« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 30, 2006

Abu Ghraib, PMC's and the Imperial Presidency

Abuses, PMC's and Democracy

Cross posted at TexasKos









Abu Ghraib, Falluja , extraordinary rendention, Gitmo. There are many things that tie these black stains on our national honor together. One of the most undereported is the role of PMC, Private Military Contractors.

The REAL Bush Doctrine, of course, is not preemptive war as a tool of national security policy. It is much broader than this. It is the breathe-taking claim that as the only Superpower we are above all law. Moreover this claim is directly linked to the further claim that the president is even above the Constitutional framework. PMC's play a powerful role in this doctrine internationally and domestically.

We know that there were "contractors" at Abu Ghraib

At Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, such men relied upon their anonymity--the prison's commanding general says that they refused to identify themselves to her--to deflect blame for their torture and rape of Iraqi inmates onto such minions as Private Lynndie England. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0722-11.htm

In Falluja

"Blackwater sent my son and the other three into Falluja knowing that there was a very good possibility this could happen," says Katy Helvenston, the mother of 38-year-old Scott Helvenston, whose charred body was hung from the Falluja bridge.


"Iraqis physically did it, and it doesn't get any more horrible than what they did to my son, does it? But I hold Blackwater responsible one thousand percent....."What we have right now is something worse than the wild, wild west going on in Iraq," Callahan says. "Blackwater is able to operate over there in Iraq free from any oversight that would typically exist in a civilized society....."

Over a thousand people died because of what happened to Scotty that day," says Katy Helvenston. "There's a lot of innocent people that have died." While this suit doesn't mention the retaliatory US attack on Falluja that followed the Blackwater killings, the case is significant because it could blow the lid off a system that allows corporations to face zero liability while reaping huge profits in Iraq and other war zones..."


[ You really have to read this one completely, it will blow you away ] http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/scahill


As key participants in extraordinary renditions

"The U.S. government's use of private military contractors to conduct interrogations in Iraq and to transport suspected terrorists creates "rule-free zones" and allows abuses to go unpunished, Amnesty International charged Tuesday"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-contractors24may24,1,6995503.story?coll=la-headlines-world

At Gitmo

"Two private military contractors are being investigated for their role in torture allegations at the Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq: CACI International, Inc. from Arlington, Virginia, and Titan of San Diego, California. CACI supplied at least one interrogator while Titan supplied at least two translators named in a 53-page classified internal Army report written by Major General Antonio Taguba that have dominated news coverage all over the world.

A total of four men -- Steven Stephanowicz, John Israel, Torin Nelson and Adel Nakhla -- are named in the report. All of them were assigned to work with the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/12/1420257

They are also guarding American military bases stateside.

"Private security guards were hired to fulfill roles previously performed by military employees. Yes, $733 million has been paid to hire rent-a-guards to guard 57 Army installations. And that's just the Army."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/12/9338/97918

They were also present to provide security in New Orleans.

Heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, are openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans. Some of the mercenaries say they have been "deputized" by the Louisiana governor; indeed some are wearing gold Louisiana state law enforcement badges on their chests and Blackwater photo identification cards on their arms.


They say they are on contract with the Department of Homeland Security and have been given the authority to use lethal force. Several mercenaries we spoke with said they had served in Iraq on the personal security details of the former head of the US occupation, L. Paul Bremer and the former US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml

They also consult with corporations who are considered "labor problems".

Private security companies today have kept that union-busting tradition alive and well. As corporations faced with labor disputes turn more and more to so-called permanent replacement workers, guard firms are utilized to crush militant opposition from unions. A rapidly expanding subset of the industry specializes in strikebreaking.
http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54p.police.html

Why this explosion of PMC's? Simple, they are not accountable international to anyone's law. So far, not one contactor has faced charges for his role in the Abu Ghraib horrors.

"An internal Army report written by Lieutenant General Antonio M. Taguba investigating abuse at Abu Ghraib prison recommends disciplinary action against two contractors, one an interrogator and one a translator; it names another translator as a suspect.


Taguba found that the two contractors he recommends for reprimand gave orders that they knew would lead to physical abuse and torture and lied to investigators. While the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been reprimanded and/or court-martialed, to date no criminal charges have been brought against the contractors."
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7667#1

The same logic applies to their invovlement with "extraordinary rendition". They are not answerable to Congress, to the courts or to the American people. Only to their employer. In the case of Abu Ghraib and rendition, only to the President.

They are also a source of patronage for our Great Decider. Case in point, the most infamous of them, Blackwater.

The company and its secretive, mega-millionaire, right-wing Christian founder, Erik Prince, position Blackwater as a patriotic extension of the US military, and its employees are required to take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution....


Still, Blackwater has friends in high places. It's a well-connected, Republican-controlled business that has made its fortune because of the Bush Administration. Company founder Erik Prince and his family have poured serious money into Republican causes and campaign coffers over the past twenty years.


An analysis of Prince's contributions prepared for The Nation by the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that since 1989, Prince and his wife have given some $275,550 to Republican campaigns. Prince has never given a penny to a Democrat. While it is not unheard of for a successful business to cast its lot entirely with one party, it has clearly paid off. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/scahill

They allow the President to engage in foreign policy adventures, but leave no official US footprints.

For the U.S. government, however, the security firms' low profile is a distinct advantage, helping avoid unwelcome publicity when things go wrong in semi-covert operations around the world.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/28/MNGHC5SKQS1.DTL

They reduce the pain of war: the people dying are paid "contractors" , many of them not even from the US. Result: less public pressure to use force discriminately. It also helps if you make sure that the flag-draped bodies of our honored dead are kept out of the limelight of the nightly news.


* "U.S. military and government officials are attempting to avoid paying the political cost in the United States of the war in Iraq by hiring poor Latin Americans to do part of the fighting and the dying in place of U.S. citizens. Whether one supports or opposes the U.S. war in Iraq, one can agree that it is the U.S. military that ought to bear the burden of fighting a war that the United States initiated.


Allies may join in and send their own troops in support if they so choose. But U.S. contractors working for the Pentagon shouldn't be recruiting civilians in Latin America to bear the burden of carrying out a U.S. military mission."

* "When a U.S. soldier is wounded or killed in combat, his or her family, neighbors and community feel the weight of the war and ask themselves, Is it worth it? In a democracy such as the United States, it is important for citizens to share the burden related to military action abroad, feel the impact and make the judgment about whether it's worthwhile. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/bow/default.aspx)

When you step back and look at all this several concerns scream out at you.

First, King George the Bush is rendered even more out of touch when he need not even make the pretense of consulting anybody, not Congress, not the American people, not the allies when he wants to stir the pot of international violence with a little "deniable" action by his favorite PMC's.

