As the PA Democratic party appears ready to endorse Arlen Specter for US Senate, I feel compelled to speak out against that decision.
Simply put, I just cannot stomach voting for Arlen Specter. Let's take a look at the great "career" Arlen claims to have had. First, and this should not be forgotten, is that Arlen came up with the fantastic single bullet theory for the Kennedy assassination. We should have known then that Arlen just wasnt quite right - or that he had an understanding of basic physics that is still about 50 years ahead of his time; I am opting for the former.
Following that, Arlen's next lowlight was excoriating Anita Hill on national TV - a move that not only embarrassed a young woman, but brought the nation Scalia's lap-dog, Clarence Thomas. Nothing like getting 2 votes in one for every conservative issue in front of the supreme court.
During the Bush administration, Arlen the "democrat" voted with Bush over 2000 times, support the war, support the TARP plan, and supported the deregulation of the financial industry that brought us the current financial situation.
Then, what did this upstanding Democrat do? He switched parties because he might lose an election? No integrity, no loyalty to party, just political expedience over values.
Finally, it was Arlen Specter that chaired the judiciary committee that confirmed Roberts and Alito, the duo that undid campaign finance law and is poised to destroy women's rights.
Joe Sestack is an actual Democrat. As a congressman he support Democratic values. He favors healthcare for all, bank regulation, opportunity for small business, and the appointment of non-activist judges to the Court. He is the right choice for PA.
Arlen Specter is not a Democrat. He is a vulture - trying to pick on the Democrats because his Republican experience got spoiled. Arlen does not share Democratic values, and his votes will continue to do damage to Democrat positions long after this election.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Introducing Buster
From time to time I may mention, either on twitter or on the blog, that I am hanging out with Buster, so I thought I should give him a proper introduction. This is Buster:
He is a one-year old "Jug", which is a mix of Pug and Jack Russell Terrier, and yes, he has the very active Jack Russell personality. He is a rescue from the Montgomery County SPCA, and has been with us for about 2 months. Buster also recently enjoyed his first snow:
He is a one-year old "Jug", which is a mix of Pug and Jack Russell Terrier, and yes, he has the very active Jack Russell personality. He is a rescue from the Montgomery County SPCA, and has been with us for about 2 months. Buster also recently enjoyed his first snow:
Term Limits for Philly City Council
Wilson Goode Jr. introduced a very interesting piece of legislation yesterday seeking to impose term limited on members of Philadelphia City Council. The bill would limit future electees to 3 consecutive 4 year terms (12 years), and allow current members to be elected twice more. Already, the bill has met staunch opposition from current members who opine that elections are term limits - if they were doing a poor job they would lose.
I am in favor of Goode's bill for the simple reason that in Philadelphia its naive to think that the electorate can impose term limits. With city politics still dominated by the smoke filled backroom, and old boys club deal making, its extremely difficult for progressive candidates to even get on a ballot, let alone raise enough money or support to unseat an incumbent. Imposing term limits in a city like Philadelphia will allow more good people to get involved in the political process; it will open the door to fresh ideas, new blood and vigorous debate. Yes, some very good public servants will see their careers cut short as a result of the term limit, but overall passage of term limits will serve as a good first step to breaking Philly away from the Chicago style of politics.
I am in favor of Goode's bill for the simple reason that in Philadelphia its naive to think that the electorate can impose term limits. With city politics still dominated by the smoke filled backroom, and old boys club deal making, its extremely difficult for progressive candidates to even get on a ballot, let alone raise enough money or support to unseat an incumbent. Imposing term limits in a city like Philadelphia will allow more good people to get involved in the political process; it will open the door to fresh ideas, new blood and vigorous debate. Yes, some very good public servants will see their careers cut short as a result of the term limit, but overall passage of term limits will serve as a good first step to breaking Philly away from the Chicago style of politics.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
More Progressive Summit
As promised, here are some more detailed thoughts about the Progressive Summit.
First, a huge batch of kudos to Michael Morrill and all the folks at Keystone Progress for organizing a wonderful event. The seminars were all interesting, the panelists excellent, and the debates informative.
