ‘Lord, make me pure, but not yet’; perhaps ‘Parliament, make me fiscally devolved, but not in the short term’.

There’s a further flaw in how these changes are being implemented.  What Calman proposed would have helped disentangle devolved and UK-level public finances.   At present these are utterly entangled, and one effect of that is that it’s easy for a Scottish Government to blame London for any problem that arises.  Improving accountability means making it clearer who is responsible for what.  Improved accountability therefore means increased autonomy too.  But this approach, with ‘virtual’ data, and an indefinite but extended transition period, means that if anything the entanglement of devolved and UK finance is made worse, not better. This approach will not deliver its promised objective of improving accountability if what we get is an extended set of overlaps and confusions – it will just breed ongoing mutual recrimination.

The fact that Labour doesn’t propose to introduce a bill in this Parliament, or make other changes until after the general election, raises an issue of how firm these plans really are.  Clarity is needed about when the changes would start, and when they would be completed, and that’s the sort of detail that a white paper (even a pre-election one) traditionally contains.  One thing is certain, though.  The statement attributed to Jim Murphy when the Calman report was published, that it would be implemented within 11 months, will not happen.  The lack of a clear timescale other than ‘after the election’ does not imbue confidence that even Labour will actually deliver these changes.  At best, they’re in exactly the same position as the Tories; each party says it will deliver the proposals when it can.   In that sense, and despite Labour having taken the initiative here, there’s now no meaningful difference between them.

Yes, I know I haven’t written in a minute. But as I often tell my friends and my three or four fans (and yes that includes my mother..lol) I refuse to write just for the sake of writing. No matter how hard I seem to try I just can’t do that. If I’m not feeling an issue or a story or anything for that matter I just can’t seem to blog. To me writing when you don’t have anything to say is almost as bad as talking just to hear your voice and I refuse to do that too.

But over the past few days my inspiration bucket has overfloweth and Lou ‘maybe I’m a birther, maybe I’m not’ Dobbs is the one responsible for getting me to start banging away on the old VAIO again.  Dobbs’ statement, “I am one of your greatest friends,” on Telemundo didn’t just inspire me to start writing it also got me to burst into a fit of laughter and I haven’t done that in a while either.

Anyway, maybe Lou Dobbs believes we’ve forgotten or more importantly that we can’t do a YOU TUBE search for his Broken Borders segments on CNN, his insensitive and almost if-not-quite there racist rants or perspectives depending on how you look at it on immigration or his attempts at legitimizing some far, far right opinions and ideas. But I haven’t forgotten and I’m sure millions more, his fans included, are already gasping with disbelief at his about-face statements on Telemundo but I would be lying if I didn’t at least acknowledge that I expected Dobbs to tone down some of his rhetoric if he was seriously considering running for office. But these statements aren’t simply toned down they are completely opposite to what he’s said before- he’s flip flopped. And flip-flopped really big. It’s probably the biggest one I have ever seen from a possible political candidate and it was completely unexpected.

Over the years that I’ve watched and listened to Dobbs I could never accuse him of being spineless and I honestly respected him for having the audacity and courage to speak his mind to favorable or unfavorable audiences. But this attempt to curry favor with Latinos could only be described as spineless since he’s now attempting to switch sides and appeal to an ethnic group he came pretty close to demonizing for years. That type of double talk might be acceptable on cable news shows but it’s not kosher in real life. In real life those types of people are called hypocrites and everyday folks like me don’t like to vote for hypocrites we like to find out our politicians are hypocrites AFTER we’ve voted for them not before! LOL 

Ironically Lou Dobbs railed against hypocritical politicians and leaders for years now he is seemingly following in their foot steps. Mr.Dobbs has some serious explaining to do if he wants to get even close to a long shot presidential or senatorial candidacy but in the meantime I’m thankful to Mr.Dobbs for being my latest muse.

New Left Media is at it again, this time interviewing the people who would brave hours in line to get their copy of Going Rogue signed by the former governor of Alaska and potential future presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. As usual, the questions are broad and the interviewer, Chase Whiteside, passively lets the interviewees self-destruct by displaying their lack of knowledge on just about everything. Sure, going to a liberal rally and you’ll find just as many buffoons who couldn’t tell you a single thing about Barack Obama, but it’s so much funnier to watch Republicans make fools of themselves.

Need to give a gift to a dear conservative friend/relative/newspaper delivery kid, but have NO idea what they are into? Never fear – SFL has got you covered. I suggest you go with the “gift basket” approach – because who DOESN’T love opening up one gift, only to find that it is actually many gifts. Well, maybe this guy. But most people – yes, even conservative – are delighted to receive a vessel full of gifts that have been thoughtfully hand-picked to thrill, amuse, and inebriate the recipient.

