Andersen Studio has started a meetup group for handcrafted productions at http://www.meetup.com/The-Art-of-Hand-Crafted-Production/
This is a meetup venue for small hand crafted production enterprises to collaborate on our mutual concerns and to stimulate a grass roots economic movement that benefits the Main Street economy.
The Main Street economy is a forgotten faction, which is receiving little benefit from "stimulus" funds while it is experiencing the credit freeze that TARP funds were supposed to ameliorate.
Production crafters are often overlooked by non-profit arts organizations and state-run arts commissions while we contribute to the real wealth of our country, the basis of the real economy from which the funds that finance government and non-profit organizations are derived.
Because we are small, we are often overlooked. As a group of small productions we become a more effective force for addressing government and, if necessary, for promoting legislation, for pooling resources and benefits, and for increasing awareness about the social and economic value that small production crafters add to the cultural and economic landscape.
Not only can we provide jobs, but also we can provide meaningful, interesting and diverse jobs. This is a call for production crafters to unite in the interests of our industry, our country, and for the preservation of an American way of life that is unique and individualistic.
All production crafters, would-be production crafters, entrepreneurs and other interested parties are herby invited to participate in The Art of Production grassroots meeting ground.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
A Message to The Maine Arts Commission
Help with the Main Street Private Economy Capitalization Fundraiser- No "tax deductions" with this "fundraiser" this is not the "non-profit economy_ Instead we offer a 20% discount using coupon code "Main Street" at http://www.andersenstudio.com/. Good through May 1 2009. See post below for further information.
As Posted at http://maineartscommission.blogspot.com/.
As a privately owned small business in the arts, for over fifty years, it is very disturbing to see how "stimulus” funds” are being used. The idea of a “stimulus” is that it stimulates the economy, other wise it should be labeled honestly as “spending”. As far as I have been able to determine, small business (sometimes called “main street”) is supposed to benefit from the “stimulus” funds through the trickle down effect of money spent by entitles that directly receive the funds. The entities that receive direct stimulus funds are banks, businesses that qualify as “too big to fail”, schools”, non-profit organizations, and state governments - all with “stipulations attached” (that is another discussion).
The private economy has to wait until the spending of these other entities trickles down to benefit the private sector- and in that regard, I think the grant deadlines are counter productive to the alleged purpose of the stimulus funds which are supposed to be distributed into the economy quickly. This is a transitional season and the private sector needs those benefits now and so I think the distribution of funds should take place immediately in consideration of the dire economic climate.
I read the mission statement of The Maine Arts Commission but I did not find any mention of a stipulation that says that an organization must be non-profit in order to receive the benefits of our state government arts commission. I also checked out the website for Maine Economic Development, looking for any mention of “stimulus funds” going to the private economy. Dream on.
As a member of a small ceramic art and design family business operating in the private economy for over half a century, we are experiencing, for the first time in our history, that established and well- recognized retail galleries are requesting our work on consignment. This is because there is still a credit freeze affecting “Main Street". The privately-owned small business sector is barely mentioned in the multi trillion dollar-spending bills in which our government is investing America's future, leaving the small business sector to create its own network and its own solutions in order to insure that there will be a privately owned small business sector for the future generations of the United States of America.
As a small business dealing with our own financial crunch, we realize that we will have to develop a consignment policy that will protect us from the risks involved. We need to do this as much for the benefit of ourselves as for the benefit of the context in which we function- that of the small business community - for while others receive stimulus funds, it is the small business community- Main Street, that is left to pull its self up by it’s own bootstraps- which is exactly how we got our start in the first place.
Since the stimulus funds are directed to sources outside of the small business community, I feel that the small business community needs to make its voice felt in the areas that intersects our own fields and demand that if the “stimulus” funds do not go to the direct benefit of the private economy- then at least the spending process should not be hampered from reaching the small business community with unnecessary delays.
In the interest of “re-imagining” the future of the Maine Arts Commission, I suggest that you immediately set up a relationship with the private sector, which is also supposed to benefit from ”stimulus” funds. In the original version of H.R. 1, the small business sector was described, by the House of Representatives, as “the engine that drives new job creation” even as that same bill allotted less to loans for small businesses than it did to conversion to digital TV. Susan Collins and Olympia Snow brought the funding at least up to the level where it nearly matches digital conversion funding.
I hope others in the small business will community join me in the fight to ensure some of the “stimulus” funds go to where the rhetoric said it would go. I am found on http://www.meetup.com/ in the small business category.
And in the meantime I hope the Maine Arts Commission will come out of its cocoon and develop programs to help artists and businesses that are working in the context of the private economy. For starts, we are probably not the only small manufacturer wondering how to craft a consignment agreement that will protect us from the very serious risks involved. The consignment agreements have to take the place of the unfreezing of credit that the billions of dollars given to the banking sector was supposed to do. We are not seeing any of the trillions upon trillions of government spending benefits, even as government spending puts us at risk, and so it becomes our responsibility to demand, wherever we can, that the “stimulus” funds be used responsibly, in a manner that stimulates the whole economy and not just for the temporary benefit of specialized factions.
As Posted at http://maineartscommission.blogspot.com/.
As a privately owned small business in the arts, for over fifty years, it is very disturbing to see how "stimulus” funds” are being used. The idea of a “stimulus” is that it stimulates the economy, other wise it should be labeled honestly as “spending”. As far as I have been able to determine, small business (sometimes called “main street”) is supposed to benefit from the “stimulus” funds through the trickle down effect of money spent by entitles that directly receive the funds. The entities that receive direct stimulus funds are banks, businesses that qualify as “too big to fail”, schools”, non-profit organizations, and state governments - all with “stipulations attached” (that is another discussion).