Second, the appearance of PMC's like Blackwater on the streets of New Orleans, the use of such groups as "labor relations" specialist does not make me sleep more soundly at night.

Third, since there is no co-ordination between these PMC and the American military, more incidents like Falluja can and will happen.

Fourthly, these outfits are not necessarily less costly. Can you say no-bid long term contracts?

Wackenhut Services Inc.[ the same firm with the troubled prison guard history!], a company working under a no-bid contract, insists that most problems the GAO cited were with firms that won the competitive bids, not those who received the sole-source contracts.

"The comments that are in that report - all of the misrepresentation, all of the failure to properly train - pertain almost specifically and uniquely to the competitively bid piece," says Wackenhut CEO James Long. "My guess is they hopelessly underbid it, couldn't run it without losing their tail, and had to start cutting corners."

But the GAO said it found problems with each company's work.

"The problems were across the board," says Michele Mackin of the GAO. "We found a lack of oversight. The Army really relied on what the contractors said they were doing and provided very little monitoring." http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0427/p02s01-usmi.html


Fifthly, they can cause us real foreign relations problems and we can't stop them. For example:

Did I mention the shotting down of a missionary mother and her child by one of these unaccountable outfits?

However, as the tragic downing of the missionary plane over Peru has demonstrated, the actions of private contractors can damage U.S. foreign relations and undermine policy objectives. Public consideration of the risks and benefits of U.S. military operations is fundamental both to democracy and to the success of policy initiatives.
http://paolonalin.ionmetrix.com/doc/PMC%20Legitimacy%20and%20Accountability_LE.pdf


Some final thoughts from my research:

PMC's didnot start with George, he just took them to the next level and beyond. We can't get rid of them entirely. The Armed forces are too small and the weaponry too specialized. They will be required to perform some support duties for us. We should find ways under law to hold them accountable to the same high standards of our citizen fighting forces.

We should not have them in situations where their conduct can create foreign policy problems for us. It is about accountability, the hallmark of a functioning democracy.


The Congress MUST reassert authority over these forces. The temptations they present for mischief, domestic and foreign is simply too great.



["Under a shroud of secrecy, the United States is carrying out military missions with people who don't have the same level of accountability," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leading congressional critic of privatized war. "We have individuals who are not obligated to follow orders or follow the Military Code of Conduct. Their main obligation is to their employer, not to their country." http://www.publicintegrity.org/bow/default.aspx ]


There are some signs of hope:



There is an ongoing law suit over the Falluja that offers some hope on this score. You really shold read this piece, but only if you have a srong stomach for duplicity . See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/scahill


In the end, this is all about the NeoCon narrative which is at present the soundtrack of our lives, at least of our Government's policies.

A cabal of arrogant idelogues, enamoured of the private sector, turns more and more public functions over to the vagaries of the Corporate marketplace, with no provision for public accountability. The average American is lead to believe that this means more economic and efficient government. It doesn't. It has come to mean cronyism, favoritism and public policies that do not serve the common good.

We must fight back, our lives and the future of our children depend on it.

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 10:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 29, 2006

In Memory on Memorial Day.



Members of the San Jacinto Democratic Veterans Brigade, Bay Area New Democrats, CodePink, and others planted a flag for every soldier killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in Herman park. The name of the fallen soldier was read as a flag with their picture, hometown, age, and how they were killed was placed in the ground.



In the center of the Memorial Display is a mound of shoes, collected by the volunteers of CodePink Houston, to represent the un-numbered and growing civilian dead of both the War in Iraq and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. These conflicts have produced and continue to produce an unconscionable number of innocent civilian fatalities either as a direct result of military action or as a consequence of the contingent deterioration of the civilian societies in both countries. The mound is a chaotic pile of footwear designed to represent the uncertainty of civilian life in a war torn country. The shoes remain uncounted as do the civilian deaths in both these conflicts.








Posted by John Cobarruvias at 07:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 28, 2006

Joseph Goebbels and the Culture of Corruption meme


 


culture of  corruption1.JPG


goeb.jpg


Why do I have a "culture of corruption" cartoon sitting next to a picture of Joesph Goebbels?

Well for starters, there is this:


"If you tell a lie, tell a big one."

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_goebbels.htm


The cartoon is from the Houston Chronicle of Saturday, May 27th. It neatly summarizes what polls are finding over and over. For example the Gallup Poll:


The May 5-7, 2006 poll also asked Americans their perceptions about whether the corruption scandals in Washington over the past year mostly involve the Republicans, the Democrats, or both parties equally. Seventy-six percent say it involves both parties equally, while 15% say the scandals mostly involve Republicans, and 5% say they mostly involve Democrats.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/17/115120/830


Voters believe that pols of both parties would rob their own mothers and then take up a collection for the old girl and keep the proceeds.


Never the less, some seem to believe holding up [here] , the Repbublicans as the poster party for the "Culture of Corruption" will be enough for us to recapture the House and ride to power in the states. Not so.


Clearly the polls contradict this theory. More to the point, Rove and company will move to neutralize it. I join those who spectulate that the unprecedented raid on Jefferson's office was simply the most recent and spectacular example of the efforts we will see to make the problem "bi-partisan". Add to the that the failure of the MSM to point out the huge disparity in who is being hauled off to jail for corruption and this theory is even more believable.


This is where Goebbels comes in. In the media's spin of the corruption issue you see a specific application of  the "Big Lie". You also see the paticular Rovian contribution to the arsenal of  dirty tricks one can use to subvert the processes of a democracy - attack you opponent where he is strong, using the big lie. Turn his strength into a contested issue and make him use resources and time in reacting to your attacks. He will never go on the offensive against your weakness if he is always defending his "strength" against your big lies.


Ironically, even the use of  tightly controlled media was anticpated by Goebbels. In his day, such efforts included an inexpensive single channel radio (People's radio). Now , as we well know, we have multiple channles doing the dirty work.


All the dog and pony show which has Hastert complaining about violation of seperation of powers seems to me the perfect way to keep Jefferson's guilty ass in the spotlight where he will be labeled over and over again , as a Democrat.


My conclusion: we have to tell them what we believe in, what our values are, and only then hit them with the corruption charges. I will talk more about that this after Memorial Day.

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 03:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday Funnies





More --->





Posted by Perry Dorrell at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 25, 2006

David Broder dredges for a Hot Tip on Clinton

Forget the news! David Broder wants a Hot Tip on Clinton!

In reading David Broder's latest column ("The Shadow of a Marriage" currently up at the WaPo) it struck me how much Mr Broder has come to represent the mere shadow of an independent press that we have in Washington. Sent out to cover Senator Hillary Clinton's speech on how to fight global warming Tuesday morning at the National Press Club, this "Dean of the Washington Press Corps" could only manage to sniff up a story about... wait for it... whether her marriage to Bill Clinton was solid following his affair nine years ago.

