Shine The World's Biggest Spotlight On Them!

The more I watch the U.S. Senate, the more disgusted I become. The arcane "Rules" of the Senate are out of touch with the principles of Democracy and majority rule.

There are many instances of Senators abusing and misusing these rules for personal political gain or to hold something up until a project or an appropriation of money is given to his or her State.

Pardon my old fashioned values, but that sounds a bit like extortion. Don't call it "politics," it's extortion--especially if there isn't a bona fide cause for the hold.

As the health care bill torturously creeps through the U.S. Senate toward an up or down vote, we have all become front row spectators to the bizarre "cloture" rule that requires 60 votes to prevent a filibuster so that there can even be a debate on the Senate floor.

But what is an even more egregious Rule than cloture is the "HOLD" that any one Senator can place on anything that comes up for a vote or approval in the Senate. So, for example, if a position in the Federal government requires "Senate Confirmation," what it really means is that we have allowed our elected representatives to create a set of internal rules that allows any one Senator prevent a person's name from ever coming up for a vote by the entire Senate.

The Senatorial Hold has is being used right now by our recently appointed Senator George LeMieux to block the nomination of the next ambassador to Brazil.

So, for any reason, or, if he so chooses, for no reason at all, a man who was appointed by his best friend to a job that no one elected him to, can, for the next 18 months, decide that the United States should not have an Ambassador to the country of Brazil--and, he doesn't have to tell us the reasons why he has placed a "hold" on his nomination.

The St. Petersburg Times article on November 21, 2009, on this issue mentioned a former "hold" by Senator Larry Craig in 2003 that blocked hundreds of unrelated Air Force promotions until his state of Idaho received four C-130 cargo planes for the Idaho National Guard. I ask you again is that politics or extortion? It's clearly an abuse of public power by one person, but our system is so dysfunctional--by design--that it is considered acceptable behavior by Senators. Yet, how many people outside of Washington, D.C. think that is an acceptable system or acceptable personal behavior?

Someone from a small State with a tiny population (e.g. Wyoming), can decide the fate of the political process of the entire country-- and, the Senator doesn't even have to publicize it or give his or her reasons, unless WE do something about it.

For years, these types of things have gone on, largely unnoticed and often unreported because those who do the reporting are "embedded" with these politicians and are largely desensitized to the abuses (and think it's allowed because of these crazy rules, or they otherwise slough it off and label it as "politics" as usual). With the impending death of journalism and newspaper investigative reporting, I am concerned that there will likely be even less reporting of these activities in the future unless we force things to change.

It is time for us to SHINE A LIGHT on these Holds. Publicize them, blog about them, ask questions about them, and demand that these "rules" allowing one American to stop the Senate from acting, come to an end.

When I watch the actions of our Senators, I am reminded of a poignant line from the movie "Nuts" in which Barbara Streisand's character was facing a mental competency hearing in Court, and she was questioning the wisdom of having one particular Judge have the sole power to determine whether or not she was incompetent and unable to make her own decisions, just because her behavior was eccentric and outspoken. "Why does he get to decide what happens to me... What if he's just an asshole with power?...."

Why should any one Senator be able to stop our democracy dead in its tracks?

We must immediately publicize any Holds that are placed on any legislation or any appointments and SHINE A LIGHT ON THESE SENATORS TO EXPLAIN THEIR BEHAVIOR. There may well be valid reasons for their actions and if so, they should have to tell us and not keep their actions a secret, in the shadows.

Turn on your spotlights, people, and start looking for these "holds" and start reporting them on the internet. Seek out progressive investigative reporters and inform them of your findings. Write letters to the Editor. Demand explanations. Make Democracy work and stop this hostage situation from being routinely employed and accepted.

Wouldn't it be great if this "Rule" became an embarrassing thing that people in the Senate no longer use because there's just too much heat under those bright lights?

Remember "I've Got A Secret?" ....It's Back....

In the 1950's and 60's there was a TV game show called "I've Got a Secret." A mystery guest would appear and whisper to the Host what his or her secret was, and the celebrity panelists would play a game of "20 questions" to try to guess the secret. The audience at home would be clued in by a message on the bottom of the screen.

Flash forward to 2009 for the current version of the I've Got A Secret game. In today's version, we know what the "guest" does, we just don't know who the "guest" is. The celebrity panelists are the members of the Florida Legislature and the Governor. And, unfortunately, the folks watching all of this at home aren't being given any messages on the bottom of the screen.

The guest is an agent for undisclosed parties. The guest's name is Florida Energy Associates, LLC, a company formed by a Daytona Beach lawyer in 2008 to represent unknown parties who want to drill for oil off the coast of Florida.

It's not a secret that Florida Energy Associates, LLC has hired lots of lobbyists and is reportedly spending lots of money to try to convince the panelists to allow offshore oil drilling within nine miles of our beautiful Florida coastline. So far, however, this guest hasn't answered any of the important questions--the most important one being--EXACTLY WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO GET OIL LEASES FOR?

