Woodland is a treasure this time of the year. I happen to be one of those most fortunate Woodlanders that live and work in our fair town. When the mornings are cool, and every house and yard seems to exhale a maze of scents as I pass by, the walk to work is a gift. I can make eye contact with bike riders and other walkers and exchange a good morning to ya. On the residential avenues I favor, I often meet front yard gardeners or can see the fruits of their work up close. Older houses breathe out in a different way, maybe it is the basements, but some exhale an older air with a mingle of smells so heavy they seem to have a color. Each day of walking to and from work, about 2.5 miles one way gives me a little sense, to be honest, of smugness. My car stays home in the garage, I get the exercise that it takes too much time to go to the gym for, and, if I leave the podcast at home, even almost an hour of peace.
The reality is, my Ipod usually has the most recent Democracy Now with Amy Goodman interviewing journalists such as Jeremy Scahill. It is always information provided in a depth that is foreign to cable news. So these mornings are a study in contrast with the beauty of the people and place that is Woodland and the precariousness of life in so many other places in this world.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Good Work, Mike Thompson!
Congressman Mike Thompson, who represents most of us in Woodland in the U.S. House of Representatives, authored an amendment that was adopted by the House Ways & Means Committee on Wednesday, which would update the Foreigh Investment in Real Property Tax Act, a tax law which was enacted before the current plague of identity theft.
Currently, the Act places sales of property under more scrutiny if the seller is from overseas, to ensure that sellers pay all appropriate taxes. U.S. sellers can avoid the additional scrutiny by providing the buyer with the sellers' social security numbers or taxpayer ID numbers. Because identify theft has become such a scourge across the country, many sellers are reluctant to give that information, causing deals to fall apart or causing buyers to assume liability if the property seller fails to pay certain taxes.
Thompson's amendment would,if enacted by Congress as part of the Taxpaper Protection Act (HR 1677), change the tax code to allow sellers of property to provide his or her tax ID number to a trusted third party, like an escrow company, thereby protecting the seller's identity and not placing the buyer at risk of being billed for the seller's tax liability. Thompson was quoted on Wednesday, following the Ways & Means vote, as saying, "Privacy has become a growing concern for people involved in real estate transactions. The current law gives too many people access to sellers' personal information. This change makes sure that information is protected."
Thank you, Mike Thompson. It is this kind of attention to detail that makes me proud to have you as my representative in the House. Keep up the good work!
Molly Two
Currently, the Act places sales of property under more scrutiny if the seller is from overseas, to ensure that sellers pay all appropriate taxes. U.S. sellers can avoid the additional scrutiny by providing the buyer with the sellers' social security numbers or taxpayer ID numbers. Because identify theft has become such a scourge across the country, many sellers are reluctant to give that information, causing deals to fall apart or causing buyers to assume liability if the property seller fails to pay certain taxes.
Thompson's amendment would,if enacted by Congress as part of the Taxpaper Protection Act (HR 1677), change the tax code to allow sellers of property to provide his or her tax ID number to a trusted third party, like an escrow company, thereby protecting the seller's identity and not placing the buyer at risk of being billed for the seller's tax liability. Thompson was quoted on Wednesday, following the Ways & Means vote, as saying, "Privacy has become a growing concern for people involved in real estate transactions. The current law gives too many people access to sellers' personal information. This change makes sure that information is protected."
Thank you, Mike Thompson. It is this kind of attention to detail that makes me proud to have you as my representative in the House. Keep up the good work!
Molly Two
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Mr. Nielsen's History Lesson
Columnist Jim Nielsen chooses to use a historical example to prove his argument that redeployment from Iraq is a momentous error. I too believe history is a deep font of knowledge that statesmen should study before making decisions. But the key to a good use of history is an accurate understanding of history.
Let’s look at just one of Mr. Nielsen’s examples. He chose to compare Great Britain’s termination of its Palestinian Mandate to the recent Democrats' proposal to redeploy from Iraq within 12 months. He suggests that Britain’s departure ignited that region in civil war and terrorism. He neglects to mention that when Britain left Palestine the terrorism of the Zionists had already begun. Britain left because it foresaw a “lose-lose” situation. They could either enter into a protracted fight against Jewish Zionists and earn the enmity of everyone sympathetic to the victims of the Holocaust, or leave the Zionist and Palestinians to work out their own destiny and suffer the type of criticism Mr. Nielsen now levels. Britain chose the latter because it best suited their own interest. Had they chose to stay, Britain might be still spilling their children’s blood in Palestine today, and that is assuming their entire economy hadn’t already collapsed under the burden of policing the globe.