Nevermind it was a major policy speech by a US senator. Nevermind that senator is a leading contender for the presidency. Nevermind that she reversed her position on alternative fuels, laid out several policy specifics, including return to the 55mph speed limit, and even got heckled by an antiwar demonstrator. His conclusion from a night surrounded by the substance of how governmental policy affects all our lives is this: because no one was talking about the Clintons' marriage, the Clintons' marriage is a taboo subject we all need to talk about.

Huh? Here's what "Dean" Broder wrote (emphasis added):

For the better part of an hour, the senator from New York held forth in a disquisition on energy policy that was as overwhelming in its detail as it was ambitious in its reach.

But the buzz in the room was not about her speech -- or her striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit -- but about the lengthy analysis of the state of her marriage to Bill Clinton that was on the front page of that morning's New York Times.

The article, by Patrick Healy, was anything but unsympathetic. It touched only lightly on the former president's friendship with Canadian politician Belinda Stronach. It documented that despite their busy separate schedules, the Clintons had managed to spend two-thirds of their weekends together during the past 18 months.

There's nothing there about the topic of Sen. Clinton's speech at all. Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) writes more about the substance of her health care plan from 12 years ago than he does about her global warming proposals. His only mention of the substance of her speech is to state, as an aside, that her "wonkish text" described "the 'geologic sequestration' potential for reducing global warming and making better use of coal."

But even that is written just to underscore how boring all this science stuff is. Then Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) goes back to obsessing about the Clintons' marriage. There's a palpable disappointment in Broder's writing, as if he's upset he didn't find any dirt on their marriage while attending a public policy address. He writes, "The Clintons, according to the [New York] Times, urged friends not to answer questions about the relationship and declined to be interviewed -- except for a joint statement that 'they do everything they can to be together'.") What? The speech contained not a word about her husband's depressing lack of infidelity of late? Note to the Washington Post: Wonkette does this sort of thing better and for a whole lot less money.

Maybe David Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) didn't understood the topic he was sent to cover. There's nothing wrong with being too dense to understand global warming. Unless you've seen Al Gore's new movie, it's pretty complicated stuff.

But if that was the case, shouldn't he just tell his assignment editor, "I'm sorry, I just don't understand these scientific things about how cutting back on pollution can slow down environmental degradation that could permanently alter how liveable our planet is. I only understand how extramarital fellatio can cause people to gossip about you. For years. Maybe you should send a reporter along who can write about the speech instead of the nine year old giggle story."

That would be a refreshingly mature thing for Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) to do, instead of going to an event and, when no one talks about the one thing he understands, conclude that the marriage question is "the elephant in the room." The sleeziest part of it, of course, is when he drags the name of Belinda Stronach into his article. It's clear that Broder has nothing, nada, on any possible relationship between Mr Clinton and Ms Stronach. Throwing the name out there is his wink-nudge way of asking the world "Hey, does anyone have any dirt on Clinton? Please give the tip to me instead of the National Inquirer."

I'm sorry, Dave. But the Inquirer pays good money for the trash it digs up. You can't compete.

But if he's really looking for a hot tip on the Clintons and can't find one perhaps you can help. I know I've done my part. Just this afternoon I emailed Mr Broder (davidbroder@washpost.com) and gave him the following inside scoop:

Mr Broder,

I'm writing to let you know something about Mrs Clinton that you apparently do not know. She's not just a candidate for president with an embarrassing problem in her family's past. She's also an informed and hard working politician who's addressing one of the biggest concerns of the day in public policy--global warming.

It would behoove you and your readers if you could follow up on the substance of this story. She apparently made some major policy proposals at the speech you attended. I do not know what those proposals are because your article did not mention them. As a voter who may have to face the option of voting for or against Mrs Clinton if she runs for president, I would like to know what she thinks we should do about global warming. It's a pretty big deal.

I think you, as a journalist covering the beat of presidential politics ought to look into this. It's a big story and, career-wise, a Washington journalist covering issues that voters care about would put you way ahead of the curve.

Instead, unfortunately, you chose to write about her marriage. I'm no journalist myself, but I think the Clintons' marriage falls into the category of "dog bites man." You might have picked up on that from the NY Times story yesterday that you cited in your latest column--the story that discovered that the Clintons are a very busy couple who still manage to make time to be around each other.

Your tawdry (and unsubstantiated) innuendo about Ms Belinda Stronach aside, there really isn't much of a news story from the way you covered her speech. I would suggest that you look into this global warming thing, as it is certain to be something voters care about.

As a citizen living far away from New York and Washington, I depend on journalists to provide me with information about what people in government can do and what they are planning to do about the big concerns of the day. That is precisely why your profession as a newspaperman is a protected and vital part of our republic.

I wish you would do your job, Mr Broder, and keep your tawdry innuendo out of the stuff I read. If you find dirt on Mr Clinton, of course I think you should publish it. The fact that you have nothing to report on but unspecified "buzz" suggests to me that you have nothing to report period. Meanwhile you're missing a lot of important news stories as you wait around for Bubba to slip up. And when journalists miss stories, then the public misses stories--and that would describe a real failure on the part of your profession.

I suppose you could tell me to read other journalists' work if I'm interested in actual news instead of the non-gossip you peddled in your latest column. But let me suggest that that would only be a clever, yet lazy, way of you avoiding your responsibilities as a leading journalist. Please cover the news, Mr Broder, and not the buzz over the lack of news.


Bucky Rea
Houston, TX

Now, he hasn't had the courtesy to write me back. Yet. But perhaps that's a time zone difference. I live in the flyover-country-that's-affected-by-government-policy time zone and Broder lives, apparently, in 1998.

Posted by Bucky at 05:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Urge Sheila Jackson-Lee to support Net Neutrality

Reportedly, Sheila Jackson-Lee is undecided about her vote on the Net Neutrality bill which is essential to keeping access to the internet fair and unrestricted.

Urge Sheila Jackson Lee to support the bipartisan Sensenbrenner-Conyers Net Neutrality bill (HR 5417) in the Judiciary Committee on Thursday -- and to support it without amendment. Saying without amendment is key.

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas 18th)
(202) 225-3816 phone
(202) 225-3317 Fax

Posted by Lyn Wall at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Lay and Skilling Convicted!

Jason Whitely's blog at http://www.beloblog.com/KHOU_Weather_Watch/archives/2006/05/jurors_reach_ve.html lists the counts:

The jury has reached a verdict in the criminal trials of former CEOs Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. Judge Sim Lake's case manager, Heather Carr, confirmed the news to KHOU-TV. The verdict will be read at 11:00am in Courtroom 9B. It will be blogged here.