And guess, what? So far, according to a recent St. Petersburg Times article, Florida Energy Associates has refused to say who they are representing, and furthermore, they don't intend to disclose the names of their principals who will apply for the oil leases until after the law is changed. (Talk about putting the cart before the horse....)

In other words, Florida Energy Associates believes that it's none of our business. They've got a secret.

All we have is a pristine coastline that's at risk of being irreparably destroyed. So I say that it's high time that the panelists on this game show (the Florida Legislature) REQUIRE THE GUEST TO ANSWER THAT IMPORTANT QUESTION or get sent home (without a copy of the home game).

Don't the members of the Florida Legislature care if the oil drillers have the financial wherewithal to pay for the clean up of their spills?

Do we even know how much it would cost in cleanup costs alone if they (WHOEVER THEY ARE) were allowed to put "new, state of the art, safe drilling platforms"-- like the one that is presently leaking off the coast of Australia (and has been for weeks)-- within sight of our beautiful beaches?

How can the Legislature even consider allowing drilling without knowing the costs of cleanup, the potential loss of sales tax revenue from a spill, the loss of property values from a spill, and the identity of the drillers who would be responsible?

Don't the members of the Florida Legislature want to know if the drillers might be the Chinese, the Saudi's, Hugo Chavez, Bernie Madoff, Kim Jung Il, al Qaeda, or anyone else???????

Don't we care who is "setting up shop" right offshore from Clearwater Beach?

We've now seen the pilot show of the new version of "I've Got A Secret." It's time to cancel this show. Let's face facts, it's been a bad concept since the 60's. Although I hear it's still running in syndication in Texas. Let it stay there.

It's called Due Diligence, and our Florida Legislature needs to engage in it and needs to start asking LOTS OF QUESTIONS and DEMAND LOTS OF ANSWERS, UNDER OATH. Let this bill never hit the floor of either house, or let the hearings begin (and televise them)!

We're In Uncharted Waters, Only There's No Water

Eight years and counting. Twice as long as World War II, approaching the length of the Viet Nam War. No end in sight. No clear mission in sight. No end to the suffering of the soldiers and their families.

Our soldiers have done their duty. It is our civilian leaders who need to act like civilians and stop this endless war.

On this day when we honor our Veterans, what better honor could we bestow upon them than exercising sound judgment to preserve their lives?

Do we ask who is supplying the weapons and bullets being fired at our soldiers? Why don't we ask? Are we afraid we might discover that it is our own defense industry who has sold arms around the world that are now being used to kill our soldiers?

Do we ask how much this endless war is costing our nation in lives lost and borrowed dollars spent? Why not?

Do we discuss making the War "budget neutral" by paying for it with a War Tax (in the same way that we demand that health care reform legislation be "paid for")? Why not?

Why is there no concern that we are increasing the deficit with every bullet that is fired, every MRE that a soldier eats, every no bid contract that Halliburton receives? Why is stopping those discussions always "off the table?"

Why are we trying to build other nations while ours is in crisis and in need of repair?

Do we stop the Stop Loss program and the endless tours of duty that are destroying our troops and their families? Why not?

Do we consider the impacts of the mental illnesses being inflicted on our soldiers? Are we prepared for more Post Traumatic Stress Disorder incidents at home and abroad? Certainly, we don't expect these tragedies to decrease, do we?

When will we adequately fund the mental health needs of our Veterans when they return? We haven't yet. When will we begin to do so?

Why don't we provide health care benefits for all of our Veterans through the VA and not just those Veterans who have a service-related injury? Surely we owe them more.

It's long past time to honor our Veterans and our soldiers by ending these 2 wars and bringing our troops home where they belong. We can honor our active duty soldiers and Veterans through sensible policies and by finally giving them sufficient benefits. They have more than earned them.

After 8 years, it should be clear that we remain stranded in uncharted waters. Let's hope we can find our moral compass soon.....

One Year Later, Has "Yes We Can" Been Replaced By "No I Won't?"

November 4, 2008, was an exciting, historic day. Democrats and Independents answered the call of "Yes We Can" in record numbers, with a voter turnout never seen before.

Thousands gathered and cheered in Grant Park--many of whom had tears streaming down their faces, never believing they would ever live to see a black man elected as President of the United States. The Obama family was warmly greeted on that cool evening by that loving crowd, as a waive of optimism spread across our country and across the world for a new direction for America. Film footage of spontaneous celebrations from all around the world startled us all.

There was a great deal of optimism in the promises of Hope and Change. For the first time in a long time, there was a feeling that we were not only going to change directions as a country, but there were many transgressions of the previous 8 years that needed to be rectified.