There are similarities in these two episodes of Middle Eastern history. In both cases indigenous peoples chose internecine conflict to resolve divergent political-religious philosophies. A democratic nation such as ours can never effectively police these bloody local feuds. We can not stomach the brutal tactics needed to subdue such fierce and obstinate adversaries, particularly when we see no vital self-interest. To bring order to these types of warring factions, only the cold-blooded methods used by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russian can be effective. Fortunately, America has difficulty playing that role.
Mr. Nielsen should reach a little further back in the history of his own country to throw some light on our current situation in Iraq. He should remember that the original colonists of our country came here largely to escape the constant cycle of internecine warfare in Europe between peoples of different political or religious stripe. Some would argue that the greatness of our nation resulted from this divorce from Europe’s mindset and strife. Now, in our very dangerous modern age, Mr. Nielsen and others of his ilk, many close advisers to our President, wish to make us the policeman of the world and throw us into the thick of bloody and interminable conflicts far removed from our shores and interests. One has to wonder where was the referendum in which we Americans chose to bring the world to order and prosperity when we are still so far from either at home.
When Mr. Nielsen says, “Over the decades the intervention of other nations, particularly America have served to end the rein (sic) of despots and effect truces calming ancient sectarian animosities,” I wish he had given some examples because I can not think of any.
Finally, Mr. Nielsen’s piece misses the point entirely. He equates the War on Iraq with the war on terror. The War on Iraq is to the war on terror as would be an invasion of New York City to the war on organized crime. He suggests that the Democrats’ proposal will lose the war on terror. He ignores the fact that the invasion of Iraq was itself a disastrous setback in the war on terror. Our government is finally trying to recover from this setback so we can win the war on terror.
It is those bull-headed few who can not admit error who are the defeatist in our nation. Rather than encouraging those who beat their heads against the wall of a dead end alley, let us embrace those who seek a way that will bring us to victory in the war on terror and that much closer to peace in the world.
Let’s look at just one of Mr. Nielsen’s examples. He chose to compare Great Britain’s termination of its Palestinian Mandate to the recent Democrats' proposal to redeploy from Iraq within 12 months. He suggests that Britain’s departure ignited that region in civil war and terrorism. He neglects to mention that when Britain left Palestine the terrorism of the Zionists had already begun. Britain left because it foresaw a “lose-lose” situation. They could either enter into a protracted fight against Jewish Zionists and earn the enmity of everyone sympathetic to the victims of the Holocaust, or leave the Zionist and Palestinians to work out their own destiny and suffer the type of criticism Mr. Nielsen now levels. Britain chose the latter because it best suited their own interest. Had they chose to stay, Britain might be still spilling their children’s blood in Palestine today, and that is assuming their entire economy hadn’t already collapsed under the burden of policing the globe.
There are similarities in these two episodes of Middle Eastern history. In both cases indigenous peoples chose internecine conflict to resolve divergent political-religious philosophies. A democratic nation such as ours can never effectively police these bloody local feuds. We can not stomach the brutal tactics needed to subdue such fierce and obstinate adversaries, particularly when we see no vital self-interest. To bring order to these types of warring factions, only the cold-blooded methods used by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russian can be effective. Fortunately, America has difficulty playing that role.
Mr. Nielsen should reach a little further back in the history of his own country to throw some light on our current situation in Iraq. He should remember that the original colonists of our country came here largely to escape the constant cycle of internecine warfare in Europe between peoples of different political or religious stripe. Some would argue that the greatness of our nation resulted from this divorce from Europe’s mindset and strife. Now, in our very dangerous modern age, Mr. Nielsen and others of his ilk, many close advisers to our President, wish to make us the policeman of the world and throw us into the thick of bloody and interminable conflicts far removed from our shores and interests. One has to wonder where was the referendum in which we Americans chose to bring the world to order and prosperity when we are still so far from either at home.
When Mr. Nielsen says, “Over the decades the intervention of other nations, particularly America have served to end the rein (sic) of despots and effect truces calming ancient sectarian animosities,” I wish he had given some examples because I can not think of any.
Finally, Mr. Nielsen’s piece misses the point entirely. He equates the War on Iraq with the war on terror. The War on Iraq is to the war on terror as would be an invasion of New York City to the war on organized crime. He suggests that the Democrats’ proposal will lose the war on terror. He ignores the fact that the invasion of Iraq was itself a disastrous setback in the war on terror. Our government is finally trying to recover from this setback so we can win the war on terror.