First, you will need something to delight the eye. In light of the holiday season, I suggest something red:

Note I said something “red,” not something “read.” I know that this is made even more confusing by the fact that, technically speaking, this is a “book.” (note the review by the very excellent J.C. Patriot). But from what I read, it would appear that this isn’t so much a book, as it is an idea of what a book should be as dreamed up by people who generally do not like books, facts, logic, editing, or character development. Much like Ms. Palin isn’t so much a leader as she is an idea of what a leader should be as dreamed up by people who generally do not like books, facts, logic, editing, or character development.

Okay, good.

So now that we have dazzled the eye, how ’bout a little something for the brain?

At last! Something for those who miss the good ol’ days of Bush I and Nixon AND appreciate the good ol’ challenge of a puzzle, unlike some nasty liberals who have to make fun of everything. This challenging mind-game is based on a lovingly-rendered painting of our treasured Republican presidents in the style of that calendar guy and the guy who totally captured the good ol’days that we never actually experienced and now never will thanks to socialism.

Now we need a little treat. How about something that reminds us of the reason for the season?

Yeah – I know. These are totally awesome. But unfortunately, they are not yet available for commercial purchase. I suppose you could go with the OFFICIAL Jesus cookie, but I think it would be nicer and more thoughtful if you rolled up your sleeves and made your own cookies.*

And, of course, no holiday gift basket is complete without booze:

just awesome.

And last, something to make them laugh.

Might I suggest that you avoid the audio version, as I understand that just the sound of Gore’s voice is enough to fill people with rage and crazy.

*NOTE:  While most of the gift ideas in this blog are sprinkled with snark, the cookie suggestion is straightforward. Baking, in any literal form, rules, and there is nothing nicer than taking the time to actually MAKE something for someone else.  Also, I must point out that I really really like that cookie cutter set.

Those that would govern us should pay the taxes they set for us. I’m not fussed about the tax affairs of bankers, footballers or pop stars. But any MP, or member of the House of Lords for that matter, should be domiciled in the UK for taxes purposes.

If you make the law then it should be one that equally applies to you. A simple ethical standpoint that Zac Goldsmith has not understood. With a general election so close, when was he intending to regularise his tax affairs. He should have made these arrangements on being selected a parliamentary candidate. Ben Brogan poses the question on Zac Goldsmith’s future: In or Out. Exactly. I’ll bet David Cameron is madder than a bag of ferrets, and I imagine he’ll have Eric Pickles contacting every Tory MP and candidate to ensure that they’ve got their tax affairs in order.

In this morning’s (Sunday) NYT, the following article runs–

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=1&hp

Full of pathos appeals, coupled with some interesting statistics, the article tracks increasing use of food stamps across the country.  In and of itself, that’s not terribly surprising.  In a difficult economy, people need help buying food.

What I found surprising and worth mulling over are a couple of facts–

1.  Growth in food stamp use is about the same in the 600 counties where it’s historically been highest, and the 600 counties where it’s historically been lowest.  That is, use of foodstamps is increasing rapidly in places where it hasn’t before.  The article isn’t terribly precise about this next point, but suggests a couple of times that the second batch of counties tend to more conservative than the first, which means that reliance on government support is (again) penetrating into places where conservative dogma says it shouldn’t.

2.  It’s not just poor people who are using food stamps.  The article makes very clear that working people and families at many levels of the economic hierarchy need support–job losses, housing bust, medical expenses, etc, are all contributing to hunger.  At the very least, the data challenges the conservative wisdom that only lazy people rely on government support.  Of course, anybody who’s paid a lick of attention for the last 30 years has known that’s crap, a fabrication of the Reagan campaign in order to fan poor white people’s indignation, while at the same time keeping them from doing much to help themselves.

3.  Notable are a couple of interviews with self-identified conservatives who are accepting government support for (what sounds like) the first time, although depending on how you define “government support,” you could argue that they’ve been accepting it their entire lives.  It’s good to see at least one of the interviewees acknowledge that food stamps aren’t just for poor, lazy people.  One of them says something like, “These are people I could be having lunch with.”  The classism of that aside, at least she recognizes something of value.  Somebody makes the point that poor people are often just as resistant to government aid as others, which was helpful to see.  But the one that really gets me is the guy who, with one hand reaches out to grab the money, and with the other slaps people who take it.  Hypocrite.  And the guy from the Heritage Foundation who (shockingly) pulls out the example of the person who lives in an expensive home and drives a Mercedez, and generalizes from her to the entire world.