My recap of the events I attended (because I am sure you are all so curious):
The gubernatorial debate, well actually conversation, was very interesting. I went into the event already supporting Joe Hoeffel, and he did not disappoint. He came out strongly in favor of women's rights, LGBT rights, and a progressive tax structure. To my mind, he is the only true progressive running.
With that said, I was hoping to learn a little more about Onorato during the debate. As a Philadelphian, even one with considerable interest in politics statewide, I really didnt know very much about him. I knew that Pittsburgh had grown considerably under his watch, but I didnt know his stance on progressive issues. I was very disappointed in his comments. To my mind, he came off as arrogant and abrasive, and while we all acknowledge that elections are not popularity contests, he really didnt help himself.
Wagner was also disappointing, sounds disconnected from the values of the crowd he was talking to when discussin LGBT issues and women's rights. It was not so much his stance, but they way he presented it. In the notes I made, his answer on gay marriage was basically: I dont favor it, but I do have some gay friends and they are nice people. That is not the sort of considerate response worthy of progressive support.
I also attended 6 seminars during the course of the program. I will only list the highlights below:
1. The blogging forum: Obviously, my blogging habits needed a little work, so it was great to hear Chris Bowers discuss strategies for effective blog messaging. My rededication to blogging in this space is a direct result of the discussion during that forum.
2. The debate between Sen. Daylin Leach and Tim Potts focusing on the need for a constitutional convention in PA. Leach did a fantastic job of explaining his opposition to a convention and left me convinced that his position was correct. In a nutshell, the argument by Potts is that a convention is needed to address problems with the legislature, such as the 11:00 voting rule, and other assorted procedural issues that are preventing efficient legislating. Leach argued, effectively, that a convention would be impossible to limit to only procedural issues due the many interests involved, and that the constitution is not the proper vehicle to advance social change issues, such as gun control, that would inevitably enter the discussion.
3. The final panel on Progressive Messaging featured a first-rate panel and very lively discussion of what it means to be a progressive. From the 4 panelists we received 4 definitions of a progressive and 4 different themes for effective communication. For me, the takeaway message is that Progressives continue to have their agenda items help back because of the amorphous nature of the movement itself. Even if being a progressive means something different to every progressive, the movement needs some universal definition of its ideals to enable consistent messaging.
First, a huge batch of kudos to Michael Morrill and all the folks at Keystone Progress for organizing a wonderful event. The seminars were all interesting, the panelists excellent, and the debates informative.
My recap of the events I attended (because I am sure you are all so curious):
The gubernatorial debate, well actually conversation, was very interesting. I went into the event already supporting Joe Hoeffel, and he did not disappoint. He came out strongly in favor of women's rights, LGBT rights, and a progressive tax structure. To my mind, he is the only true progressive running.
With that said, I was hoping to learn a little more about Onorato during the debate. As a Philadelphian, even one with considerable interest in politics statewide, I really didnt know very much about him. I knew that Pittsburgh had grown considerably under his watch, but I didnt know his stance on progressive issues. I was very disappointed in his comments. To my mind, he came off as arrogant and abrasive, and while we all acknowledge that elections are not popularity contests, he really didnt help himself.
Wagner was also disappointing, sounds disconnected from the values of the crowd he was talking to when discussin LGBT issues and women's rights. It was not so much his stance, but they way he presented it. In the notes I made, his answer on gay marriage was basically: I dont favor it, but I do have some gay friends and they are nice people. That is not the sort of considerate response worthy of progressive support.
I also attended 6 seminars during the course of the program. I will only list the highlights below:
1. The blogging forum: Obviously, my blogging habits needed a little work, so it was great to hear Chris Bowers discuss strategies for effective blog messaging. My rededication to blogging in this space is a direct result of the discussion during that forum.