It is those bull-headed few who can not admit error who are the defeatist in our nation. Rather than encouraging those who beat their heads against the wall of a dead end alley, let us embrace those who seek a way that will bring us to victory in the war on terror and that much closer to peace in the world.
Friday, March 23, 2007
The Military-Industrial-Entrepreneurial Complex
Today the House passed a bill that establishes a timetable for a military withdrawal from Iraq. Hopefully if this bill passes through Congress, it will bring us a step closer to ending the War on Iraq. But I worry that, once this war is over, we will cease our concern about future aggressive misadventures. I hope some true statesmen in our Congress can discover the underlying weaknesses in our current diplomatic and military infrastructure that lends itself to such grossly misguided and costly wars.
Eisenhower in the twilight of his career pointed out the nascent tumor that he called the military-industrial complex. He made clear his worry over the dangers it posed to our nation. He said, “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Today we have no draft and our volunteer army is not a true cross section of our nation’s citizenry as it was in World War II. In addition, Cheney and Rumsfeld have radically transformed the infrastructure of our war machine through the privatization of many military functions. Now even armed combatants our nation employs through private entrepreneurs. These functions previously had resided within our uniformed armed forces that were sworn to the Constitution and managed by carefully cultivated military professionals themselves so sworn.
We take for granted that it is profitable for our industries to provide the machinery of war. But now it is profitable to provide even the human fodder of war. With all this profit, where is the incentive for diplomacy and peace? When we can mortgage our progeny’s wealth to borrow money for the machinery of war, when we can outsource the blood that is shed, when all diplomacy decisions are influenced by war profiteers, what chance has peace? War must be the most dreaded decision a nation can make. But today it has become the decision that makes the most business sense to an influential cabal at the very centers of government.
I wonder what Eisenhower might say had he lived to see the nascent tumor he diagnosed not so long ago metastasize into the cancerous military-industrial-entrepreneurial complex that now threatens our nation. Eisenhower was a soldier who knew the hell of war and, for that knowledge, cherished peace. He cherished peace so much that he warned us of our time’s dangerous conflict of interest between the business of war and a foreign policy of peace. Had Eisenhower seen Cheney climb back and forth from the bed of war profiteering to the bed of government power, I am certain he would shudder at the insanity that is the norm in our nation today.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
White House Not Curious about Classified Leak
“You know you are a political junkie when,” on a beautiful Friday morning off work, my excitement is found watching the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform explore whether or not the White House followed its own procedures mandated when there is disclosure of classified information. The first panel consisted of Valerie Plame establishing, under oath, that she had been a covert agent until Robert Novak published her identity and her CIA connections, but it was the second panel that had me riveted.
Dr. James Knodell, Director of Office of Security to the White House testified that there was no investigation by his office following the Valerie Plame classified disclosure, claiming that there was a criminal investigation ongoing. It was pointed out that this investigation has taken years to end and had a very narrow focus. The questioning brought to light that even through President Bush had said there would be an investigation there was none. Importantly, Executive Order 12958 signed by President Bush in March 2003, required officials “take appropriate and prompt corrective action,” whenever there is a leak of classified information.
This Executive Order has been used in many cases such as against an officer who leaked information about Abu Ghraib prison. The shocking implication is that someone leaked classified information in the White House, for political reasons, which destroyed an information gathering network consisting of, not just Valerie Plame, but all her carefully built contacts that may have been providing information on proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran and Iraq. Bottom line is that someone has remained in the White House for 4 years with access to classified information that has violated the code, put national security at risk and may have caused deaths of covert agents. There has been no investigation or corrective action taken to prevent additional violations as per Executive Order 12958. The AP wire was quick to headline that there was nothing new in the Plame testimony. There was information in the Fitzgerald transcripts that she verified.
The mainstream press, as I write this Saturday morning, is simply not addressing the non-compliance and lack of curiosity about the act of treason which occurred within their ranks at the White House. As a last point, Dr. Knodell was asked if an investigation was planned since the criminal investigation focused on Libby had ended. He indicated that none was planned. These actions are a strange way to show that national security is a priority with the Bush Administration.
Dr. James Knodell, Director of Office of Security to the White House testified that there was no investigation by his office following the Valerie Plame classified disclosure, claiming that there was a criminal investigation ongoing. It was pointed out that this investigation has taken years to end and had a very narrow focus. The questioning brought to light that even through President Bush had said there would be an investigation there was none. Importantly, Executive Order 12958 signed by President Bush in March 2003, required officials “take appropriate and prompt corrective action,” whenever there is a leak of classified information.
