Memorial Day, 2005
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The French Vote "No"
Can any "nation" survive if it's fundamental, unifying principles can not be enumerated in a constitution less-than-twice the length of the US federal constitution? Does such a "nation" even deserve to exist? The proposed EU constitution runs 575-pages...The US Constitution is about 12 in the same type-face. The British survive without any written constitution forcing tradition and necessity to ride-tandem adjusting to the needs of the people and the nation.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." ---James Madison.
The EU structure is reminiscent of the ancient Holy Roman Empire of the Hapsburg; that was neither "Holy" nor "Roman". It bound a varying alliance of duchies, principality, city-states and annexed territories together; but lacked a central raison e'tat to fall-back on in times of crisis. It's smaller successor-state, the Austro-Hungarian Empire also failed in crisis during the First World War. The creation of a European "super-state" may well have to wait until the moment of crisis that will weld the various interests together. Afterall, it took the America two wars with Britain on North American-soil, followed by the internecine Civil War to get from "The United States are..." To the "The United States is...."
The EU is and will continue to be an effective trading-block and economic alliance. It is not ready to be a "State" for it has not won the heart's of it's Peoples. And it's that plurality that is a major stumbling block, even moreso than it's resentments and fears of the unaccountable nomenklatura of Brussels-based Euro-technocrats that govern over them.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." ---James Madison.
The EU structure is reminiscent of the ancient Holy Roman Empire of the Hapsburg; that was neither "Holy" nor "Roman". It bound a varying alliance of duchies, principality, city-states and annexed territories together; but lacked a central raison e'tat to fall-back on in times of crisis. It's smaller successor-state, the Austro-Hungarian Empire also failed in crisis during the First World War. The creation of a European "super-state" may well have to wait until the moment of crisis that will weld the various interests together. Afterall, it took the America two wars with Britain on North American-soil, followed by the internecine Civil War to get from "The United States are..." To the "The United States is...."
The EU is and will continue to be an effective trading-block and economic alliance. It is not ready to be a "State" for it has not won the heart's of it's Peoples. And it's that plurality that is a major stumbling block, even moreso than it's resentments and fears of the unaccountable nomenklatura of Brussels-based Euro-technocrats that govern over them.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
The Gitmo Archipelago?
Hmmm, guess we'll have to add "gulag" to the ever-increasing list of political terms abused by those ignorant or subbornly-blind to the origins and meanings of such emotinally-loaded words. To be filed after "fascist", "holocaust" and "genocide"; and before "rights, human", "torture" and "victors' justice".
...I do not fear free spech, I'm merely annoyed by those who make free with their speech.
UPDATE: 2 June 2005
For those who have forgotten History;
Gulag.
Mistreatment.
Kolyma.
...I do not fear free spech, I'm merely annoyed by those who make free with their speech.
UPDATE: 2 June 2005
For those who have forgotten History;
Gulag.
Mistreatment.
Kolyma.
A Dark Horse?
“Thompson and Rice,
Two-thousand and Eight”
…has a nice rhythm to it.
Conservative, but not “scary".
Two-thousand and Eight”
…has a nice rhythm to it.
Conservative, but not “scary".
Monday, May 16, 2005
Joe Gets "It"
Joe Solmonese was interviewed by Metro Weekly on his settling in at HRC. One passage struck me as electorally-pertinent to the LRC's agenda;
"... Over the course of a few years, when we were not as successful as we would like to have been, we realized that the work of electing a woman to the United States Senate has to begin long before the 24-month election cycle. So we went about electing women to the state senate or house, or the mayor's office, or the county commission. We strengthened them by building their political operation so that when a U.S. Senate seat opened up the powers that be in that state said "She's the one who should go.' So when people asked, "Is that a policy shift? Are you helping women get elected to the state legislature instead of the U.S. Senate?" No. It's just another way of getting women elected to the U.S. Senate.
"We have to go out to the states and change the hearts and minds of people and we have to change the seats when the people on the Hill won't listen to us. I don't see one as being mutually exclusive of the other. It's just an added dimension to the federal work that we're doing. One of the things that I've been saying to other groups and to people in these states is that our priorities sometimes will intersect and sometimes won't, but we'll always be very clear with you what our particular goals are. ...."
Substitute "gay Republicans" for "women" in his comment. He's right, getting into the game is important, not just cheering from the sidelines. Getting gay Republicans elected should be a key component of upcoming LCR strategies, not just lobbying and good works....and doing-so at local, county and state-levels.
This ties-back to what I have said in a number of places, the G/L Repubican community should concentrate on local and state elections for 2008 and maybe 2012 as-well to counter-balance the Social Right. Attacking them at the National-level is out of our weight-class, and the 2008 Presidential election will be both devisive within the Party and probably counter-productive. There are no good, electable, gay-friendly GOP contenders that I see; and the likely GOP contenders are both gay-toxic and not up to defeating Sen. Hillarybeast on the General Election of 2008 nor in 2012. Let's both encourage the GOP's farm-team...and develop a few farm-team players ourselves...that have a potential National-office in their future.
"... Over the course of a few years, when we were not as successful as we would like to have been, we realized that the work of electing a woman to the United States Senate has to begin long before the 24-month election cycle. So we went about electing women to the state senate or house, or the mayor's office, or the county commission. We strengthened them by building their political operation so that when a U.S. Senate seat opened up the powers that be in that state said "She's the one who should go.' So when people asked, "Is that a policy shift? Are you helping women get elected to the state legislature instead of the U.S. Senate?" No. It's just another way of getting women elected to the U.S. Senate.
