Friday, January 15, 2010

What I missed today on Haiti discussion on Facebook while passing my series 66 today!!!

What a day today. I had a number of personal things to take care of and that is why my entry is tardy. The big news of the day is that I passed my Series 66 and will be heading off to the sunny skies of Arizona shortly for a week of learning with my new employer. While I was running about today, a great discussion was taking place on the blog entry about Haiti on Facebook. I warned the group there that I was going to life the conversation for my blog entry today. I am eager to see what readers of the blog think of the conversation from Facebook. Hopefully we will get some crossover as well. Well here we go: (***small disclaimer: Some responses contain explicatives****)

TP said:


 

I find your article incredibly troubling.


 

I said:

What are you finding troubling? The Tea Party movement, while a few carried questionable placards, the overriding theme, at least what I saw and heard, was one of frustration with out of control spending, taxes, and the growing of government. The speakers at Minneapolis were not all bashing Obama, Progressives or Democrats. In fact many acknowledged that the Republican Party and Bush had lost their way by casting aside conservative values for reckless and progressive spending ideals.

So I ask you what do you find troubling about my blog entry?

TP said:

I don't give a damn what they were upset about. They never protested Bush spending did they? Sorry your supporting racists with a wink and an "oh well". For you to ask what I find troubling amazes me & shows an insensitivity which I don't tolerate. You blog about Reid then support this shit. BTW do you even know constitutional history & what the constitutional convention goals were or the context in which the convention was called? The White supremeists were there just like at that rally of deception.


 

TP continued:


 

What progressive spending ideals Education? Welfare? Health care for all (which I assume you're against). Don't believe in community do U? To call Bush policies progressives I'm afraid makes you lose credibility to me. You're using BS as an undercurrent to link Bush to Progressives & not fascism? You may not do well w/ the Buddhist w/ your take on "... See more conventional wisdom". If my Grandparents woulda seen that Tea Bagger shit Grandpa would've shot em just like he did the KKK. Do you really believe Black folk wouldn't be outraged?


 

To which I asked:


 

Did you read my blog entry from April on what I saw in Minneapolis?


 

And I added:


 

Plus I am not a socialist. I do believe in the importance of community as well as the limitations of it as well.


 

KH said:


 

Chris, I think Tony does have a point about the racist undertones of the "Tea bagger" party movement.


 

I see clear undercurrents of hypocrisy, false indignation and in my honest opinion racism in the tea bagger movement based upon their behavior and "Johnny come lately" movement towards "fiscal discipline" and belief in upholding the constitution.


 

Please where were they for the last 8 years when Patriot act was passed stripping American's of their constitutional rights? Where were they when the prescription drug plan was passed without even an attempt at paying for it within the bill?... See More


 

What has changed since those things happened? Oh that's right; the tea baggers party (republicans) lost the house, senate and presidency to a black man and his ilk. I don't like Obama or the Democrats any more than the Republicans but when something stinks in Denmark, it should be called for the pile of shit that it is. And the tea baggers aren't angry over government spending, that's just an excuse. They angry that they are feeling disenfranchised and inconsequential for the first time in their privileged white skinned, middle class lives.


 

Personally, I find them all hypocrites, fear mongers, racists and demagogues. But if the party they represent isn't careful and find a way to be inclusive of minorities it will find itself more and more marginalized in the future.


 

The days of white America dominating social and political culture in this nation are fast coming to an end. Don't believe me? Just ask the people of Atlanta when they last had a white mayor? The 2010 census will shock whites.....and probably drive quite a few to racist groups out of fear. I'm sure the tea party will be standing there with open arms to greet them.


 

KH added:


 

To your articles point though, I really do like that the president took a stand quickly and tried to show America as a leader and show the true American spirit to the world.


 

What won us so many friends through our existence was the fact that we, the American people, always tried to be there for others in the world when they were in need. The goodwill this generated benefited us for decades after the acts occurred.


 

We are the richest and most powerful nation on earth. If we stood by and did nothing when another nation, especially a neighbor so close to us, suffers - what does that say about us? ... See More


 

And the people trying to score political points off of this tragedy are the worst of us. They bring us all down from the heights we are capable of and diminish our acts of kindness and generosity.


 

To which I responded:


 

I do acknowledge that the conservative voice lost its bite and blindly followed bush. And that is why I think the tea party movement started. Perhaps I am naïve but I attempt to look at the movement as a group of people fed up with out of control government regardless if a democrat or republican is in office.


 

KH responded:


 

Chris, the government was out of control for years. NEVER during that 8 years did these same people speak up and cry foul. So that begs the question what changed? As I said above, it's a black man and his ilk sitting in "THEIR" seat of power. Remember that the tea party movement is nearly 100% white, middle class and Republican.