2. The debate between Sen. Daylin Leach and Tim Potts focusing on the need for a constitutional convention in PA. Leach did a fantastic job of explaining his opposition to a convention and left me convinced that his position was correct. In a nutshell, the argument by Potts is that a convention is needed to address problems with the legislature, such as the 11:00 voting rule, and other assorted procedural issues that are preventing efficient legislating. Leach argued, effectively, that a convention would be impossible to limit to only procedural issues due the many interests involved, and that the constitution is not the proper vehicle to advance social change issues, such as gun control, that would inevitably enter the discussion.
3. The final panel on Progressive Messaging featured a first-rate panel and very lively discussion of what it means to be a progressive. From the 4 panelists we received 4 definitions of a progressive and 4 different themes for effective communication. For me, the takeaway message is that Progressives continue to have their agenda items help back because of the amorphous nature of the movement itself. Even if being a progressive means something different to every progressive, the movement needs some universal definition of its ideals to enable consistent messaging.
PA Progressive Summit
Hi....
Been gone from this blog for a long time. Why? Well, I was posting some writing on other places, doing the holiday thing, and generally being pretty busy. But I am back now and, after a rousing weekend at the Progressive Summit, I am ready to put some new effort into blogging in this space in addition to writing elsewhere.
I will have a more detailed review of the stimulation sessions I attended during the Summit, but here are a few quick thoughts:
1. It was really inspiring to be around so many progressives at one time. I learned a great deal about causes issues on which I had only a passing understanding, and had the chance to really get wonkish while discussing the issues I care about deeply. I really hope this becomes a yearly event.
2. I was surprisingly impressed with Chris Doherty. He was not afraid to give a few unpopular answers during the debate, he has a firm grasp on the issues, and he was personable, which goes a long way. Many folks held the fact that Scranton is not Philly or Pittsburgh against him, but I did not. Scranton is, by PA standards, a sizable city and Doherty has faced the same challenges in Scranton that he will confront in Harrisburg. I make no secret that I am a Hoeffel guy, but the pleasant surprise of the weekend was Chris Doherty.
3. As hard as I try, I just cant forgive Arlen Specter for his unfortunate management of the judiciary committee. While I would not go as far as some by turning my back to the podium, had Specter shown just a little backbone during the confirmations of Roberts and Alito the Citizens United decision may have had a different result.
Much more later, and much more frequent update to come.
Been gone from this blog for a long time. Why? Well, I was posting some writing on other places, doing the holiday thing, and generally being pretty busy. But I am back now and, after a rousing weekend at the Progressive Summit, I am ready to put some new effort into blogging in this space in addition to writing elsewhere.
I will have a more detailed review of the stimulation sessions I attended during the Summit, but here are a few quick thoughts:
1. It was really inspiring to be around so many progressives at one time. I learned a great deal about causes issues on which I had only a passing understanding, and had the chance to really get wonkish while discussing the issues I care about deeply. I really hope this becomes a yearly event.
2. I was surprisingly impressed with Chris Doherty. He was not afraid to give a few unpopular answers during the debate, he has a firm grasp on the issues, and he was personable, which goes a long way. Many folks held the fact that Scranton is not Philly or Pittsburgh against him, but I did not. Scranton is, by PA standards, a sizable city and Doherty has faced the same challenges in Scranton that he will confront in Harrisburg. I make no secret that I am a Hoeffel guy, but the pleasant surprise of the weekend was Chris Doherty.
3. As hard as I try, I just cant forgive Arlen Specter for his unfortunate management of the judiciary committee. While I would not go as far as some by turning my back to the podium, had Specter shown just a little backbone during the confirmations of Roberts and Alito the Citizens United decision may have had a different result.
Much more later, and much more frequent update to come.
Friday, December 4, 2009
No Flu Shot, No Job...
Little bit sickened today by this story in the Philly Inquirer relaying the story of Rodney Bond, an environmental services worker at CHOP who was fired for refusing to take a flu shot.
I have a number of problems with this. First, how can you force an employee to inject a potentially hazordous substance or face the loss of a job. Some people do get sick from flu shots. Some people do die from flu shots. Second, the position of CHOP smacks of religious intolerance. The article describes a board of hospital admins who, essentially, decide if an employee is "religious enough" to be exempt from the flu shot policy. Since when did Americans start allowing companies to be the god police, deciding who and who is not religious. I think CHOP may discover that that pesky First Amendment may derail their rdiculous flu shot policy.