11News Reporter Jason Whitely is in the overflow room at the federal courthouse awaiting the reading of the verdict. He is blogging it, adding a GUILTY or NOT GUILTY to the side of each count.

Refresh your browser to update this page until all counts have a verdict out to the right.


Jeffrey K. Skilling

Count 1 (Conspiracy) GUILTY
Count 2 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 14 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 16 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 17 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 18 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 19 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 20 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 22 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 23 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 24 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 25 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 26 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 31 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 32 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 34 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 35 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 36 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 42 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 43 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 44 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 45 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 46 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 47 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 48 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 49 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 50 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 51 (Insider Trading) GUILTY

Kenneth L. Lay

Count 1 (Conspiracy) GUILTY
Count 12 (Wire Fraud) GUILTY
Count 13 (Wire Fraud) GUILTY
Count 27 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 28 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 29 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY

Count 38 (Bank Fraud) GUILTY
Count 39 (False statements to banks) GUILTY
Count 40 (False statements to banks) GUILTY
Count 41 (False statements to banks) GUILTY

Posted by Lyn Wall at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 24, 2006

The Jim Henley for Congress Headquarters needs volunteers!

It located in the Village at 2482 Bolsover (one block east of Kirby and one block north of Rice Blvd) and we are currently organizing volunteers to keep it staffed.

Attend the volunteer orientation meeting on Saturday, May 27, at 10 am at the headquarters. We will set up a schedule - the goal is to have 2 people there at all times, so we will need a lot of people.

If you are interested in helping but cannot attend the May 24 meeting, please call Cathy Tarte at 713 660-8454 or e-mail Cathy at cathy.tarte@sbcglobal.net.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 23, 2006

Out with the old (logo), in with the new

The new HCDP logo contest ends tonight. Final submissions are due no later than midnight.

Read the rules here.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 07:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention

Cross posted at TexasKos
I have blogged a lot since I went online about "framing." In response to one of those blogs Muriel Stubbs wrote:


Houston Democrats: Progressives as their own worst enemies
"All of this talk about "framing" and "reframing," about how to talk about what we want to talk about, reminds me of the TV commercial that shows a bunch of hikers, one of whom has just stepped into a pit of quicksand. As he slowly sinks, they stand around talking about how they, as a committee, can best go about saving him. They have a civilized discussion, raised hands and all, while the poor bastard sinks up to his nose. Finally, just as he's disappearing forever, one of the guys on the edge of the group throws a rope, which the sinker grabs. You see him next standing with wet mud/sand up to his eyebrows with the rest of the group ignoring him while they congratulate each other on their successful rescue--which none of them, save one, had anything to do with.

Give me that guy who threw the rope. He and two or three others like him--surely there must be that many--need to get busy saying all over the state what Murvin says in his post: The Repugs are trying to destroy the Texas public school system so they can install vouchers and privately-run Fundamentalist Jesus mills (Murvin didn't say that. I did.)and pay for them with our tax money. We already know to say that. When we've made that point, then we can figure out how to frame the next issue: how to pay for the public schools--if we can save them."
http://www.houstondemocrats.com/archives/2006/05/progressives_as.html#more


Forget, the reference to schools, substitute any issue you like and while not agreeing with all her comments, I do agree with her conclusion: we must stand for something, we must act upon those beliefs. Good frames cannot cover-up cluelessness or cowardice.I can't give anyone the backbone needed to live up to Muriel's righteously angry post, but I can give you the tools to start acting when you find that courage. You do not need to wait for a committee or for a party vote. You can start now.

I am today launching a series on a strategy of Grassroots , guerilla pushback I call: Civil Conversation. It is what we used to hold up as the model for how citizens discussed politics without degenerating into slobbering , shouting Neanderthals ( picture Hanratty or your favorite right wing bovinator ).

If you want the best short course on "framing" online, see here: http://dogfight04.typepad.com/TheFeldmanDiariesv2.pdf
A regular source of great ideas about framing is here:http://www.frameshopisopen.com/

Before I list for you the Democratic Dozen, Principles for Fighting Back, let me offer some observations.

First, they own the media, and they have created a Rightwing Noise Machine that threatens at every turn to drown out and ignore our messages, even if they are "well framed".

Second this means that when we engage in shouting matches, we tend to lose because the onlookers simple write us both off, if they are not already partisans of one camp or another. Given the present partisan divide, that means we tend to lose. Yes, I know that Bush and Congressional Republicans are unpopular, but so are Congressional Democrats, and the party still in minds of most Americans, stands for nothing they can put into 2 or 3 succinct sentences. You see my point.

Third, unlike certain bloggers, you can't be an expert on everything. Pick one thing you really care about and start reading and studying.


That being said, here are the Democratic Dozen:


  1. We must stand for something, not JUST against the Repubs.

  2. In communicating our message to the general public the 3 most important things to talk about are: values, values and values. The fourth most important things are factoids that rattle their cages.

  3. Symbols of America are as important as words. From the Statue of Liberty to the Lincoln Memorial to the American Bald Eagle, what you show can be as important as what you say. Use symbols to help convey your agenda more powerfully. [ from the Repug's playbook by Luntz ]

  4. Democrats must not be afraid of the "G" word (God), indeed the real message of the Gospel is one of compassion and brotherhood not fear and division and that is what we stand for….

  5. We must learn to effectively frame our message using our values.

  6. We must work on establishing the Democratic brand by publishing it, repeating it , teaching it , and doing these things over and over.

  7. We must challenge lazy and unfair media coverage with timely and effective responses and do so every time it happens.

  8. We must stop answering questions that are framed badly and start answering bad questions with counter questions.

  9. We must learn to engage in civil conversation and not let our message be sidetracked by Republican name calling and trash talk.

  10. We must agree with people whenever we can , challenging not their fixed ideas, but their conclusions about them.

  11. We must explain how the values we hold will positively impact the lives of the people in our community, directly and immediately.

  12. We must tell stories. ……

I will be blogging on each of these principles over the next couple of weeks.

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 05:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr., 1921-2006

One of our titans is gone.

Much can be said of him, but this single paragraph from Cragg Hines in the Houston Chronicle is apropos:

During much of the last three decades, Bentsen was one of the most respected and important voices in the nation, and sometimes beyond, on federal fiscal policy.

Please share your reminiscences of Lloyd Bentsen in the comments and go sign the guest book here.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 04:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 21, 2006

East Texas Counts

Barbara Ann Radnofsky takes her case to East Texas this week, visiting Madisonville, Palestine, Athens *edit* and Longview *edit* on Thursday the 25th; and visiting Elkhart and Jacksonville on Friday the 26th. She will also speak at a reception in Corsicana on Friday.