If one person abusing a system were enough to call for the destruction of the system, then the Bush administration would be responsible for having smoked the Constitution; Blackwater’s rapes and murders in Iraq would be enough to destroy the US military.  And on and on.  The double-standard here is so Orwellian that it’s hard to address (thank you, John Birch, for legitimizing this kind of political discourse).

At the end of the day, what this article demonstrates is that everything conservatives say about government aid is wrong.  The system isn’t fraught with people abusing it–that’s nothing but a lie.  The system doesn’t enable laziness–it feeds working people who can’t feed themselves because our pro-corporate, anti-worker economic policies have utterly failed them.  Self-righteousness shouldn’t dictate accepting hunger as a condition of living in the wealthiest nation in the world. And conservatives who scream bloody murder about government support at the same time they accept it need to think a little harder about what they’re screaming.  I won’t argue, as some others do, that they should refuse to accept help.  It’s not the government’s job to decide who’s worthy of care based on how they exercise their First Amendment rights.  It is, however, deeply troubling that some of these folks really seem not to understand the problem here–that if they win their arguments at Tea Parties, the very support they rely on for survival will go away.

Came across a brilliant little piece regarding the World Famous Rothschild Brand in an Indy article from 2004 written by Paul Vallely.  Has some great background on the Dynasty that has featured so heavily in our History of blood, work and tears, keeping Governments in debt since the 1700’s.

“The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty”

The news that the bankers Rothschild are to withdraw from the gold market, in which they have been a major player for two centuries, has been hailed as the end of an era.

In one sense, of course, it is. This was the company that smuggled gold coins across the English Channel to finance the Duke of Wellington’s advance through France to his final triumph at Waterloo over Napoleon (who, it turned out, had also borrowed money from the Rothschilds).

But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition – the ability of the family which has founded one of the world’s largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family.

Secrecy has been a hallmark of the Rothschilds from the outset. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who settled in the Jewish ghetto in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1744, specialised not just in clever accounting practices but also kept secret books and subterranean vaults which he ensured were never the privy of auditor, lawyer or taxman.

As the paterfamilias became more successful he despatched four of his five sons to different European capitals to take advantage of the rise of capitalism and the growth of international trade. Nathan he sent to London, James to Paris, Saloman to Vienna, and Carl to Naples, keeping the eldest, Amschel, at home with him in Prussia. Of these the two most important proved to be London and Paris, where the two main branches of the family developed a friendly rivalry, with the English branch developing the edge in business and the French in philanthropy, the arts and winemaking. But then in 1996 Amschel Rothschild, a 41-year-old man who had lived in the flamboyant style of many of his ancestors, hanged himself in a Paris hotel room. He was the Rothschild who had been groomed to take over as head of the English arm of the dynasty.

So when the bank’s chairman Sir Evelyn de Rothschild retired earlier this year the succession passed to the French side of the family. Baron David de Rothschild, who had been running the family’s Paris-based bank, inherited.

None of the Rothschild enterprises have been banks in the sense as understood by the man or woman in the street. What Mayer Rothschild founded in the 1760s was a business which grew from the humble beginning of selling rare coins to becoming the prime moneylender to greedy and spendthrift governments across Europe. One German contemporary quipped that Mayer was “the pride of Israel … before whose money box kings and emperors humbly bow”. And the novelist Thackeray said of Nathan that he was “not king of the Jews, but the Jew of the kings”. The brothers financed both sides in the Napoleonic wars and in the Austro-Prussian war too.

It has long been supposed that Nathan increased the family fortune 20-fold by speculating on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The Rothschilds had a network of agents throughout Europe who, using fast boats, coded letters and carrier pigeons, got information to the family ahead of official sources. Victor Rothschild, third baron and former chairman of the London bank, N M Rothschild, always maintained that Nathan had made a killing by encouraging rumours that Wellington had lost when he knew he had won, though the historian Niall Ferguson in his magisterial history of the family recently disputed that.

Certainly, for all the family motto of Concordia, Integritas, Industria (Unity, Integrity, Industry), Nathan’s ability to depress stock prices by using the network of agents to spread rumours, true or false, and then buy the stock up after people panicked, was legendary.

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded – at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government – and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.

It was a new kind of power. “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply,” Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: “Take a chair.” His caller, affronted, said: “You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis.” To which Rothschild replied: “Take two chairs.” At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.

Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan’s great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of “the slow murder of 600,000 people” on the continent “we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time.” And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today’s terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.

Still, the family has moved down only from fabulously rich to enormously wealthy. And they adjusted to the times. They made billions in the 1980s from Margaret Thatcher’s privatisations of state-owned industries on which they advised. In France after their bank was nationalised by the Socialist president Francois Mitterrand they slowly built a new business which, under Baron David de Rothschild, has risen to the top ranks of the merger and acquisition league tables. They have pulled out of retail fund management – into which they went with much fanfare only three years back – and now they are pulling out of oil and gold in favour of the higher-margin areas of private banking and wealth management.