Though I am usually anti-lawsuit, I hope a good attorney read that story and decides to help Mr. Bond out.
I have a number of problems with this. First, how can you force an employee to inject a potentially hazordous substance or face the loss of a job. Some people do get sick from flu shots. Some people do die from flu shots. Second, the position of CHOP smacks of religious intolerance. The article describes a board of hospital admins who, essentially, decide if an employee is "religious enough" to be exempt from the flu shot policy. Since when did Americans start allowing companies to be the god police, deciding who and who is not religious. I think CHOP may discover that that pesky First Amendment may derail their rdiculous flu shot policy.
Though I am usually anti-lawsuit, I hope a good attorney read that story and decides to help Mr. Bond out.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Digesting the offseason rumors
Lots to discuss on the Phillies and the hot stove hasnt been turned on yet.
Some things I thought about an news flowed in from the GM meetings:
1. Does Scott Boras own stock in W.B. Mason? I swear, the man never travels without a stack of binders. I could do a whole post about my hatred for Boras and what he has done to the game, but I will save that for later.
2. The Phils are kicking around the idea of two Tigers - Polanco for 3rd and Rodney as a late inning bullpen option. I dont like either. Rodney, although blowing only 2 saves last year, has a ERA above 4 playing in the grand canyon of Comerica. I really worry about him in the Bank. As for Polanco, he has been in a steady decline in his numbers the last two years, and never really had the arm to play 3rd. While I like his ability to be a contact hitter in the 2-hole in the lineup, I would rather see the Phillies pick up Beltre, who, despite his injuries, has a much bigger upside.
3. Some rumors about a trade of Cole Hamels have been floated. I think that would be a big mistake. Historically, pitches who have an innings increase of over 30 innings from one season to the next are due for a down year. In '08, because of the Playoff run, Hamels threw 70 more innings than '07. Thus, it was not a huge surprise (but a major bummer), that he had an off '09. I look for Hamels to have a much fresher arm in '10, and the Phillies would not get value back to trade him after his down year.
4. For long time Phillies fans, there is a really cool auction taking place right now. Darren Daulton's personal collection of Phillies memorabilia is being sold at Coach's Corner. I have bid on a few items (please done outbid me), and there is tons of great stuff from the bad Phillies teams of the late 80's, and the amazing 1993 squad.
Some things I thought about an news flowed in from the GM meetings:
1. Does Scott Boras own stock in W.B. Mason? I swear, the man never travels without a stack of binders. I could do a whole post about my hatred for Boras and what he has done to the game, but I will save that for later.
2. The Phils are kicking around the idea of two Tigers - Polanco for 3rd and Rodney as a late inning bullpen option. I dont like either. Rodney, although blowing only 2 saves last year, has a ERA above 4 playing in the grand canyon of Comerica. I really worry about him in the Bank. As for Polanco, he has been in a steady decline in his numbers the last two years, and never really had the arm to play 3rd. While I like his ability to be a contact hitter in the 2-hole in the lineup, I would rather see the Phillies pick up Beltre, who, despite his injuries, has a much bigger upside.
3. Some rumors about a trade of Cole Hamels have been floated. I think that would be a big mistake. Historically, pitches who have an innings increase of over 30 innings from one season to the next are due for a down year. In '08, because of the Playoff run, Hamels threw 70 more innings than '07. Thus, it was not a huge surprise (but a major bummer), that he had an off '09. I look for Hamels to have a much fresher arm in '10, and the Phillies would not get value back to trade him after his down year.
4. For long time Phillies fans, there is a really cool auction taking place right now. Darren Daulton's personal collection of Phillies memorabilia is being sold at Coach's Corner. I have bid on a few items (please done outbid me), and there is tons of great stuff from the bad Phillies teams of the late 80's, and the amazing 1993 squad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