This Executive Order has been used in many cases such as against an officer who leaked information about Abu Ghraib prison. The shocking implication is that someone leaked classified information in the White House, for political reasons, which destroyed an information gathering network consisting of, not just Valerie Plame, but all her carefully built contacts that may have been providing information on proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran and Iraq. Bottom line is that someone has remained in the White House for 4 years with access to classified information that has violated the code, put national security at risk and may have caused deaths of covert agents. There has been no investigation or corrective action taken to prevent additional violations as per Executive Order 12958. The AP wire was quick to headline that there was nothing new in the Plame testimony. There was information in the Fitzgerald transcripts that she verified.
The mainstream press, as I write this Saturday morning, is simply not addressing the non-compliance and lack of curiosity about the act of treason which occurred within their ranks at the White House. As a last point, Dr. Knodell was asked if an investigation was planned since the criminal investigation focused on Libby had ended. He indicated that none was planned. These actions are a strange way to show that national security is a priority with the Bush Administration.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Rexroad Blog As Hate Mail
Reading through Matt Rexroad's blog over the past several days has left me feeling as though I'm reading some pretty mean hate mail. He's furious with someone, although it's hard to tell exactly who, because of the failure of the Bush Administration to provide adequate services to our vets. He's upset at a Marine commander who wouldn't let him be some sort of hero in Iraq (preventing him from recovering the bodies of American soldiers who shouldn't have been put in harm's way in the first place). He's determined to solidify his position on medical marijuana identification cards in Yolo County (sore loser on the sups' vote?), because the appeals court decided against a woman who will die if she cannot use marijuana to keep her alive, a fact he is clearly unable to absorb or analyze. He's obviously irked by this blog itself, because contributors are (allegedly) Democrats and active in their political party. He's mad at "the worst" people in our society (criminals and poor folks), who have the audacity to use public benefits to try to maintain their fragile health and the health of their kids. Folks who post comments on his blog call other bloggers nasty names (i.e., "she is always writing nonsensical letter to the editor," and "more of a mutual admiration socieity of misfits and mal-contents"). Mr. Rexroad's anger seems to encourage this kind of name-calling. It's pretty juvenile, but also typical of the Rove followers who like to demonize those who disagree with them or their leaders.
Why is Mr. Rexroad so mad all the time? Is having two full-time jobs just too much for him? Or is spending so much of his time blogging keeping him from doing the full-time job the voters placed him in?
Frankly, his comment about "the people of Woodland are not going to shape their view of my service as a supervisor based on the Iraq war or my support of Senator John McCain" says a lot about how he perceives those voters. We can connect the dots. The voters do indeed care about Mr. Rexroad's conservative political agenda, and his continuing dedication to far right Republican values. His support of the Bush Administration's war on the Iraqi people, and his support of a candidate who believes that more war, not less, is a good thing, will have a direct impact on his credibility as a supervisor and as a person of integrity. Supervisors are called upon to make important decisions about the provision of social services to the poorest people in Yolo County, services including temporary aid to needy families, food stamps, medical care, job training, educational services, and even the veterans' services (including medical services) he so angrily espouses about in his blog.
Will Mr. Rexroad's perception of poor people (as some of the "worst" among us) affect his decisions as a county supervisor? How will he vote when welfare reform requires more county money, since the federal dollars will continue to shrink? Will he care that many veterans are those same poor people, needing mental health services, and health care, and food stamps? Will Mr. Rexroad put the money where his mouth is? Will he cut "the worst people" off at the knees? Time will tell. And his constituents are watching him now. His behaviors, all of them, tell them who he is, not just who he wants them to believe he is.
Why is Mr. Rexroad so mad all the time? Is having two full-time jobs just too much for him? Or is spending so much of his time blogging keeping him from doing the full-time job the voters placed him in?
Frankly, his comment about "the people of Woodland are not going to shape their view of my service as a supervisor based on the Iraq war or my support of Senator John McCain" says a lot about how he perceives those voters. We can connect the dots. The voters do indeed care about Mr. Rexroad's conservative political agenda, and his continuing dedication to far right Republican values. His support of the Bush Administration's war on the Iraqi people, and his support of a candidate who believes that more war, not less, is a good thing, will have a direct impact on his credibility as a supervisor and as a person of integrity. Supervisors are called upon to make important decisions about the provision of social services to the poorest people in Yolo County, services including temporary aid to needy families, food stamps, medical care, job training, educational services, and even the veterans' services (including medical services) he so angrily espouses about in his blog.