 

Their sudden discovery of small government, fiscal discipline and defense of the constitution stinks of the shit that is political opportunism, not truly deep seated beliefs in these ideals.


 

I say this rather confidently because the talking heads that appear on TV supporting this movement are clearly visible during the Bush years supporting the very ideals that they now cry foul over.... See More


 

So, I'm sorry to say but, I believe you are being naive. There may be some people like yourself who truly believe these things in the movement - but your leadership does not. They will use you for the pack mules that they see you to be moving their political baggage to the next convenient party message and dump you when you become inconvenient.


 

TP responded:


 

Do you even know what a socialist is? Answer my questions about constitutional history? Do you know it or do u just do one line disclaimers to obfuscate your right-wing manipulative over simplifications? The Mpls Tea Party was put together by the friggin PATRIOT CHANNEL SCUM!! The other TParties were organized by the same people who rented the ... See More busses for the invasion of Florida so that the recount of 2000 would be disrupted long enough for the Supreme Court to steal the election. And in doing so cover up the violations against Blacks in ref to the Voting Rights Act & the Civil Rights Act. Do you know the history behind the reason for the founding of the court? Kevin what the USA is giving for Haiti is a fraction of what we owe them, Cubans, Mexico & all of Latin America for the EXTREME human rights violations,& pilferage committed by us against them over the past 2 centuries plus(read "THy Will Be Done").How about honoring Treaty Rights right here in the good ole boy USA? I do not see the largesse u do. BTW we give less to the needy of the world (who we continue to rape) per GNP than any other country in the world. Chris: When the all White T bggrs close their eyes & sing about taking their country back they are telling me FUCK YOU & u know what all I got to say is FUCK YOU BACK!!!


 

TP added:


 

BTW the only limitations of Community are that capitalized sociopaths cannot act in their own eschatologically fatalistic individual self interest at the expense of human freedom. Like destroying our natural right to free & equal access to clean Land, clean Air & clean Water. These bastards oppress the many for the profit of the few in order to produce more capital, which in the end is artificial POWER and a license to enslave, rape, napalm, torture & kill to protect "their property"


 

KH responded with:


 

Ok, for the record, the election in 2000 was not stolen. That implies that it was Al Gore's win based upon facts not in record and the Supreme Court overturned those facts in favor of a politically expedient resolution. Since we do not know for a fact that Florida was won by Al Gore, thus giving him the Electoral College votes to be president (in part because the Supreme Court stopped the counts mind you) it's impossible to say that the election was stolen. It was however settled through less than constitutional means via the Supreme Court which IMO overstepped their authority in electoral issues.


 

But the past is the past. Dwelling on a result you disliked doesn't change that result.


 

Tony, I have no problem giving Haiti anything, but remember it was France that "raped" that country not the US. Also, to claim reparations one must have a valid claim of harm being done to you personally not via some historical grievance of generations gone by. I'm all for fixing the social injustices of the past, but wealth re-distribution is not the solution because it's analogous to giving a homeless person a winning lottery ticket without the skills to manage those newly won resources. Without those skills the winnings are squandered and they are soon back where they started. Enabling those who were wronged to earn their own wealth through improvements in their economy, society, culture and political systems are the true gifts we can give them and they will generate returns on investment for centuries to come.... See More


 

But to say that we owe them for wrongs of a generation or more ago is where I say "I personally did you no wrong, therefore I owe you nothing". But I am still generous enough in spirit to give of my own free will because I would hope they'd do the same in my shoes. But I don't owe that to them - it's called being altruistic and charitable.


 

TP responded with:


 

Read Greg Pallast and others. They Robbed the election the good ole fashioned plausibly deniable Southern way, they nullified the Black vote in the state that the redneck Texan has a redneck brother. Oh gee do you want to buy some swamp land in the Arctic? The Supreme Court ordered the state of Florida to stop the recount. That was unprecedented ... See More but the real story that the Corporate media never told was the computer voter fraud or the coercive forces unleashed to turn Blacks away from the polls. So sorry thats a GD theft!!& No one said a word. The Cong Black Caucus walked out on Bush being declared winner for that reason.


 

KH responded with:


 

Again theft implies that Al Gore was president legally and that it was taken from him illegally. At no time was he declared victor via the Electoral College and at no time did he hold the votes necessary to make that claim prior to it being declared either. Therefore it was merely a judgment that you disagree with because of your political leanings - not theft which implies something criminal.