[The original post omitted the Longview stop. Thanks to reader Vik Verma for the correction. - jb]

Including her appearance in Liberty last Tuesday, she will tally *edit* seven *edit* stops in this East Texas swing. The message is "East Texas Counts." Concede nothing; fight for everything.
For more details, click here.

Posted by Jon Boyd at 06:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

I'm the misjudger, so I get to misjudge

Can anyone imagine Dubya saying this in a candid moment? We will probably never find Condeleeza Rice making such a mistake.

Check out this exchange with Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: But it’s more than just seeing violence on the screen. Would you not agree—accept the notion that Americans, who only 32 percent approve of the president’s handling, have seen some misjudgments: no weapons of mass destruction, a misreading of the level, intensity of the insurrection, whether we’d be greeted as liberators, sectarian violence, cost of the war? There were a lot of misjudgments made that the American people also witnessed.

DR. RICE: Undoubtedly, Tim, there are many things that could have been done differently, and I’m certain could have been done better. But when you’re involved in an enterprise this big and this complicated, there are going to be misjudgments. The real question is, do you adjust when you see a different situation on the ground? And in numerous circumstances, we have had to make adjustments.

I think those adjustments have been in the right direction, but there are also some misjudgments that were not made. There were those who said that it would be best just to overthrow Saddam Hussein and then put in an Iraqi strongman who could govern. That would have been a disaster for the progress of the Middle East as a whole and for a democratic foundation for, for the Middle East. There were those who said, “The Iraqis will, will really never be able to, to do this. Let’s go in with a huge footprint and do—leave nothing to the Iraqis.” What we’ve done is to steadily build Iraqi political capability and competence and confidence over this period of three years. [emphasis mine]

Although Russert was sheepish and obsequious in tone, he was asking Rice if she understood that only 32% of Americans approve of the President's handling of Iraq. Yet Timmy also turned the question in a lollipop through the passive constructions, "have seen some misjudgments" and "[t]here were a lot of misjudgments made. . . ." Rice slipped only once during this response when she said, "we have had to make adjustments." Otherwise, she performed her best Texas-step in order to remain in the passive mode.

This is a case of style revealing substance. This is Rice talking about policy she defended for the past four years, both as National Security Advisor and as Secretary of State. This is Rice representing the President. Misjudgements were made? Who could have done that?

Posted by Jon Boyd at 05:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bad Analogy of the Week

Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) explains his rejection of amnesty programs to Tim Russert:

Where I come from is I want to do what the American people want us to do. They feel like that just a slap on the wrist for having broken is our law is simply not enough. What, what they’re talking about is like a bank robber who stole $100,000 dollars and we say to him, “If you’ll just turn yourself in, we’ll fine you $2,000 dollars and you don’t go to jail and you get to keep the $100,000 dollars.”

Charlie, do you think you speak for the American people when you say undocumented workers are analogous to bank robbers?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12851815/page/6/


Posted by Jon Boyd at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 20, 2006

Sunday Funnies






More --->





Posted by Perry Dorrell at 05:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 19, 2006

The lege's plan to KILL public education in Texas

If you were to ask a parent what they most wanted from their public schools , I doubt very seriously anybody would say "fist I want lower property taxes." Yet , governing form their alternate, reality challenged universe that is about all that the Lege did to really fix public education. It finessed adequacy ( as flabby as that is for a standard - imagine Mack Brown telling the Alums at Texas that he now had the resources for an "adequate" football team ), fudged efficiency (which the Teas Supreme Court has ruled means substantially equal state resources for all districts before any local "enhancements", and flat forgot about suitability ( the requirement that the system have the capacity of achieving the other two requirements). But they did give us Tax Cuts ,for now!

Now it has become clear that Republicans cannot govern, because governing to them means rewarding their funders (and fundies) and cutting taxes. It turns out that if you think government is the problem, you treat it as such, striving as Grover Norquist put it so well, to make it small enough to drown in a bathtub. In Texas that means that the Repugs want to assassinate public education via the "death of a thousand unfunded mandates" coupled with endless revenue reductions and mind numbingly reductionist high stakes testing that turns schools into factoid factories.

By unfunded mandates I refer to the ever increasing list of things that local districts are mandated to do, but not given any or sufficient funds to accomplish, even as the TEKS standards are ratcheted every upward. The list here contains 65 such decrees. With a whopping $250 more per student under the new funding legislation, I kinda doubt that this problem will get any better. Somehow, I don't think that this is an accident. Such degrees help to further overburden public education, allowing the Repugs to argue the merits of charter and private schools with a straight, if hypocritical face.

As for the revenue reductions, see the inflation bullet below. Of course the Repugs then argue, even with that straight and hypocritical face that absolute dollar spending is way up, as is increases since date "X", whichever one is most skewed in favor of their point. To top it off, Texas school enrollment is set increase significantly over the next decade. All they have to do is provide increases insufficient to match a rising demographic and they can continue to be shocked, shocked at bad public education is, even when you give it more money.

High stakes testing is another phony pony that the Repugs love to trot out as part of their efforts to kill public education. Pleae read this report . As the author bluntly puts it:. As the author bluntly puts it:

"Statewide testing, envisioned under NCLB as a key part of the solution to
what ails public schools, is fast becoming part of the problem in public education."

In light of this strategic plan to kill public education is it small
comfort to hear that the most recent Educational Funding Bill is a good start. In fact it is a maze of smoke and mirrors, of half measures and time bombs all tending toward the objective of further eroding free public schools.

The center for public Policy Priorities has an excellent briefing paper on the structural problems of Texas educational system here and they have just posted analysis of the revenue shortfall that is guaranteed by the lege's"get out of town and get my ass reelected by following the I cut your taxes" mantra - here

It would take more expertise and time than I have to document all the problems with the legislation, so I will limit my analysis to a few of the more glaring ones.

First, it strives for increased adequacy. This is a dumb standard for a state which


  1. * now ranks 50th for teacher salaries in comparison with salaries of all skilled and unskilled workers,


  2. * spends 1,200 less than the national average per pupil,

  3. * has seen per student spending over the past three years fail to even keep up with inflation


Second, the one shot $2,000 pay rise includes giving back $500 dollars of the $1000 of health care assistance taken away in 2003. Some rise, and when it is in place we will still be in the bottom half of salaries for the US. Add to this the exodus of experienced teacher after the punitive Social Security reform that denied or limited their access to both Social Security and their teacher pensions, and you see that the future of our teacher corps in Texas is bleak indeed.

Third, unless Pie In the Sky By and By is a funding mechanism, even the Republican advocates of the bill know that there will be a $10 billion devil to pay in 2 years or less.

