Thursday, March 25, 2010

The party that cried 'wolf.'

The right had an opportunity to oppose healthcare from a position of principle, and to give their best argument about the morality of the bill, the ideals of individualism vs. a collective modality, or about why the free market could solve the vexing problem of insuring the uninsured if Government were not involved. Though they still might have lost such an argument, they might not have, and would certainly have made their ideals and principles well known through that effort.

But instead, they threw bombast about Marxism and Death Panels. Instead of principled defenders of their faith, we got shrill talk show hosts coming across as the angry, bitter old men that most of them are. Up until the last (and even after that) the 'tea partiers' have come across as a bunch of whiny juveniles. And in having lost that debate they have set themselves up for more problems in the future.

Had opponents of health care reform won, they would in fact have been able to back up every word and prediction they said about it by saying, 'Look what we saved you from.'

But they did not prevail. And the harsh rhetoric they used has probably painted them into a corner. People will be looking for the government takeover of hospitals, insurance companies and the rest of the health care system. They will be looking for a Stalinist police state. They will be waiting for their ration cards before they can see a doctor. They will be waiting with terror for the Death Panel to come knock on their door in the middle of the night.

Of course none of this will happen, and when it doesn't then you will have to wonder how many people will listen the next time the GOP cries 'wolf.'

Thursday, March 18, 2010

One down, five to go

Brigham Young 99, Florida 92 in 2 OT. Unfortunately I had to work so I missed the game. But I still like the result.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Repost of 'Hatch Act'


Saturday, March 13, 2010

Hatch Act
Just in case you're wondering why I haven't been blogging lately, I am now working a job as a census enumerator (in addition to my other two jobs.)

The time involved however is only a part of the reason. As soon as I became a Federal Employee, I was covered by the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act significantly limits what I can do. Among the activities I can't do or can only do in a very limited capacity include partisan political work, soliciting campaign contributions and speaking out in support of candidates or parties, or conversely against candidates or parties.

Luckily this job will end in a few weeks. Until then, it's been an eye opener in a lot of ways, not the least of which is that if you become a Federal employee you lose some of your Constitutional rights. No wonder so many people tee off on the Federal Government, because people who work for the Federal Government could lose their jobs or go to prison if they were to use the wrong words to dispute what is being said.

Labels: census, Federal government, Hatch Act
# posted by Eli Blake @ 8:26 AM
I'm not sure you are correct on this one Eli. You should not do those things *while you are on the job* for the census. On your own time, you can do most of the things you mention - you are a "less restricted" federal employee. I work for the Department of Energy (through a DOE contractor) and I can do those things, and many of my co-workers do, so can't believe you would be more restricted through a part-time temporary census job....

# posted by Blogger miriam : 14 March, 2010 19:51


This actually has little to do with being a federal employee. What private company would approve of employees using company time for political activities?

During your private time, you are free to campaign for a cause (political or otherwise). However, you may not use your affiliation with your employer as part of your campaign.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 15 March, 2010 07:51


Thursday, March 04, 2010

Memo used in GOP fundraising slide admits they plan to use fear and ego stroking as fundraising tools.

Hat tip to Ted at Rum, romanism and rebellion for this one.

It seems as though the RNC has finally gotten honest about one thing-- who their donors are and how to reach them.

Politico reports they have obtained an RNC document focused on fundraising in which they essentially dismiss their own donors as

“ego-driven” wealthy donors [who] can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

And how else besides 'tchochkes' do you get ego-driven, wealthy donors to open up their pocketbooks to the RNC? Well, the document addresses that too:

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

Here is the most amazing part:

The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.

The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”

Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

We all know the GOP has long based much of their fundraising and other appeals on fear, 'access,' ego, etc. But rarely have we gotten such a direct look at it.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

It's the arrogance, stupid!

Some things are just incomprehensible.

The Arizona legislature, after the unmitigated disaster that occurred last year (when the Governor essentially created a budget out of their failure by vetoing-and-pasting parts of bills together) and apparently unbuoyed by the fact that a poll last year showed their approval ratings are lower than those of Congress has been looking to reward themselves with more power, more prestige and promotions.

It started when they began seeking to change the right of voters to retain or not retain certain judges to it being done by the legislature. Constitutional issues regarding seperation of powers aside (especially since some of those judges have to rule on the constitutionality of laws the legislature passes,) I guess they just don't trust the voters to make those decisions. I can almost understand that, after all look at who we've been electing to the legislature for so many years.

Judges? Why not Senators. Republican lawmaker David Stevens has proposed that
Flag Counter