The private economy has to wait until the spending of these other entities trickles down to benefit the private sector- and in that regard, I think the grant deadlines are counter productive to the alleged purpose of the stimulus funds which are supposed to be distributed into the economy quickly. This is a transitional season and the private sector needs those benefits now and so I think the distribution of funds should take place immediately in consideration of the dire economic climate.
I read the mission statement of The Maine Arts Commission but I did not find any mention of a stipulation that says that an organization must be non-profit in order to receive the benefits of our state government arts commission. I also checked out the website for Maine Economic Development, looking for any mention of “stimulus funds” going to the private economy. Dream on.
As a member of a small ceramic art and design family business operating in the private economy for over half a century, we are experiencing, for the first time in our history, that established and well- recognized retail galleries are requesting our work on consignment. This is because there is still a credit freeze affecting “Main Street". The privately-owned small business sector is barely mentioned in the multi trillion dollar-spending bills in which our government is investing America's future, leaving the small business sector to create its own network and its own solutions in order to insure that there will be a privately owned small business sector for the future generations of the United States of America.
As a small business dealing with our own financial crunch, we realize that we will have to develop a consignment policy that will protect us from the risks involved. We need to do this as much for the benefit of ourselves as for the benefit of the context in which we function- that of the small business community - for while others receive stimulus funds, it is the small business community- Main Street, that is left to pull its self up by it’s own bootstraps- which is exactly how we got our start in the first place.
Since the stimulus funds are directed to sources outside of the small business community, I feel that the small business community needs to make its voice felt in the areas that intersects our own fields and demand that if the “stimulus” funds do not go to the direct benefit of the private economy- then at least the spending process should not be hampered from reaching the small business community with unnecessary delays.
In the interest of “re-imagining” the future of the Maine Arts Commission, I suggest that you immediately set up a relationship with the private sector, which is also supposed to benefit from ”stimulus” funds. In the original version of H.R. 1, the small business sector was described, by the House of Representatives, as “the engine that drives new job creation” even as that same bill allotted less to loans for small businesses than it did to conversion to digital TV. Susan Collins and Olympia Snow brought the funding at least up to the level where it nearly matches digital conversion funding.
I hope others in the small business will community join me in the fight to ensure some of the “stimulus” funds go to where the rhetoric said it would go. I am found on http://www.meetup.com/ in the small business category.
And in the meantime I hope the Maine Arts Commission will come out of its cocoon and develop programs to help artists and businesses that are working in the context of the private economy. For starts, we are probably not the only small manufacturer wondering how to craft a consignment agreement that will protect us from the very serious risks involved. The consignment agreements have to take the place of the unfreezing of credit that the billions of dollars given to the banking sector was supposed to do. We are not seeing any of the trillions upon trillions of government spending benefits, even as government spending puts us at risk, and so it becomes our responsibility to demand, wherever we can, that the “stimulus” funds be used responsibly, in a manner that stimulates the whole economy and not just for the temporary benefit of specialized factions.
Friday, April 24, 2009
New England Cultural Database Terms of Service: Undermining Democracy
Originally published on May 28,2007
BOOKS OF INTERESTThe Nonprofit Economy by Burton Weisbrod
The Economics of Art and Culture by James Heilbrun, Charles M. Gray
When Governor Baldacci came into office, he established an economic initiative called "The Creative Economy". Upon hearing the term, I interpreted it to mean "thinking creatively about the economy, but I soon learned that the term intended stimulating the economy through the arts.
In the process of researching the creative economy, I found The New England Cultural Data Base, which is funded or partners with multi-state and non-profit organizations. The New England Cultural Data Base is administered and maintained by The New England Foundation for the Arts, which receives grants from The National Endowment for the Arts
I ithought I would to set up an Andersen Studio account but upon reading the user agreement, I concluded that the agreement is highly exploitative of artists. In that regard, I submitted the following letter to The Boothbay Register and The Lincoln County News and other Maine newspapers.
Below is the latest version of the letter sent to The Boothbay Register on June 11. 2007, and emailed with minor editing to the Governor of Maine
In the June 22 2007 Blog Post I commented that "I personally agree that The NECD TOS is unenforceable, but also take into consideration that it is for perpetuity. It is unpredictable how the future legal climate will evolve. " Looking back in retrospective I can say that our country has changed more than I would have possibly imagined and in a direction that gives more possibility of legal weight tothe NEDC terms of Agreement
Full NECD agreement found here
The following is a list of organizations local to the Boothbay Region, which have signed the NEFA terms of agreement.
THE BOOTHBAY ART FOUNDATION
THE BOOTHBAY OPERA HOUSE BOOTHBAY RAILWAY VILLAGE BOOTHBAY THEATRE MUSEUM
COASTAL MAINE BOTANICAL GARDENS, INCORPORATED BOOTHBAY REGION HISTORICAL SOCIETY
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ROUND TOP CENTER FOR THE ARTS, INCORPORATED
FIREHOUSE GALLERY
FRANCISKA NEEDHAM GALLERY
VICTORIAN STABLE GALLERY
MAINE ART GALLERY
WISCASSET BAY GALLERY
LINCOLN FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS
BACKROADS GALLERY
BOOKS OF INTERESTThe Nonprofit Economy by Burton Weisbrod
The Economics of Art and Culture by James Heilbrun, Charles M. Gray
When Governor Baldacci came into office, he established an economic initiative called "The Creative Economy". Upon hearing the term, I interpreted it to mean "thinking creatively about the economy, but I soon learned that the term intended stimulating the economy through the arts.