 

I've read plenty from all sides regarding this issue and the point I make is completely valid still. The assertions you are making are suppositions, innuendo and inferences, not facts. Facts are things we can prove, not things we believe to be true. The fact is that the Supreme Court likely overstepped its authority in stopping the election recounts in Florida. That is likely a fact. The fact is that when this occurred, it implicitly awarded the election to GWB because he held more Electoral College votes than Gore.


 

All the rest has yet to be proven as fact and is merely assumed, surmised, implied or inferred to have happened. If its fact and you have evidence to that effect, then a class action lawsuit should be brought on behalf of the disenfranchised voters in a court of law. The fact that this hasn't happened tells me that this isn't the case so yell, scream and bluster all you want of "theft" that doesn't make it so.... See More


 

If all you have are the "facts" that cannot be verified, proven or otherwise become evidence based upon reasonable legal standard then they are not fact. They are suppositions and that's all they are.


 

By the way, screaming, using sarcasm and ad hominem statements because you feel people were somehow wronged or because you feel we're not smart enough to see your point only makes your point that much less valid in my opinion. People should be capable of discussing a subject and agreeing to disagree in an agreeable manner. If you can't do that, your point loses any value to those around you that you are trying to influence


 

TP responded with:


 

Does "less than constitutional" mean unconstitutional & if it does (it does) then it was taken illegally. "STOLEN" is an appropriate word. Read Haitian history about 19th century American involvement I don't want to hear what you believe about historical facts tell me what you know. Right now your 0 for 1.I love it when White people jack you take ... See More control then claim you aint got the experience to run anything yourself. Haiti was doing just fine in recovering her national life w/Aristide & then we over threw him not once but twice. & now they are not even allowed to grow rice because the WTO has forced Haiti to accept cheap GM rice grown cheaper than the Haitians can grow it &forced on to that market thru shere gangsterism just like in Ethiopia. Just like what NAFTA did to Mexico. I love it when white folks have someone else's shit & then refuse to even consider sharing it because your Grand Daddy took it. There is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. You want to support social justice "your way" we don't count because in the end we gotta take whatever bone you throw. How long do you think we as aspecies can survive with that kind of attitude? We as a species are dying & we need cooperation not the paternalistic bullshit I just heard I just get so sad hearing decent people like you talk with no clue to the real meaning to your words.


 

KH ended with:


 

How quaint that you cling to the constitution with your hands in a vain attempt to justify Gore's presidency and at the same time trample it with your feet by claiming that reparations are due to those who were not wronged and should be paid by people who did not wrong them.


 

To address your points.


 

Show me where in the constitution or in the annals of US law where the Judicial decision in 2000 was an illegal act?... See More


 

Unprecedented? Yes. But so was Roe V. Wade, is that illegal? The Supreme Court sets precedent every day with their decisions effectively enacting law through their constitutional powers. Constitutional scholars still argue over the legitimacy of the 2000 election decision and rightly so as the constitution DOES NOT ADDRESS IT DIRECTLY. Therefore their decision is based upon things they infer from the verbiage within that document.


 

Second, there is a statute of limitations on "crimes against humanity" and that limitation is the death of those responsible. Your stance begs the question; do you hold the African leaders equally responsible for the failures of their tribal ancestors who sold their people into slavery for profit? Where does it end or is this just about getting yours from the "white man" for perceived/actual wrongs of centuries past?


 

I'll leave you with a question because I see this discussion going nowhere because you continue to resort to ad hominem statements rather than reasonable discourse.


 

If you truly hate this nation the way it sounds like you do, I'd ask why you don't leave it? What keeps you here? Is it the privileges you enjoy that were guaranteed by generations of white "grand daddy's" throughout the last 250 years?


 

If that the case, then in my honest opinion, that's the reparations that you and your ilk cry so badly for. 250 years of sacrifice in defense of an ideology that you hold in contempt but still take advantage of. Perhaps you should contemplate that and think about whether a "thank you" is owed to them as much as you feel they owe you something for the mistakes they made?


 

Just some food for thought.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Haiti rescue efforts displays the true nature of the American spirit

A few days ago a 7.0 magnitude earthquake demolished the isle of Haiti resulting in tremendous damage and leaving hundreds of thousand people dead. Within 24 hours of the earthquake and vast devastation, President Obama held a press conference to address the situation and lay out a plan to help those affected by Mother Nature's assault on Haiti. Part of that plan was the White House establishment of a link for people to donate money: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/13/help-haiti Along with UNICEF and the Red Cross other private organizations are getting involved. Some examples of non-government aid include $5M of cash donated by Digicel Group, Bank of America donating $1M, Home Depot giving $100K to the Red Cross, Lowe's giving $1M to the Red Cross, and Abbott Laboratories donating $1M as well.