Fourth, the benignly named "teacher incentive pay". This scheme is divisive, impossible to find fair metrics with which to decide who "earns them" and again a great devise for further destroying camaraderie and morale at public schools. See here

You will shortly began to hear the drumbeat for more charter schools, vouchers and the rest. Don't be fooled by all the smoke and mirrors it is really about killing public schools. Don't let them do it! Our future prosperity our very democracy depends on your fighting back!

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 03:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Securifying our Borders

Photo ops are the perfect expression of government in an era when the power of our government rests in the hands of a celebrity spokesmodel.

Where's my 'Mission Accomplished' banner?

...particularly when it's a celebrity spokesmodel who, you know, can't speak.

I'll never quite understand why, of all the idiots in the world, the powers that be behind the Republican curtains came to select this particular bumbling, rudderless twit to run the government for them.

Look, Ma! No Brains!

But the latest sleight of hand pandering on the immigation issue shows the extent of their cynicism. On the one hand the US Chamber of Commerce fatcats just love having that steady swarm of cheap, unionless labor around to keep human resource costs adequately depressed. On the other, keeping the Flyover Country rubes voting for their spokesmodels means occasionally stirring up a heaping dose of xenophobia by militarizing the border and treating our visiting labor pool like a national security threat.

Dope Seeking Dog Hits Paydirt

So how do they have it both ways? Simple: propose inadequate solutions for problems you don't want solved, casually tap an overburdened public asset like the national guard while ignoring the costs, and send the celebrity spokesmodel down for a photo op to create a positive news story that makes it look like the situation is actually being managed.

The term "photo op" originally meant photo opportunity. The government was doing such-and-such a thing; so let's have the president run down there to pose with it and get our guy on the news. But the photo ops of today aren't utilizing existing opportunities--they are stage managed falsehoods, premature declarations of missions accomplished. They don't highlight government action, they substitute for government action.

The problem with this approach, besides the obvious of not accomplishing a durn thing, is that we've seen it all before. The public is a lot more media savvy than I think our Republican friends understand. If your guy is riding 65% approval ratings, most people are willing to accept a Fauntleroyesque turkey strut across the deck of an aircraft carrier. But when your boy is in the low 30 doldrums, it's not going to convince anyone if you dance in the endzone every time someone snaps the ball.

Why don't they rehearse these things?

Of course it also would help if your "war hero" knew how to climb out of a dune buggy without some dashing young gentleman there to hold his hand.

Posted by Bucky at 03:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 18, 2006

Reminder - Chad Khan Meet & Greet Breakfast Saturday

Please RSVP! More details at http://www.houstondemocrats.com/archives/2006/05/meet_greet_chad.html

Posted by Lyn Wall at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Answer To The Question

What Noble Cause?
By Amy Branham

Those three words are what motivated me to march with my friend, Cindy Sheehan, in August to Bush’s ranch. I wanted to know what the noble cause was that has caused the deaths of so many thousands of people in this world – my son included. Bush had said in a speech that our sons and daughters were dying for a “Noble Cause”.

As you all know, that so-called Noble Cause has changed over the years since the beginning of the war. Now we are being told that we must continue the fight so that the lives of our sons and daughters will not have been wasted. That just sickens me. We’ll throw more people at the so-called nonexistent Noble Cause so that all the deaths will not have been in vain? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Since the death of my son I have pondered the reasons why he was called to active duty in the Army Reserves to go serve in Iraq. As I have done so I have listened to the Decider in Chief in his speeches and listened to the spin from his administration and have found myself, more than once, irritated as hell. It’s irritating to see the man who calls himself our President joke around about himself and laugh about not finding weapons of mass destruction.

Today I’m going to take a different approach from what I usually do in my writing and write about something I haven’t touched on. In my search for the Noble Cause I have stumbled across what, for me at least, is the answer to the question.

The Noble Cause our children died for is the fight their parents would fight – they sacrificed their lives to motivate the rest of us to ask the tough questions that George Bush and his cronies do not want answered. They sacrificed their lives to motivate us, out of our sadness and mourning, to demand of them accountability and to bring out into the light of day the corruption that has led our country to this point. Our sons and our daughters sacrificed their lives so that we might lead the way, out of their blood sacrifice for their country, to bring our country back to where it should be and away from the path it has taken.

Our children loved this country and dedicated their lives to it. They swore to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, a document their Commander in Chief sees as nothing more than a useless piece of paper to be trampled upon. We, as their parents, must now continue their fight to defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the rights and freedoms we have all enjoyed.

This is the Noble Cause our children died for.

Amy Branham
abranham@houston.rr.com
Mother of Sgt. Jeremy R. Smith, U.S. Army Reserves (deceased)
Nov. 1981 – Feb. 2004

Posted by Amy Branham at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Progressives as their own worst enemies

Cross posted at TexasKos


"A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll."

Remember that one?

What does that have to do with talking back to the Right Wing Noise Machine and the immigration issue? Check below the fold…..

krazypuppy demolished this poll here over at TexasKos. The heart of krazypuppy's takedown was that every key question used in the survey was proceeded by a reference to the "war on terror". Thus the skewed outcome . That is called "framing" and in manipulating the average apolitical citizen, it is very powerful tool. It is why progressive's who ram blindly ahead using Repug words are their own worst enemies. It is why you don't use the word 'illegal' in reference to undocumented immigrants.

It ain't about PC, it is about being heard, being an effective voice for Progressive ideas and positions.

The problem with "illegal" is that it talks their langague, it calls forth their ideas, and we lose. You try to think about comprehensive , fair and compassionate reform when your starting point is crime , illegals and criminals. Am I wrong?

So, we end up playing in their ballpark, using their words, reinforcing their ideas, even if it is to say no to them. Almost to the person, friends and acquintances who have spoken to me on this topic have used the word illegal. To a person , the next word out of their mouth was law and laws and enforcement. This is Republican ground. They have owned "law and order" every since Nixon.

Think of it this way, if we are discussing how many troops we should use and how strongly we should punish these "criminals" and never re-frame the issue, at the end of the day we get to influence how hard we punish, They have won the debate. We get no credit at all and we still end up with a system which punishes first and helps a little if at all. That will be calld "compromise" .

Here is how it will play out. At some point they will call us obstructionist, the apolitical onlookers will be inclined to agree. We stand for No, they stand for law and order . The onlookers will want some resolution of the issue. They will offer a "compromise". They will agree to only punish the illegal law breakers a moderate amount, instead of sending them all back as they originally proposed .

From our point of view, what has to happen is 'reframing' of the debate. What do you say about immigration? You should talk of immigration reform framed in terms of fixing , comprehensively, a broken system, not of imposing "law and order" on the illegals. Thus:

"The immigration system is broken and we need to fix it. A bandaide won't do. I believe in an immigration system that provides better security through law enforcement and a fair chance to immigrants. They are seeking the same thing our forefathers were seeking - a way up. Their only offense is trying to provide a better life for themselves and their families through hard work . It is not enough to restore the rule of law, we must also do justice and justice knows no borderline."