In the process of researching the creative economy, I found The New England Cultural Data Base, which is funded or partners with multi-state and non-profit organizations. The New England Cultural Data Base is administered and maintained by The New England Foundation for the Arts, which receives grants from The National Endowment for the Arts
I ithought I would to set up an Andersen Studio account but upon reading the user agreement, I concluded that the agreement is highly exploitative of artists. In that regard, I submitted the following letter to The Boothbay Register and The Lincoln County News and other Maine newspapers.
Below is the latest version of the letter sent to The Boothbay Register on June 11. 2007, and emailed with minor editing to the Governor of Maine
Dear Editor;
I have some major concerns with the New England Cultural Data
Base, which is maintained by the New England Foundation for the Arts, and funded in part with federal grant money through the National Endowment for the Arts and also funded by the Maine State Art Commission, and other state art councils of New England . The New England Foundation for the Arts is a private charity and a tax exempt corporation as well as the entity referenced by ""We," "Us," "Our" inthe New England Cultural Data Base Terms of Service Agreement.It is not clear to me that the New England Cultural Data base has any thing to offer that is not already available through the Maine Arts commission or The New England Foundation for the Arts. Neither of the afore-mentioned organizations have a terms of service agreement. Maine Arts provides an online database of Maine artists and organizations .The New England Foundation for the Arts provides many online reports about the impact of the arts sector on the larger economy, which one can download for free without signing an agreement.
In order to access the services of New England Cultural Data Base
website, or to be included in it's database, it is necessary to create an
account. To do so, one must accept the terms of NECD's agreement, which
states that The New England Foundation for the Arts has"perpetual, unlimited, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, assignable,and worldwide license, to make, copy, perform, publish, display, distribute, transmit, translate, modify, prepare derivative works and use the content in other works in any form, media, or technology"
After laying claim to such all pervasive rights over the submitted content, NEFA's Terms of agreement requires the user
"to and waive, and never assert, any moral rights to the content"
which is followed later in the agreement by a statement that the user
" WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES WHICH YOU MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO ASSERT AGAINST US UNDER ANY THEORY OF LAW (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS"
The user must also agree not to bypass The New England Cultural Databases' homepage or "deep link" to other pages on NECD's website or use it in another medium without their written permission.
However NECD states that it is allowed to deep link to pages of the user's website and access whatever content that NECD base "deems appropriate" This can arguably be interpreted as giving NECD permission to select "submitted content" from the
user's website.The agreement includes a section titled "Good Samaritan Content and Complaint Procedures Policy , in which NEFA makes vague promises that, in some instances, NEFA, at its sole discretion, may decide to protect submitted content from third party copy-write infringement, but NEFA remains essentially uncommitted to taking responsibility in protecting artists from copywrite infringement.
The language of the contract states that "The provisions of this section are intended to implement this policy but are not in any way intended to impose a contractual obligation upon Us to undertake, or refrain from undertaking, any particular course of conduct even so, the account holder must agree to never assert any legal action against NECD and to waive and never assert any moral rights against NECD."
Most of our local non-profit organizations and some of our local art galleries have accounts on this New England Arts Database. I have spoken about this subject with the Boothbay Art Foundation where no one claimed knowledge of how BRAF came to be listed on the New England Cultural Data Base.
I for one have a problem with NECD's agreement. I would like to hear from other artists and art organizations as to how they feel about what appears to be unlimited control over the user's submitted content by this data base agreement.
I would also like to hear from the cultural institutions as to whether they signed up for accounts or if their names appeared on the database in some unknown way. My web blog contains an incomplete list of local organizations that have accounts on NECD. My blog also presents a comparison between the NECD user agreement with the Google user agreement, explaining why I decided to trust Google but not to trust NEFA, from a my layman's reading of the user agreement, which reads as understandable in ordinary language.Why haven't art organizations, including the state arts councils such as
the Maine Arts Commission, demanded terms that protect the rights of the artist?
After all, they owe this much to those whom they represent.As I see it, many of our arts and cultural organizations are non-profits to which the community has generously donated, and I feel there is a moral obligation to protect the rights of the individual artists, but it appears to me that by signing this agreement, arts organizations have failed to protect the artist from copyright infringement, while agreeing to waive and never assert any moral rights or pursue any theory of law against NECD.
Mackenzie Andersen
Andersen Studio, http://www.andersenstudio.com/
Update. This letter was never published in The Boothbay Register. I received a message from the editor that included an edited version of the letter which would be published upon my approval. The edited version deleted all of the direct quotes from the new England Cultural Data base terms of agreement. I did not approve the editor's edit of my letter to the editor.
As of April 2009 The New England Cultural Data base Terms of Agreement remains the same.
I added aditional blog comments on June 04, 2007 , June 15, 2007, June 22. 2007 andIn the June 22 2007 Blog Post I commented that "I personally agree that The NECD TOS is unenforceable, but also take into consideration that it is for perpetuity. It is unpredictable how the future legal climate will evolve. " Looking back in retrospective I can say that our country has changed more than I would have possibly imagined and in a direction that gives more possibility of legal weight tothe NEDC terms of Agreement
Full NECD agreement found here
The following is a list of organizations local to the Boothbay Region, which have signed the NEFA terms of agreement.