Do not spend too many tears. In 1997 the family’s Swiss holding company increased its profits by 66 per cent. The firm is not called Rothschild Continuation for nothing.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812), Founder of the family business

• Mayer, orphaned at the age of 12, was forced to make his own living with the help of the good name of his father in Frankfurt. He carved out a self-taught career as a dealer in coins and medals, branching out into state loans and trade in general commodities. He established the family name by placing a Roman eagle on a red shield (Rothschild in German) over the door of his counting house.

• Mayer established one of the Rothschild firm’s principles: to settle for less profit to ensure long-term business ties. A brisk market in English textiles prompted him to send one of five sons, Nathan, to England.

Jacob, 4th Baron Rothschild (b. 1936), Head of the English side of the family

• Chairman of NM Rothschild before resigning in 1980 to run Rothschild Investment Trust. He chaired the National Heritage Memorial Fund, handing out £1.2bn of lottery grants. He restored Waddesdon Manor, right, the family pile, and chairs Yad Hanadiv, the family foundation in Israel, which donated the Knesset and Supreme Court to the state

David de Rothschild (b. 1942), Head of the French family

• The head of the French family, David de Rothschild has escaped two catastrophes in France: he was born in New York after the Luftwaffe seized the family home in Paris and his mother fled from Nazi Europe; and, in 1981, President Mitterrand nationalised the French financial empire, Banque Rothschild. David and his cousins started afresh with PO Gestion, renamed PO Banque and thenRothschild & Cie Banque.

Seven Generations and two Centuries of Banking

• 1760s The orphaned Mayer Amschel Rothschild starts a coins and medals business in Frankfurt
• 1789 Mayer appointed an agent to William IX of Hanau
• 1798 Mayer’s son Nathan leaves Frankfurt to become a textile and general merchant in Manchester
• 1812 Nathan’s brother James establishes a banking house in Paris
• 1815 The English branch of the Rothschilds supply gold to the Duke of Wellington’s campaign at Waterloo
• 1820 Nathan’s brother settles in Vienna; his brother Carl starts a business in Naples
• 1836 Nathan dies
• 1840 NM Rothschild and Sons becomes one of the Bank of England’s bullion brokers
• 1850s Great houses are built. Bordeaux vineyards of Mouton and Lafite are acquired
• 1875 Lionel de Rothschild raises finance for British stake in the Suez Canal
• 1887 Rothschilds funds the creation of the diamond dealers De Beers
• 1901 With no male heirs, the Frankfurt dynasty comes to an end
• 1919 NM Rothschild & Sons chair new daily fixing of the gold price
• 1926 The company finances the spread of the London Underground
• 1929 Beginning of difficult years for family. Wall Street crash; rise of Nazi Europe
• 1960s Rothschilds look to US; start of Rothschild Inc
• 1981 France nationalises the highly successful Paris House but the family refuses defeat and starts new business.
• 1985 Rothschilds advises on British Gas privatisation

You’ve got to give it to Mayer, he was one smart bastard of a man.  Domination of the Nations is the goal of the Owners of Earth Plc, and I doubt the Rothschild’s Dynasty is alone in that goal but has certainly been a major player.

I bring up the Rothschilds’ as the present one has been making large donations to the Conservatives (again) and there has been rumours of tolls on motorways or some sort of road pricing GPS model of charging per mile, and of course the Rothschilds’ will have their cut.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, especially a multi-million £££ lunch.

Why do some people get so angry about something they say doesn’t exist?

By definition atheists all agree that God doesn’t exist; He’s a hoax… sort of like the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot, only apparently more dangerous because somehow the belief by much of the rest of the world that there is a God and that He exists in some form must be enough reason to scream, shout and sue.

Maybe someone smarter than me can explain the philosophical logic in the notion of protesting the belief in something that doesn’t exist.

Dozens of patients died needlessly as a result of filthy conditions in an NHS hospital, a shocking report said last night.

Appalling nursing care in Basildon University Hospital contributed to a mortality rate that was more than a third higher than the national average.
At least 70 people may have died who should have been saved.
It is the latest example of patients paying the ultimate price for Labour’s failure to stamp out Third World conditions in the NHS – despite trebling taxpayer funding over the past decade. SOURCE

This is a shame and the liberals in America is wanting this same kind of health care! To get the full picture you need to go read the story at the source! What do you think, still want government-run health care after reading this from the UK?

LINKS:

(1)   Is it really better than nothing?

(2)   Geraldo Rivera Race Baiting In Overdrive