Will Mr. Rexroad's perception of poor people (as some of the "worst" among us) affect his decisions as a county supervisor? How will he vote when welfare reform requires more county money, since the federal dollars will continue to shrink? Will he care that many veterans are those same poor people, needing mental health services, and health care, and food stamps? Will Mr. Rexroad put the money where his mouth is? Will he cut "the worst people" off at the knees? Time will tell. And his constituents are watching him now. His behaviors, all of them, tell them who he is, not just who he wants them to believe he is.
Dust-up on Rexroad Website
Matt Rexroad created a dustup on his website on Tuesday in the predictable Republican manner. He evidently didn’t like Yolorose pointing out that his referring to those who must get healthcare services from the County as the “worst” or that perhaps the Republican Bush Administration and the previous Congressional majority may carry some blame for the state of our healthcare for our veterans. In true Republican fashion, Mr. Rexroad tried to impugn the credibility of Yolorose by outing her as a local Democrat. If being active in your party of choice lowers credibility when you speak, then the opinions expressed by Matt Rexroad are truly partisan and lacking credibility. As many of you already know, Matt is president of Meridan Pacific, Inc. According to his website, he was California Political Director for President Bush, and is the Political Director for the Assembly Republican Caucus. His job is to get Republicans elected and provide election strategies. He did not give up this work when he became the Supervisor for District 3.
It is my belief that we, as citizens, have allowed the Republican strategists to dominate our local and national press as well as other media without challenge for many years. The Rovian practice of changing the subject and attacking the personal credibility of the opposition is well used and, in fact, allowed the US to go into a devastating war without proper debate. In Yolo County we may not be on that scale but our issues are important to our futures and those of our children. No one voice or view should be allowed to dominate the public discussion, and if Yolo County citizens allow that to happen, then shame on us. Blogs have become a way to allow many voices and views to be in discussion and it is open to all. I encourage others in Yolo County to start their own blog and put even more texture into the Yolo County and national discussions of issues. As Matt so kindly pointed out, many blogging sites are free, so even those without their own website, can also be heard in this virtual town house discussion.
It is my belief that we, as citizens, have allowed the Republican strategists to dominate our local and national press as well as other media without challenge for many years. The Rovian practice of changing the subject and attacking the personal credibility of the opposition is well used and, in fact, allowed the US to go into a devastating war without proper debate. In Yolo County we may not be on that scale but our issues are important to our futures and those of our children. No one voice or view should be allowed to dominate the public discussion, and if Yolo County citizens allow that to happen, then shame on us. Blogs have become a way to allow many voices and views to be in discussion and it is open to all. I encourage others in Yolo County to start their own blog and put even more texture into the Yolo County and national discussions of issues. As Matt so kindly pointed out, many blogging sites are free, so even those without their own website, can also be heard in this virtual town house discussion.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Supervisor Rexroad's Values Showing
I read Matt Rexroad's blog about his Marine experience with high regard and concern for our veterans who have had to serve in Iraq. As a Marine, Matt is so right that veteran's have been failed since the start of this war by the military itself, and absolutely, "the heads should keep rolling on this one." I would add, all the way to the White House. My shock came when I read his last paragraph where he indicts the State of California and the Board of Supervisors for being too concerned with the health care provided to the "worst" people in our society. He mentions the prison health care system as taking too much focus for the State. I would remind Mr. Rexroad that in the US, to imprison someone is to take on that person's health care, though we might debate the level of care. My concern is that Supervisor Rexroad inaccurately segues into including this label of "worst" to all who find themselves needing to go to the county for their health care. Yolo County's system of medical and mental health care is the leaking safety net for children who find themselves born to poor parents, people who are ravaged by mental health issues or medical disabilities, and yes, veterans of this and previous wars who find themselves homeless due to untreated mental health issues. These mental health issues may include PTSD, which can increase risk of poverty and/or drug and alcohol abuse. I ask Supervisor Rexroad as a freshman to his position, to consider carefully the complexity of the issues he took on when he recently took the oath of office as Supervisor for District 3. In this war, there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" just those in need for many reasons. Since the previous Republican majority in Congress and President Bush, whom Matt Rexroad ardently supports, had chosen to rip up our social safety net through drying up federal funds or making access difficult, our Yolo County resources are very limited and our people in need are many. Seeing his constituents who may need County resources as the "worst" among us, is not going to help this supervisor make sound decisions on the use of these limited resources. Count me as one who is disgusted that Mr. Rexroad attempts to lay the terrible treatment of veterans with the State of California, which by the way has a Democratic majority, while not directing his vitriol at the true offenders, the Bush administration at the federal level and their political hack appointees at all levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)