THE BOOTHBAY ART FOUNDATION
THE BOOTHBAY OPERA HOUSE BOOTHBAY RAILWAY VILLAGE BOOTHBAY THEATRE MUSEUM
COASTAL MAINE BOTANICAL GARDENS, INCORPORATED BOOTHBAY REGION HISTORICAL SOCIETY
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ROUND TOP CENTER FOR THE ARTS, INCORPORATED
FIREHOUSE GALLERY
FRANCISKA NEEDHAM GALLERY
VICTORIAN STABLE GALLERY
MAINE ART GALLERY
WISCASSET BAY GALLERY
LINCOLN FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS
BACKROADS GALLERY
Private Economy Networking
I just received an email from The Maine Arts Commission announcing stimulus funds for non-profit organizations and the Union of Visual Artists - so if you are among the non-profit organizations and the unions, then you are among the chosen few blessed with "stimulus" funds coming directly from the taxpayers via our government.
For those of us left out of the loop- i.e. the private economy and non-union workers, it seems we have to find our own way to deal with the huge debt the government is gifting to the people, through our own initiatives.
This especially applies to small businesses since large businesses seem to have ready access to the financial resources of our government.
There exists an online people to people financing network http://www.prosper.com/. I do not have any experience with this network upon which I can offer any advice or recommendation so all I am doing here is letting others know that it exists.
If anyone has any experience with this network, please feel free to comment here.
Or if you have any ideas on how the free and private economy can network together for our mutual benefit, speak up and I thank you.
For those of us left out of the loop- i.e. the private economy and non-union workers, it seems we have to find our own way to deal with the huge debt the government is gifting to the people, through our own initiatives.
This especially applies to small businesses since large businesses seem to have ready access to the financial resources of our government.
There exists an online people to people financing network http://www.prosper.com/. I do not have any experience with this network upon which I can offer any advice or recommendation so all I am doing here is letting others know that it exists.
If anyone has any experience with this network, please feel free to comment here.
Or if you have any ideas on how the free and private economy can network together for our mutual benefit, speak up and I thank you.
Friday, April 17, 2009
On April 15th, I attended the Tea Party in Augusta. Maine. Before I left I saw and editorial in the Portland Press herald titled "The mad Republicans Tea Party?" The editorial was about the Tea Party scheduled to occur later in the day in Portland, Me. Although I did not attend the Tea Party in Portland, I was aware of it from emails I received from a group in Bath, Maine, which is reading and discussing “The 5000 Year Leap” a book about the history of the formation of The United States of America. I was aware that the Tea Party movement as non-partisan movement from my involvement with the Bath Group and my email discussions with The Maine Tea Party, and online forum at Paint Maine Red, a website started by “Pete The Carpenter”, who is also a primary organizer of the Augusta Tea Party.
On all occasions, the emphasis has been to get away from two- party thinking. We are encouraged to look at candidates as individuals rather than representatives of a political party. In fact we are encouraged to register to vote as independents.
The editorial on the front page of the “LOCAL & STATE’ section of The Portland Press Herald read: ” At last an entertaining use fro the Maine State Pier. It’s the perfect place for southern Maine’s conservative Republican fringe to throw itself a full- blown temper tantrum…it’s one of many such events to be held around the country on income tax day to demonstrate that the hard core GOP is mad as hell at President Obama, liberals and the media elite, and is, not, I repeat, Not, going to take it anymore.
Stop yawning, they really mean it this time”
The article went on to frame the Portland Tea Party as a Republican- organized event. Having received the emails about the event, but choosing instead to attend the event in Augusta, I did not identify it as a Republican party event, as it was being portrayed in the Bill Nemitz editorial. I knew that the Republican Project was participating, but, that does not make the event, a “Republican” event. The Tea Party was initiated as a grass roots movement of the people. Whatever party allegiances they currently or formerly adhered to, they were coming together to take back their government. Maine is, after all, the state in which our Republican senators tipped the balance of powers, which opened the gate for the passage of the Stimulus Bill and this, has gone a long way to the dissolution of party line politics in Maine.
I cannot speak for what took place in Portland but the Augusta Tea Party emphasized over and over again that this is not Republican or Democratic Issue. To my point of view the policies of the current administration are so extreme and trying to forcibly push the United States down the road to socialism, that it has finally ignited a full burning flame of constitutionalism that has been on a slow burn for decades.
While nationally televised Tea Parties across the nation drew crowds that peaked at 370 thousand (and still counting), the group at Augusta was around four or five hundred people. Smallness has it’s own advantages and in this case it is that any one could take the mike and speak to the crowd. It was the voice of the people telling their own stories. All ages were represented. Pete the Carpenter is your archetypical Maine carpenter, speaking with a down east accent and the sincerity and urgency that brings to life the first American Tea Party that ignited the American Revolution that brought about the creation of The United States Constitution- but the emphasis in the current Tea Party movement is on a civil revolution. The crowd was urged to participate in politics from the local to the national level, including the call to run for office. This is a people’s movement. The only party affiliation is the American Tea Party. This is the voice of all the people who are fed up with the policies coming out of Washington and the gradual erosion of the United States Constitution. It is a call to bring America back to its constitutional roots.
On all occasions, the emphasis has been to get away from two- party thinking. We are encouraged to look at candidates as individuals rather than representatives of a political party. In fact we are encouraged to register to vote as independents.
The editorial on the front page of the “LOCAL & STATE’ section of The Portland Press Herald read: ” At last an entertaining use fro the Maine State Pier. It’s the perfect place for southern Maine’s conservative Republican fringe to throw itself a full- blown temper tantrum…it’s one of many such events to be held around the country on income tax day to demonstrate that the hard core GOP is mad as hell at President Obama, liberals and the media elite, and is, not, I repeat, Not, going to take it anymore.