"We have to go out to the states and change the hearts and minds of people and we have to change the seats when the people on the Hill won't listen to us. I don't see one as being mutually exclusive of the other. It's just an added dimension to the federal work that we're doing. One of the things that I've been saying to other groups and to people in these states is that our priorities sometimes will intersect and sometimes won't, but we'll always be very clear with you what our particular goals are. ...."
Substitute "gay Republicans" for "women" in his comment. He's right, getting into the game is important, not just cheering from the sidelines. Getting gay Republicans elected should be a key component of upcoming LCR strategies, not just lobbying and good works....and doing-so at local, county and state-levels.
This ties-back to what I have said in a number of places, the G/L Repubican community should concentrate on local and state elections for 2008 and maybe 2012 as-well to counter-balance the Social Right. Attacking them at the National-level is out of our weight-class, and the 2008 Presidential election will be both devisive within the Party and probably counter-productive. There are no good, electable, gay-friendly GOP contenders that I see; and the likely GOP contenders are both gay-toxic and not up to defeating Sen. Hillarybeast on the General Election of 2008 nor in 2012. Let's both encourage the GOP's farm-team...and develop a few farm-team players ourselves...that have a potential National-office in their future.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Come Clean Joe....
Steve Koval at the Washington Blade has an insightful article on the "inflated" numbers the HRC's been claiming for it's membership. To count anyone who gave money or bought something at the gift-shop or web-store as a perpetual member is totally bogus and misleading. Joe Solmonese needs to clean house and come-clean with the real number of "paid" members of HRC for 2005.
As I said last Fall...frequently...the numbers the HRC released as part of their financial disclosure never jived with their membership-claims. I'll bet that less than 50,000 HRC "members" have actually paid their $35-minimum dues contribution for 2004-2005.
Update:
The HRC website Mission Statement claims of representing "...almost 600,000"? What is the real number? Surely they know how many members they have....
Their 2002 Annual Report page-18, the most-recent year they have posted) shows $7-million in Member contributions; at $35 a head, that's only 200,000-members. And it's unrealistic to assume that no-one contributed more, so the real number of "contributors" must be lower. Even at an average of $50 a head, that's only-140,000. Certainly many HRC members are "Partners" at $120-minimum-a-year each, and there are many Federal Club members who contribute well-over $1200-minimum a year to HRC in-order to get invited to the best parties. That further reduces the number of active dues-contributing members significantly. So what the real number, Joe?
This is the same report where they report that out of $17,399,678 in expenditures, only 24.6%($4,274,468) went to Federal and Field Advocacy; while 42.4% went to Management, General and Fundraising. ($7,379,845 aggr.) The Fundraising line-item ($4,580,243) alone is actually more than Federal and Field Advocacy's.
Would you give to a charity that comsumed 42.4% of it's budget internally?
As I said last Fall...frequently...the numbers the HRC released as part of their financial disclosure never jived with their membership-claims. I'll bet that less than 50,000 HRC "members" have actually paid their $35-minimum dues contribution for 2004-2005.
Update:
The HRC website Mission Statement claims of representing "...almost 600,000"? What is the real number? Surely they know how many members they have....
Their 2002 Annual Report page-18, the most-recent year they have posted) shows $7-million in Member contributions; at $35 a head, that's only 200,000-members. And it's unrealistic to assume that no-one contributed more, so the real number of "contributors" must be lower. Even at an average of $50 a head, that's only-140,000. Certainly many HRC members are "Partners" at $120-minimum-a-year each, and there are many Federal Club members who contribute well-over $1200-minimum a year to HRC in-order to get invited to the best parties. That further reduces the number of active dues-contributing members significantly. So what the real number, Joe?
This is the same report where they report that out of $17,399,678 in expenditures, only 24.6%($4,274,468) went to Federal and Field Advocacy; while 42.4% went to Management, General and Fundraising. ($7,379,845 aggr.) The Fundraising line-item ($4,580,243) alone is actually more than Federal and Field Advocacy's.
Would you give to a charity that comsumed 42.4% of it's budget internally?
Thursday, May 05, 2005
At Least Someone at CIA Knows What Needs to be Done
I'm glad to see that someone in-charge at the CIA has his head screwed-on right.
We should have an informal rule-of-engagement that when the United States is provoked to the point where we send in the Military, there's no cushy exile in Paris for the loser; that there is a personal price to be paid, in-full-measure. The same applies to Saddam, and it should have been enforced in Gulf War-1 as the price of Peace.
The skulls of our enemies should be used as head-table candy-dishes at White House State Dinners as a warning and reminder "...no better friend, no worse enemy". Barbaric? Well, it might help keep the barbarians in-line.
"...Jelly bean, Mr. Prime Minister?"
".... But in the days that followed the worst terror attack on U.S. soil, Schroen said his boss at the CIA also told him and his deputy in no uncertain terms to kill the al Qaeda leadership.
"What he said [was], 'I would like to see the head of bin Laden delivered back to me in a heavy cardboard box filled with dry ice, and I will take that down and show the president. And the rest of the lieutenants, you can put their heads on pikes'," Schroen told Reuters in an interview.
He was quoting Cofer Black, then the director of the CIA's counterterrorist center. "....
We should have an informal rule-of-engagement that when the United States is provoked to the point where we send in the Military, there's no cushy exile in Paris for the loser; that there is a personal price to be paid, in-full-measure. The same applies to Saddam, and it should have been enforced in Gulf War-1 as the price of Peace.
The skulls of our enemies should be used as head-table candy-dishes at White House State Dinners as a warning and reminder "...no better friend, no worse enemy". Barbaric? Well, it might help keep the barbarians in-line.
"...Jelly bean, Mr. Prime Minister?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)