We are now talking about Democratic ideas - law, security and compassion. We have now staked out our ground in the debate. Now it is possible the policy we adopt will make us proud, be fairer and more balanced. That is not true as long as all we say is "yes, me too, I want to punish them!" When we say what we believe, to the onlookers, we are not nihilistic obstructionist; we stand FOR something, as much as the Repugs do.

Notice, I didn't even use the word illegal in my statement. I did not reinforce their "frame" by using their language. I used my language, I put forth positive , value based reasons for my choice. I , in other words, changed the conversation , shifting it to my ground and injecting my language .

Even if my ideas are not accepted, the playing field is more level than before. My language and my ideas are out there. People have a choice. At the very least, they will walk away with questions, with a broader vocabulary for thinking about the issue. That is good for us, always good for us. The prevailing frames reinforced in the MSM tend to be Republican because their mighty noise machine has roared unchecked for the last decade or so and been ramping up for at least 40 years on top of that.

The key to all this framing stuff is a lot of theory, but a simple enough formula. Open with statements about what you believe, appeal to solid wholesome American values. Then you add some content. Once the conversation is started, you can talk policy wank if you want, but always contact it back to your values. Life is complicated enough. People want first to know what you stand for, and only then do the detials matter.

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 08:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 17, 2006

You can't throw red meat to the base and still be Mr. Nice Guy

The president's speech last night was a mix of the good and bad. If he had made this speech 6 years ago, it might have been helpful. Like much else he has done, this is too little , too late. The schizophrenia of Bushism is everywhere displayed.

First he keeps using their favorite code word - "illegal aliens". On the other hand he speaks of "hard working people." "vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives."Link


Trapped by his Party's rhetoric, Bush begins by throwing red meat to the base. He continues to "market the [Republican] word that kills" "illegal" . ( a nod to XicanoPwr on this analysis) . As Toni Medillian poignantly pointed at the Democratic Workshop I hosted in April, "No Human Being is illegal ". To make them illegal is to make them less then "Us" and to make them criminals is to make them vulnerable.


"To some, using the term "Illegal" vs. "Undocumented" is just a matter of semantics and to others it means a lot more. When one talks about a group of people who are referred to as "illegals" it never includes people who have committed a crime such as murder, corruption or theft. Nor does it include people who speed or play loud music at a party in the middle of the night. The use of the word "illegal" is only meant for one purpose - the "undocumented." The word itself dehumanizes immigrants and brands them as criminals" LINK


After this Bush does he try to rally public compassion for the immigrants. Well , if he was serious about the second purpose he would not use the rhetoric of fear and division inherent in his initial wording. But then , he can't help himself. He has governed by means of fear and division from the start and when your polls are at 29%, what else can you now do?It goes back to the points in made in my previous post, immigrants as scary criminals is an image needed to rally the base in November, but the business constituency of the party needs the cheap labor. What's a demagogue to do when 2 of key groups supporting his tyranny are at odds with each other? The answer is the speech last night.I owe everybody a thread on how we Progressives can successfully talk about the issue and I will deliver, but for now I give you a link to a Framing Document used at the Democratic Fighting Back Workshop on Immigration back in Houston Texas in April.

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 10:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 15, 2006

DigitalHouston plan to provide Universal WiFi in Houston

Tonight, I participated in a 30-minute conference call with Houston area bloggers and Mayor Bill White to discuss upcoming plans for citywide WiFi. Bids are due tomorrow for a 10 year plan to provide the infrastructure on city property to cover 640 square miles with WiFi service.

From the invitation from Mustafa Tameez:
“Information and communications technologies are as important for the 21st century as were roads, sewer, gas and water systems for earlier growth and progress. Robust, competitive and affordable communications are critical for the city to attract and retain jobs, improve the quality of education, enhance the delivery of healthcare services, and protect and serve residents.”

Richard Lewis CIO of City of Houston, and Mustafa Tameez joined Mayor White for the call with Michael Garfield moderating the event.

Bids are due tomorrow for a 10 year plan to provide the infrastructure on city property to cover 640 square miles with WiFi service.

Everyone is invited to participate in an online chat with mayor at 6:30pm on Wednesday at www.hightechtexan.com.  

DigitalHouston is the name of initiative. The goal is to take the lead in having a mobile wireless broadband access with as much capacity as possible and open architecture to provide consumer choice with multiple ISP’s. The model has private enterprise providing the service and funding using public easements as the city’s contribution.

Mayor White hopes to bridge digital divide by making the internet accessible to more citizens at an affordable price or no cost to people like students. The new service will provide competition in broadband.   City services will be able to take advantage, others with large service fleets. WiFi will be an attractive alternative to radio service.

This is part of the infrastructure, that includes fiber, cable TV and roads.  The best place for broadcast modules is city property using our utility rights of way and traffic system.

How long will the main provider have an exclusive contract?
Universal coverage will require a firm to operate the system and is responsible for capital expenditures. The initial contract will be for 5 – 10 years.

What are the guidelines for evaluating contracts?
Criteria have been developed for evaluating contracts – including financial capability, operating capability, public service,  public access, municipal services.

Projections for % market penetration in first year? Current mobile users switched over?
Part of the market risk is that there is no existing model for a large city. Some of the projects are just projections. Preliminary numbers indicate the provider will need 10 – 15% market penetration to get a return on their investment. Proposals will submit 10-15 year projected revenues vs. expense.

Emulate or avoid similar experience to other cities?
We would like to avoid something where you depart from the open architecture concept. Business model using public property as an inducement appears valid – Philadelphia and San Francisco models are examples.

Are their requirements to maintain net neutrality?
There is a neutrality provision – see http://www.houstontx.gov/it/wirelessrfp.html for the request for proposals for security, universality, neutrality, etc. requirements.

Provisions for quality of service guarantees? Scalability?
The number of access nodes is about 18,000. Public safety won’t come online initially and performance and capacity issues will be reviewed regularly.

Non-performance provisions?
Non-performance provisions would provide for default of assets to the City of Houston. Business users who wish to participate may opt to add bay stations on corporate property in order to ensure that the system meets their functional criteria.

Will the WiFi be available to tourists?
Approximately 5% of the implementation will provide for free use in facilities such as libraries, major parks and multi-service centers. Potentially there could be free access in low-income areas. Convention facilities and entertainment facilities are considering how they will wish to participate.

To bridge the digital divide, will PC’s be offered to low income users?
A number of nonprofits are working in this area. For instance one is providing PCs for schools and libraries. A business consortium is providing PCs and software to schools.