Stop yawning, they really mean it this time”
The article went on to frame the Portland Tea Party as a Republican- organized event. Having received the emails about the event, but choosing instead to attend the event in Augusta, I did not identify it as a Republican party event, as it was being portrayed in the Bill Nemitz editorial. I knew that the Republican Project was participating, but, that does not make the event, a “Republican” event. The Tea Party was initiated as a grass roots movement of the people. Whatever party allegiances they currently or formerly adhered to, they were coming together to take back their government. Maine is, after all, the state in which our Republican senators tipped the balance of powers, which opened the gate for the passage of the Stimulus Bill and this, has gone a long way to the dissolution of party line politics in Maine.
I cannot speak for what took place in Portland but the Augusta Tea Party emphasized over and over again that this is not Republican or Democratic Issue. To my point of view the policies of the current administration are so extreme and trying to forcibly push the United States down the road to socialism, that it has finally ignited a full burning flame of constitutionalism that has been on a slow burn for decades.
While nationally televised Tea Parties across the nation drew crowds that peaked at 370 thousand (and still counting), the group at Augusta was around four or five hundred people. Smallness has it’s own advantages and in this case it is that any one could take the mike and speak to the crowd. It was the voice of the people telling their own stories. All ages were represented. Pete the Carpenter is your archetypical Maine carpenter, speaking with a down east accent and the sincerity and urgency that brings to life the first American Tea Party that ignited the American Revolution that brought about the creation of The United States Constitution- but the emphasis in the current Tea Party movement is on a civil revolution. The crowd was urged to participate in politics from the local to the national level, including the call to run for office. This is a people’s movement. The only party affiliation is the American Tea Party. This is the voice of all the people who are fed up with the policies coming out of Washington and the gradual erosion of the United States Constitution. It is a call to bring America back to its constitutional roots.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama Signs Presidential Determination Allowing Palestinians Loyal to Hamas to Resettle In US
[[Page 6115]]
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27,
2009
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs
Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, including section
2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I
hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the
Act, that it is important to the national interest to
furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to
exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency
Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose
of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration
needs, including by contributions to international,
governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and
payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department
of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian
refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this
memorandum in the Federal Register.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9-2488
Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27,
2009
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs
Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, including section
2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I
hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the
Act, that it is important to the national interest to
furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to
exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency
Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose
of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration
needs, including by contributions to international,
governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and
payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department
of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian
refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this
memorandum in the Federal Register.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9-2488
Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
Saturday, February 14, 2009
ODE to Glen Beck
While O’Reilley deplored,
That financial distress was ignored,
He fears that Glen Beck will depress us.
But Glen Beck did predict
That a meltdown would hit,
With insights that some thought had left us.
Some they believe
That spending will relieve
The debt that sends economies sinking.
And that those that oppose
The party in charge
Should silence the thoughts they are thinking
But Beck, he is there
To lead us out of despair
With humor and truth without blinking
He helps us define
Our new paradigm
And inspires a pure way of thinking.
That financial distress was ignored,
He fears that Glen Beck will depress us.
But Glen Beck did predict
That a meltdown would hit,
With insights that some thought had left us.
Some they believe
That spending will relieve
The debt that sends economies sinking.
And that those that oppose
The party in charge
Should silence the thoughts they are thinking
But Beck, he is there
To lead us out of despair
With humor and truth without blinking
He helps us define
Our new paradigm
And inspires a pure way of thinking.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Power to the People
Letter submitted to Congress.org
Dear Senators Snowe and Collins,
I watched President Obama give a nationally televised speech supporting the current stimulus bill before a group of Democrats, in which he congratulated himself for reaching across the isle to Republicans but drew the first applause of the evening when he packaged and disposed of all opposing ideas as "tried and worn out". He would unlikely have received such a response from an audience of the people whose support for this bill has dropped to 37%.
Obama received applause from Democrats when he mocked criticism of their stimulus bill by saying "of course it is spending, that is what stimulus is- it's spending"- Cleverly washing over the fact that while stimulus may be spending all spending is not stimulus.
Since it is apparently the belief of the current administration and party in power that the solution to our economy is to spend as much money as possible and it doesn't matter what it is spent on, I would like to make the case for RADICALLY increasing the amount dedicated to CAPITALIZING SMALL BUSINESS!
In the version of the bill that I have seen, out of 920 billion dollars, there is only 430 million slated as loans to small business and out of that 4 million is for administration.
And yet small business is described as "the engine of new job creation", which indeed it is.
There is much talk about whether or not tax breaks will stimulate the economy-, which is dependent on whether or not people spend or save their money.
I submit that the most certain way to insure that people spend their money is to capitalize small business in a major way. America, is, after all, "the land of opportunity" and to inject money into the capitalization of small business is to inspire opportunities in the minds of the people, who are, after all, the ones who have to pay for all this spending.
There are so many people with dreams of starting their own business but who have never had the necessary capital. Capitalization of small business would stimulate the energy and minds of communities all across America. A person with a local perspective can identify solutions that are not necessarily visible from a bird’s eye view. People who are given opportunities to invest in their own ideas are inspired with HOPE - and this will cause them to spend more freely.
Investing in small business is an investment in the middle class and a democratic society is the strongest when there is a strong and vibrant middle class.
Capitalizing small business gives Power To The People, as opposed to power to big banks, big corporations, and big government, which are arguably "tried and worn out ideas".
Please RADICALLY capitalize Small Business and give Power to The People!
Would you like to post your message in our "Letters to Leaders" section? If you choose "yes", your letter will appear on Congress.org and other media sites that carry "Letters to Leaders". Selected YES
Dear Senators Snowe and Collins,
I watched President Obama give a nationally televised speech supporting the current stimulus bill before a group of Democrats, in which he congratulated himself for reaching across the isle to Republicans but drew the first applause of the evening when he packaged and disposed of all opposing ideas as "tried and worn out". He would unlikely have received such a response from an audience of the people whose support for this bill has dropped to 37%.