I blog today about the situation facing the Haitian people not because of the timing of President Obama's speech or the potential use of taxpayer money to rebuild portions of Haiti while America mires in a recession; rather to take a moment to reflect on the generosity of the American spirit. While not every American will donate money or offer other assistance to those in Haiti, the American spirit to rally for a cause is on full display for the world. Despite being targeted by some in the Middle East for destruction or being viewed as an arrogant society no one can deny the compassion embedded within the fabric of the American spirit. Where else in the world will a society of private, free citizens donate time and money to assist people around the world in a time of need?

Take a moment to reflect on the American spirit and ask yourself, "Is there something I can do more to make the United States a better place to live?" The impact on the American society of Haiti will wane as rebuilding efforts continue but that should not stop our society from being engaged. Last year citizens all over the United States exercised their right to assembly as they attempted to shed light on the expansion of government and the out of control spending. The groups called for smaller government and lower taxes. Instead of being touted as an example of the America spirit it was painted as angry white men gathering to spew their racist hatred for President Obama.

As we will see in the coming days the donations raised for Haiti will come from private citizens and corporations. Granted the United States government will print, I believe the amount is $80M, money to help rebuild Haiti. The money used by the Federal Government is not taxpayer money, at least not yet, because our government is spending money it does not have. In the end taxpayers will have to make up the difference. With making up that difference a harsh reality will run contrary to the American spirit. Jobs, freedoms, and liberties will be compromised through higher taxes and the devaluation of the American dollar. I bring this up on the heal of the earthquake that devastated Haiti because we have an earthquake of our own brewing in Washington D.C.

Not a physical earthquake but an earthquake that will create greater damage to the country that is the land of the free and the home of the brave. As you donate, say a prayer, or watch the rescue efforts in Haiti keep in mind that our politicians in Washington D.C. are hoping you stay distracted as they continue to strip our freedoms away through increase government spending, taxation, and control over all aspects of our life.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Recovery Act: Success factors eased

The Associated Press is reporting that the White House has changed the metric to gauge success of the $787B Stimulus package passed earlier this year. The change is "no longer about counting a job as save or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by stimulus" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34830451/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/). The determination of "funded by stimulus" is whether or not stimulus money is used to cover payroll and includes if the money was used for any bonuses or pay raises to keep employees. I thought Congress needed to pass the Recovery Act to ensure unemployment wouldn't top 8% and it would save or create 3.5 million jobs by year end. Unemployment is above 10%, higher in other areas of the country, and the White House claimed it saved or created 650,000 jobs but cannot accurate account for that figure.

Instead of admitting failure of the Recovery Act by the White House, the White House has changed the end zone. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, "It is troubling that the administration is changing the rules and further inflating the Recovery Act's impact and masking the failure of the stimulus to product sustainable economic growth or real job creation" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34830451/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/). Tom Gavin, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, "We are trying to make it as easy and simple for the funding recipients" (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/economy/stimulus_job_counts/). The lack of accountability by the White House is alarming.

Does this make sense? Are we, as a society, to sit idly by and allow the White House to change the metrics to gauge the success of the Recovery Act? Or is this another veil attempt at the White House to mask a serious flaw in the Recovery Act? Why cannot White House admit failure of the Recovery Act based on the success factors originally set forth?

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Marriage is a Rite not a right

Yesterday the courts, in California, took on the question if Proposition 8 is constitutional. For those who have lived under a rock or do not follow this issue, Prop 8 (as it is commonly called) was passed by 52% of Californians in 2008 to establish a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Gay right groups feel Prop 8 violates their rights and is unconstitutional. What we have here are two separate arguments being made but will be lumped into one. First point of discussion is if marriage is a right. Secondly, is Prop 8 unconstitutional? To answer the second question we need first define the first question.

Is marriage a right of all Americans? To answer this we must acknowledge the institution of marriage is rooted in religious dogma. To exercise one's religion is a right established and guarantee by the Bill of Rights. Since marriage is religious in nature, does that translate to a right for all Americans? Some religious sanction polygamy yet there are rules established that one cannot take on more than one spouse at a time. Even though the law exists those that practice religions that promote polygamy are still able to even if they are highly scrutinized by child welfare agencies. Now, we have laws against drug use in American yet certain religions are allowed to posses and use drugs as outlined in the rites of their religion.

This brings us back to the right of marriage by all Americans. Marriage is a religious rite that has specific guidelines for the married couple to live by. Being a Gnostic the concept of marriage takes place on a spiritual level rather than on the flesh and blood level. But I digress. Since the definition of marriage depends on one religion, then there should be very little discussion on the topic of marriage being a right. In essence marriage is not a RIGHT rather marriage is a RITE.