"Yes We Can" was firmly rooted in Candidate Obama's promises of ending the war in Iraq; re-evaluating the war in Afghanistan; providing universal health care for all Americans and paying for it by ending the tax cuts for the richest 2%; closing Guantanimo Bay and providing real trials for those prisoners in which they would be apprised of the charges and evidence against them and not held indefinitely without knowing the charges against them; ending torture and rendition of political prisoners to black site prisons in other countries known to torture; ending warrantless wiretapping of Americans; ending Presidental "signing statements" and restoring the importance of the rule of law as the foundation of our democracy; regulating the banks and brokerage firms on Wall Street so that reckless investment schemes could not again bring us to the brink of financial collapse; creating green jobs for the future; recognizing the importance of science both in terms of stem cell research and in combating global warming; talking to our enemies and using diplomacy instead of bombs as a first option; advancing civil rights of all Americans regardless of race or sexual preference; practicing bi-partisanship and reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups; ending the politicalization of the Justice Department; providing better care and treatment for our veterans; and improving the quality of our educational system so that we can compete in the world economy. (Just to name a few.)

Never before had a President assumed office with so many serious problems. The task was, and remains, daunting. There are few quick fixes.

I understand that there are severe institutional problems in not being able to control the legislative branch, but there are many things that can be accomplished through executive orders and choosing the right people to work in the exectutive branch. It's those things that the President can control--that he isn't charging quickly enough and aggressively on-- that make me wonder if I'm going to have to "keep the Change"....

For the Progressives and Independents who have been waiting a long time for the above mentioned Changes to occur, the bold assertions that "Change is Coming" and "Yes We Can" have been brushed aside.

It's hard to implement changes on Wall Street when you choose Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers as your agents of change. They were part of creating the problems that led to the financial crisis and they cannot be expected to point the fingers at themselves. "Too big to fail" is not a policy we can allow to continue. Yet, it has and will under the current administration.

In the area of ending warrantless wiretapping, rendition, and providing real trials for the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay, this might as well be the third term of George W. Bush. I see no policy Changes whatsoever.

When Barack Obama was a state senator in Illinois, there is film footage of him saying that he strongly supported a single payer health care system (and recognized it as the only way to provide health care for all and to reduce costs), but in order to accomplish that, he said that "we would first need to control the House, the Senate and the White House..." Well, guess what, that's what the American people voted for, and yet, notwithstanding the mandate provided by the electorate to the Democrats, President Obama promptly set his sights much, much lower.

First of all, the President outsourced the health care bills to Congress, refused to adequately use his bully pulpit and extraordinarily high approval ratings to hammer home real health care reform. To this day, the President refuses to clearly state what it is that he really wants in "his" health care reform.

Single payer could not even be debated? Passing it might not have been possible, but not standing up for the principle and talking about it is unforgiveable. If not now, when? Never even discussing single payer (and taking it off the table from the start) was a huge tactical error and a stab in the back to his base--and a betrayal of his own beliefs.

Despite the promises to end the business as usual with lobbyists and special interest groups, a back room deal was quickly struck with Big Pharma that prevents the ability to reduce drug costs through volume purchasing discounts (another often mentioned idea during the campaign). It didn't take long to sweep that noble idea under the rug in the Oval Office, now did it?

By the way he's acting now, I wonder if the President would sell his soul for one solitary Republican vote on the health care bill? While the ihe idea of bi-partisanship was noble, initially, how long do we have to watch the continuous "dance" with the party of "No" before we want to scream?

Olympia Snowe's one-time vote for a watered down bill that forces more purchasing of higher priced health insurance from the same unregulated companies that have brought us to this untenable place is not exactly the Change I was hoping for when I cast my ballot a year ago.

I recall promises about fixing "Don't ask, don't tell." Couldn't that policy be rendered unenforceable with an Executive Order? Don't ask.

Four years after Katrina, would we finally build a hospital in New Orleans? Perhaps as a useful expenditure of stimulus money? No We Can't. (He even did his own version of the New Orleans fly-over recently. The President would love to stay longer and talk about "rebuilding" New Orleans, but he's off to a fundraiser in San Francisco).

To hear Tea Baggers and some Republicans talk about the President (and how they want their country back, etc.), you'd think he was a raving liberal. Quite the contrary. To date the President has been conservative and slow to push for the Change that he promised in the Campaign. He has in many instances continued the policies of the Bush administration and has catered far more to Republicans than to his base.

Don't get me wrong. I'm thankful to have an intelligent, thoughtful, articulate man as our President. But, measured against the bar that he set in the election, his actions have not lived up to the hype--at least not yet.

And one year later, I'm wondering if real Change will ever come. Until I see some progressive changes, I'm off the Kool-Aid.

What were Pete Townsend's immortal words in The Who's classic song "Won't Get Fooled Again?" "Meet the new boss, just the same as the old boss...."

For the sake of our country, and my sanity, I sure hope not.