Obama received applause from Democrats when he mocked criticism of their stimulus bill by saying "of course it is spending, that is what stimulus is- it's spending"- Cleverly washing over the fact that while stimulus may be spending all spending is not stimulus.
Since it is apparently the belief of the current administration and party in power that the solution to our economy is to spend as much money as possible and it doesn't matter what it is spent on, I would like to make the case for RADICALLY increasing the amount dedicated to CAPITALIZING SMALL BUSINESS!
In the version of the bill that I have seen, out of 920 billion dollars, there is only 430 million slated as loans to small business and out of that 4 million is for administration.
And yet small business is described as "the engine of new job creation", which indeed it is.
There is much talk about whether or not tax breaks will stimulate the economy-, which is dependent on whether or not people spend or save their money.
I submit that the most certain way to insure that people spend their money is to capitalize small business in a major way. America, is, after all, "the land of opportunity" and to inject money into the capitalization of small business is to inspire opportunities in the minds of the people, who are, after all, the ones who have to pay for all this spending.
There are so many people with dreams of starting their own business but who have never had the necessary capital. Capitalization of small business would stimulate the energy and minds of communities all across America. A person with a local perspective can identify solutions that are not necessarily visible from a bird’s eye view. People who are given opportunities to invest in their own ideas are inspired with HOPE - and this will cause them to spend more freely.
Investing in small business is an investment in the middle class and a democratic society is the strongest when there is a strong and vibrant middle class.
Capitalizing small business gives Power To The People, as opposed to power to big banks, big corporations, and big government, which are arguably "tried and worn out ideas".
Please RADICALLY capitalize Small Business and give Power to The People!
Would you like to post your message in our "Letters to Leaders" section? If you choose "yes", your letter will appear on Congress.org and other media sites that carry "Letters to Leaders". Selected YES
Friday, January 23, 2009
Letter to Senator Snowe
The following letter was submitted to Senator Snowe at Congress.org with the option selected to post on a board that is available to all Congress.
Dear Senator Snowe,
I read on Politico.com that you are a moderate Republican with whom President Obama is hoping to work.
I am very uncomfortable with President Obama's free spending agenda and ask that you take into consideration Obama's record in Illinois which was to tax big and to legislate many entitlement programs, which did not have a successful effect on Illinois (See the following blog of an Illinois citizen http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-300-tax-increases-in-illinois.html)
However, since Congress is considering passing a "stimulus bill”, I would like to offer these comments in hopes that the stimulus bill will stimulate jobs and not just government spending and entitlements.
Excluding companies with tax havens from receiving bailout funds would be a very good start. I am not for raising taxes but companies avoiding taxes with off shore tax havens only makes everyone else’s taxes higher. This is a good direction for crafting the stimulus.
There should be a stipulation that the funds slated for modernizing federal buildings should not go to companies with off shore tax havens AND this stipulation should extend to all government spending.
I would also like to see an analysis of what companies provide jobs in the US. If 60-80% of the jobs are created by small business, then the other 20-40% must be generated by other business entities. The stimulus should be directed at supporting those businesses.
If nation states restricted bailout funds to entities that provide jobs and pay taxes in the nation state, then global corporate states would only be eligible for funds in the nation states where they pay taxes and provide jobs - This would be a good thing for the autonomy of nation states over global corporate states,
We hear abundant rhetoric on the need to get credit flowing to main street, but there is only $430 million suggested to go to finance small business loans, i.e. to finance, what the report describes as "the engine of new job creation" - while the bulk of the money goes to government spending and entitlement programs. If the bill is supposed to be a stimulus for the economy, why not make the direct focus on job creation and treat stimulus spending separately? We have already seen, with the first bailout to financial institutions, that trying the indirect approach to stimulating credit to main street didn't work. Isn't it time to try a more direct approach and to directly offer credit to companies, large and small alike, in proportion to the jobs those companies or privately owned businesses, can potentially stimulate in job creation?
As defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration, a small business concern is "one that is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." The law also states that in determining what constitutes a small business, the definition will vary from industry to industry to reflect industry differences accurately. When a larger percentage of our economy is invested in small business, we are less vulnerable to the failure of a single business entity causing a ripple effect that brings down a global economy.
Obama marketed himself to the American public as the politician who was going to take the "bottom up" approach to the economy. Small business is the bottom and the groundswell of our economy so lets see this administration put its economic plans on the same page as it's election campaigning. You will not find that in the current plan which gives a very short stick to small business and apparently expects to stimulate the "engine of job creation" of our economy by the trickle down effect from big government spending and entitlement spending.
How about the "bottom up approach"- First you create jobs, which create the resources to justify spending. - Or at least shift the balance between the amounts of money invested that is anticipated to "trickle down" to the engine of job creation and the amount of money that DIRECTLY benefits the creation of sustained jobs.
I am also concerned about funds slated to bailout bankrupt states, while eliminating the matching funds requirement. This means that solvent states will have to foot the bill for the insolvent ones, which are often insolvent because they legislated so many large government programs.
As a conservative, I favor small government and the inherent vitality of the American people as expressed through the private economy. I hope that you will act as the voice of these interests.
Dear Senator Snowe,
I read on Politico.com that you are a moderate Republican with whom President Obama is hoping to work.
I am very uncomfortable with President Obama's free spending agenda and ask that you take into consideration Obama's record in Illinois which was to tax big and to legislate many entitlement programs, which did not have a successful effect on Illinois (See the following blog of an Illinois citizen http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-300-tax-increases-in-illinois.html)
However, since Congress is considering passing a "stimulus bill”, I would like to offer these comments in hopes that the stimulus bill will stimulate jobs and not just government spending and entitlements.