Mayor White’s Final comment
Citizens should be aware and involved in this process. We may be fighting special interests whose commercial positions are jeopardized by this effort. The public needs to show support for wireless high quality mobile internet access.

What is the timeframe?
There is a danger of locking into future obsolete standards.  Expect hardware to have a 5 year life followed by a refresh program. The chosen proposal will be scalable and adaptable to new technology. It is estimated to take about 2 years to roll out over a 640 square mile area.

Who was invited to bid?
65 firms attended presubmission conference, including SBC and Time Warner. The selected partner will have the right to build services out to other jurisdictions such as metro.

Where will the mayor be for Wednesday’s chat?
If we have good weather, Mayor White will be outside of City Hall by the reflecting pool with a laptop.  Otherwise he will participate from City Hall lobby.

What is the potential impact on traffic signal coordination?
City wide WiFi has to potential lead to enhanced traffic signal coordination in a very cost effective manner.

Will we know who submitted proposals?
Sometime this week we the list entities submitting proposals should be made public.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

"Big Buy" premeire 5/19 at the Angelika


For those who can't get down to Clear Lake to see all our Democratic candidates this Friday...

On Friday May 19, Houston will be the location for the world premiere of a new documentary, The Big Buy: Tom Delay's Stolen Congress, starring the ex-House Majority Leader and a cast of Texans who stood up to DeLay's assault against democracy. People For the American Way is co-hosting the event and we'd like to invite you to join us there. We think you'll agree that such a film should premiere in DeLay's backyard rather than in Hollywood.

The premeire is being hosted by Chris Bell, Charlotte Coffelt of Houston ROADWomen, Rep. Garnet Coleman, Rep. Jim Dunnam, Senator Rodney Ellis, Common Cause Texas, Deece Eckstein of People For the American Way, Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins, Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice, Glenn Smith of Drive Democracy, Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen, and TexPIRG.

Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck directed The Big Buy, and it is being distributed by Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films, which pioneered the grassroots marketing of films with the Wal-Mart documentary, The High Cost of Low Price. To view a trailer of The Big Buy and to reserve your seats for the premiere (at Houston's Angelika Theater), go to http://www.tomdelaymovie.com/houston .

All proceeds will benefit Texans for Public Justice and Drive Democracy, two Texas non-profits that are actively fighting for democratic reform.

What: Premiere of The Big Buy: Tom Delay's Stolen Congress

Where: Angelika Film Center, 510 Texas Avenue (at the corner of Smith), Houston, TX 77002, 713-225-1470

When: Friday, May 19th, 7:00 p.m.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 02:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 14, 2006

Sunday Funnies




The best is yet to come ... --->




Posted by Perry Dorrell at 05:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 12, 2006

Art Show and Fundraiser for Dot Nelson-Turnier, SH-150

Please join us Friday, May 19 as artist and Treasurer of the Spring Democratic Club Chance Randel hosts an art exhibit whose proceeds will be donated to Dot Nelson-Turnier’s campaign for Texas House District 150. Dot is running against Republican incumbent Debbie “Where Did This Idea (Free Education) Come From ... the Pit of Hell” Riddle.

Chance's artwork represents several mediums, but most is encaustic art. Encaustic is the ancient technique of painting with beeswax, much in use during the golden age of Greece. The beeswax is melted, combined with dry pigments, fried with damar crystals, and painted onto a rigid surface before being heated again. Chance will be present and painting during the exhibit!

It will be held at Eb5 International Arts Gallery, 22557 Aldine Westfield, Spring TX. Doors open at 6PM, the exhibition begins at 7PM. Finger foods will be provided along with wine for those who are so inclined. The gallery also serves light fare and fine international coffees.

Posted by Perry Dorrell at 07:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 11, 2006

Democratic Party Platform Hearings - May 13

PLATFORM HEARINGS FOR ALL DEMOCRATS

SATURDAY, MAY 13

Join your fellow Democrats who care about your State Party Platform to express your view on issues you believe should be in our Platform.

State of Texas issues and National Issues impacting Texans. This is the first opportunity offered to Texas Democrats to have their say in a hearing before the June State Convention. Summary minutes will be given of your views to both the State Party Chair’s Platform Advisory Committee as well as the elected Platform Committee at the State convention.

WHEN:
Saturday, May 13, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

WHERE:
HCDP Offices, 1445 N. Loop exit; take Ella Exit and follow feeder road, just past Thomas BBQ and the IBEW Hall.

SPONSORS:
Your State Democratic Party and the Harris County Democratic Party.

FORMAT:
Presenters must be Democrats. A distinguished Panel of SDEC members and Party leaders. Time allocated per presenter will be according to the numbers who sign up to speak; we plan on a minimum of five minutes.

SIGN UP: Email Stan.merriman@sbcglobal.net, or call and leave your name at 713-666-8444.

Update 5/11/03 = promoting to the top to remind everyone. See you there!

Posted by Lyn Wall at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Top 16* Things Tom DeLay is Waiting On Before He Resigns:

From Susan DuQuesnay Bankston of Juanita's, World's Most Dangerous Hair Salon via her new gig at FortBendNow.

  1. Little-known Congressional Free Starbucks Lattes for Life legislation is still stalled in committee.
  2. Offhand chance that Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, Tony Rudy, all the caddies at the Congressional Country Club, two CIA agents, and three “hostesses” at Signatures Restaurant will all develop incurable amnesia all at the same exact time..
  3. Has three of the most darling judicial activism soundbites he needs to use before Bill Frist steals them..
  4. Wants to have a ringside seat when Hookergate Congressmen are revealed. Will point and laugh at Congressmen who took sex bribes instead of cash bribes..
  5. Hey, this Patrick Fitzgerald guy can’t live forever, you know..
  6. Waiting on that whole Rapture thing..
  7. Star Wars, Episode 7..
  8. A month left on his franking privileges and Boy Howdy, there’s no need to waste all those botox treatments and Glamour Shots..
  9. Trying to pass a constitutional amendment making every day Tom DeLay Day!.
  10. Finding $500,000-a-year seamstress jobs on the Mariana Islands isn’t as easy as you’d suspect..
  11. Foolishly put all his offshore accounts in Patrick Kennedy’s name..
  12. Oops, mistakenly thought the 72 virgins thing was for resigning, not dying.
  13. Waiting on an invitation to Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s Texas Hold-Um tournament..
  14. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get kickbacks as an EX-congressman?.
  15. Still working on a David Wallace Mind Control Machine, the Imitationtron 7000..
  16. Waiting for someone to strap a bottle rocket on his hiney and point him toward Virginia..
* Sixteen because 10 is never enough for Tom DeLay
Hop over to http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/1129/how-can-we-miss-you-if-you-wont-leave for the entire piece How Can We Miss You If You Won't Leave?

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 10, 2006