Now, if we view marriage as a rite, we can answer the constitutional questions in regards to Prop 8. To resolve this question we need to look at how the question is being phrased. The argument put forth against Prop 8 is the use of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process. The groups looking to overturn Prop 8 are equating interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Is the argument one in the same? Is defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman a violation of equal protection?

Since marriage is a rite then no one's equal protection or due process is being violated. Now, a better argument on the constitutionality of Prop 8 is if it violates the separation of church and state. The entire process and incorporation of marriage in the laws, IRS filings, and other legal writs are all violations of church and state in so far that marriage is a religious rite. That being said, every American should be outraged by Prop 8 as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The term marriage needs to be stripped from various use by the government and returned to religious dogma from which it was born. If we, as a society, require recognition of living with a life partner then let's rely on legal documents, i.e. power of attorney. The Constitution already allows for same-sex and opposite sex marriages in so far as it protects one's right to practice religion and all ceremonies involved.

Why are we all not demanding the removal of the institutional definition of marriage as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Is that not a more intelligent way to go about the issue of marriage? By taking this approach we solidify the sanctity of marriage for all religions while also removing government control over one's choice of a life partner.

Monday, January 11, 2010

“Light Skinned” a Racist Statement?

A soon to be released book, "Game Change", written by Time magazine Mark Halperin and New York magazine John Heilemann is a collection of observations made during the historic 2008 Presidential campaign. At the end of the week last week, many pundits salivated at the potential nuggets of talk to arise from the words in print. The latest in the discussion are the remarks made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) when he "described in private then-Senator Barack Obama as 'light skinned' and 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.' (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/10/reid_apologizes_for_comments_on_obamas_race/). Since his words have become known, Sen. Reid has offered an apology to President Obama to which President Obama accepted and said, "As far as I am concerned, the book is closed." Sen. Reid said, "I deeply regret using such poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African- Americans for improper comments" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_on_el_se/us_obama_reid).

While many in the Democrat camp are rally to Reid's support, RNC Richard Steele is singing a different tune. Steele pointed out that in 2002, then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-), that the Democrats demanded Senate Majority Leader Lott to step down after making favorable remarks of 1948 segregationist presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond. Lott had apologized but was sent packing. "There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it's racism. It's either racist or it's not. And It's inappropriate, absolutely" (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9D52IF80&show_article=1). Is RNC Steele correct that Sen. Reid's comments made are racist? Is there a double standard within the Democrat party?

The Democrats are in a conundrum as they are on the cusp of passing health care "reform" but also have a tough fight in the 2010 mid-term elections. Are the leaders in the Democrat party endorsing Reid's words in a trade off for possible health care "reform"? The President accepted Reid's apology, just as he did with "You Lie", but is his acceptance of Reid's apology wise politically? Reid is behind in the polls in and is likely not going to be re-elected. Whether or not President Obama is using Reid as a pawn in light of his comments, the overriding question is it a double standard? Is RNC Steele accurate in his assessment?

Friday, January 8, 2010

City of Hamburg Public Hearing Ordinance Number 135

CITY OF HAMBURG

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCE NUMBER 135


 Notice is Hereby Given that the Hamburg City Council will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 6:50 p.m. at the Hamburg Community Center at 181 Broadway Ave., Hamburg, MN.


 

The reason for the Public Hearing is to receive comments on Ordinance Number 135 for establishing City Fees for the 2010 Calendar Year.


 

If you have any questions or concerns about this hearing or would like to see the ordinance feel free to attend this hearing, call the City Offices at (952) 467-3232 or write in advance to the City of Hamburg, 181 Broadway Ave., Hamburg, MN 55339.


 


 


 

                            Jeremy Gruenhagen

                            City Clerk-Treasurer

City of Hamburg Public Hearing – Ordinance 136

CITY OF HAMBURG

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCE NUMBER 136


Notice is Hereby Given that the Hamburg City Council will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 6:55 p.m. at the Hamburg Community Center at 181 Broadway Ave., Hamburg, MN.


 

The reason for the Public Hearing is to receive comments on Ordinance Number 136 amending the Municipal Code of Hamburg Pertaining to the Building Code to Include Plumbing Plan Review.


 

If you have any questions or concerns about this hearing or would like to see the ordinance feel free to attend this hearing, call the City Offices at (952) 467-3232 or write in advance to the City of Hamburg, 181 Broadway Ave., Hamburg, MN 55339.


 


 


 

                            Jeremy Gruenhagen

                            City Clerk-Treasurer