Excluding companies with tax havens from receiving bailout funds would be a very good start. I am not for raising taxes but companies avoiding taxes with off shore tax havens only makes everyone else’s taxes higher. This is a good direction for crafting the stimulus.
There should be a stipulation that the funds slated for modernizing federal buildings should not go to companies with off shore tax havens AND this stipulation should extend to all government spending.
I would also like to see an analysis of what companies provide jobs in the US. If 60-80% of the jobs are created by small business, then the other 20-40% must be generated by other business entities. The stimulus should be directed at supporting those businesses.
If nation states restricted bailout funds to entities that provide jobs and pay taxes in the nation state, then global corporate states would only be eligible for funds in the nation states where they pay taxes and provide jobs - This would be a good thing for the autonomy of nation states over global corporate states,
We hear abundant rhetoric on the need to get credit flowing to main street, but there is only $430 million suggested to go to finance small business loans, i.e. to finance, what the report describes as "the engine of new job creation" - while the bulk of the money goes to government spending and entitlement programs. If the bill is supposed to be a stimulus for the economy, why not make the direct focus on job creation and treat stimulus spending separately? We have already seen, with the first bailout to financial institutions, that trying the indirect approach to stimulating credit to main street didn't work. Isn't it time to try a more direct approach and to directly offer credit to companies, large and small alike, in proportion to the jobs those companies or privately owned businesses, can potentially stimulate in job creation?
As defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration, a small business concern is "one that is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." The law also states that in determining what constitutes a small business, the definition will vary from industry to industry to reflect industry differences accurately. When a larger percentage of our economy is invested in small business, we are less vulnerable to the failure of a single business entity causing a ripple effect that brings down a global economy.
Obama marketed himself to the American public as the politician who was going to take the "bottom up" approach to the economy. Small business is the bottom and the groundswell of our economy so lets see this administration put its economic plans on the same page as it's election campaigning. You will not find that in the current plan which gives a very short stick to small business and apparently expects to stimulate the "engine of job creation" of our economy by the trickle down effect from big government spending and entitlement spending.
How about the "bottom up approach"- First you create jobs, which create the resources to justify spending. - Or at least shift the balance between the amounts of money invested that is anticipated to "trickle down" to the engine of job creation and the amount of money that DIRECTLY benefits the creation of sustained jobs.
I am also concerned about funds slated to bailout bankrupt states, while eliminating the matching funds requirement. This means that solvent states will have to foot the bill for the insolvent ones, which are often insolvent because they legislated so many large government programs.
As a conservative, I favor small government and the inherent vitality of the American people as expressed through the private economy. I hope that you will act as the voice of these interests.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The American Recovery and Redistribution of Wealth Act of 2009
Here is a link the House of Representatives Discussion of THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
Here is the rhetoric from that act about small business
Here is Obama’s Rhetoric:
Here is the amount of the $750 Billion Stimulus Package that is going to Free Up Credit for Small Business, The Engine of JOB Growth in our economy
Here is the amount going to Food Stamps:
Looks like the plan is to stimulate the economy by investing in BIG government, and entitlements and the spending that will be created will stimulate the economy enough to rev up the engine of job production (Small Business). Isn’t this a little arse backwards? Maybe it would work better if we actually got the engine working first – and then it might not be necessary to spend twenty billion on food stamps- I wonder what would happen if we reversed just that one proportion? If twenty billion went to providing loans to small businesses to stimulate the job growth with which small business is credited in all the rhetoric, and then as a consequence maybe $430 million for food stamps would suffice?
This is just one example of what is wrong with this plan, which Obama is trying to tell us we must not waste time in passing – How about if We The People analyze this and let our representatives know what we think of it BEFORE THIS BILL IS PASSED.
There is 7.7 Billion slated to modernize federal buildings. Despite the rhetoric about small businesses (under 200 employees) – How likely is it that those jobs will go to small businesses rather than large ones? We should demand that it should be clarified what type of companies will be used to do these jobs – and possibly even demand that a percentage be required to go to the small business community!
If small business is the engine that creates new jobs, why has it been given the short stick in a plan that is intended to stimulate the economy?
Here is the rhetoric from that act about small business
Small businesses are the driving force for new jobs in the economy; 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs created since the mid-1990’s have been created by small businesses. However, small business lending is sharply down. Loan approvals in SBA’s general business loan programs declined 42 percent in the first quarter of FY 2009 compared to the first quarter of FY 2008. Loans guaranteed under the 7(a) business loan program declined 30 percent in terms of number of loans and 11 percent in dollar volume from FY 2007 to FY 2008. In addition, disruptions in the secondary market have caused major lenders to stop accepting business loan applications. The provisions in this bill will help to reverse these trends.
Here is Obama’s Rhetoric:
Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. That means using our full arsenal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and business, while restoring confidence in our markets.
Here is the amount of the $750 Billion Stimulus Package that is going to Free Up Credit for Small Business, The Engine of JOB Growth in our economy
Funding would be made available for new loan guarantee and direct lending authorities. Of the $430 million total, $426 million is for credit subsidy costs and $4 million is for administrative costs.
Here is the amount going to Food Stamps:
Help Workers Hurt by the Economy: High unemployment and rising costs have outpaced Americans’ paychecks. The bill helps struggling families make ends meet by providing $20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13%, in order to help defray rising food costs.
Looks like the plan is to stimulate the economy by investing in BIG government, and entitlements and the spending that will be created will stimulate the economy enough to rev up the engine of job production (Small Business). Isn’t this a little arse backwards? Maybe it would work better if we actually got the engine working first – and then it might not be necessary to spend twenty billion on food stamps- I wonder what would happen if we reversed just that one proportion? If twenty billion went to providing loans to small businesses to stimulate the job growth with which small business is credited in all the rhetoric, and then as a consequence maybe $430 million for food stamps would suffice?
This is just one example of what is wrong with this plan, which Obama is trying to tell us we must not waste time in passing – How about if We The People analyze this and let our representatives know what we think of it BEFORE THIS BILL IS PASSED.
There is 7.7 Billion slated to modernize federal buildings. Despite the rhetoric about small businesses (under 200 employees) – How likely is it that those jobs will go to small businesses rather than large ones? We should demand that it should be clarified what type of companies will be used to do these jobs – and possibly even demand that a percentage be required to go to the small business community!
If small business is the engine that creates new jobs, why has it been given the short stick in a plan that is intended to stimulate the economy?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
PUBLIC MEDIA WRONG ABOUT THE RELEVANCY OF AYERS
I have closely followed the election process on cable television and on the community discussion board at Politico.com and other internet resources.
Most of my friends are supporting Obama, often said, because my good friends are against the Iraq war, which is currently succeeding well enough that both candidates agree that we will pull out. The difference is how and why we will pull out of Iraq.
Obama sites the economic savings that would result from pulling out of Iraq At the same time Obama advocates transferring the troops to Afghanistan as part of his foreign affairs policy. Additionally Obama has declared that if Pakistan does not deliver Bin Laden. Obama will pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan. Obama first made this announcement during the democratic primaries, causing concern among Democrats, including Senator Biden. Still. Obama held firm and during the last debate again announced his plans to invade Pakistan in pursuit of Bin Laden. In order to capture Bin Laden, Obama will violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. Pakistan is a country with a large Muslim population and many nuclear warheads. Any candidate, who announces his willingness to invade Pakistan, should be ready to engage a discussion of how he will deal with the potential aftermath of such an action. It is alarming that Obama comes across as believing that our sole mission in fighting the war on terrorism is to get Bin Laden. Does Obama seriously believe that once we capture one leader that terrorism will end? I believe it is more likely that we will see a temporary surge in global terrorism when Bin Laden is captured or killed. To defeat an enemy, you must defeat the ideology, capturing a single man, just doesn’t do it.
As I write this blog, it is news that a researcher named Stanley Kurtz, has uncovered new information about Barack Obama’s early political history, unless one reads Kurtz’s articles, one will likely be unaware of the content of Kurtz’s research. The Obama campaign is portraying any discussion about his relationship to Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the 60’s domestic terrorist group, the weathermen, as a “smear” campaign, but a smear, as defined, in the Miriam Webster online dictionary, is “a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization”. Stanely Kurtz’s research is substantiated by means of the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and newspaper archives that record Obama’s early political past as an Afro-American activist
Until recently I considered Andersen Cooper of CNN to be a left-leaning pundit who is reasonably fair and balanced in his election coverage. Then came Stanley Kurtz’s in-depth research of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and Obama’s relationship to the founder, Bill Ayers. co-founder of 1960’s domestic terrorist group, the weathermen. The Kurtz report confirmed that Obama’ and Ayers "worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda," which "flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism.”
Sarah Palin was the first to make the Ayers-Obama relationship as a campaign talking point. Andersen Cooper responded to Palin with his “keeping them honest” report on the Ayers -Obama relationship and used Obama’s often-repeated version of the truth to substantiate that the discussion about Ayers was a desperate move by the McCain campaign. Are we to believe that Andersen Cooper was unaware of the Stanley Kurtz’s research? Or is it more likely that. Cooper believes that most of his viewers are exposed only to the mainstream media where Kurtz’s discoveries have received virtually no attention.
When the New York Times came out with its version of the Ayers story, it became more difficult for Anderson Cooper to ignore the fact of Kurtz’s investigation. When McCain framed the issue in terms of Obama’s dishonesty in his dealings with the public and subsequent questions raised as to who Obama really is, Cooper responded, using trademark Andersen Cooper ‘apparent sincerity’, by asking, “Do you think McCain really believes this”. The intent was clearly to portray McCain as a desperate and lunatic man and to bypass the legitimate issues raised by McCain and others. Cooper then went on to report that the Obama campaign was not worried and was convinced that the shoot the messenger strategy was working well. The polls were not yet responding to the vetting of Barack Obama, which the Obama campaign portrayed as “smearing”, unintentionally acknowledging that there are elements in Barack Obama’s past that need to avoid the light of day
The media tells us that the republicans (not the democrats) should have vetted Obama earlier in the campaign. They tell us that Obama’s early political activities are too complex a subject for us ordinary folk to understand The media is not yet reporting the facts in order that we can judge for ourselves, instead the media tells us that there is not enough time to explain this story in the short time before the election, as though the story can wait to be told later, when, if we believe the polls, it will be too late if we have a problem with Obama’s political history, once we know the details of his activities a “community organizer”. and an “educational reformer”.
Thus we have only Kurtz’s interpretation about information in the CAC archives. Kurtz’s articles are well researched.
Since, Barack Obama rose rapidly from national obscurity to national prominence, the usual vetting process, which most political candidates undergo, hasn’t happened. Instead we are served up Barack Obama, the “rock star”. His pictures adorn so many magazines; it starts to feel that we are living in a one-party system. Missing has been an investigation that digs beneath the well-crafted surface description of Obama’s political past – a past packaged in terms such as “community organizer”, “educational. reform” and now a “board member” with other “respectable mainstream” citizens including William Ayers, former domestic terrorist and son of wealthy established Chicago family, who in recent years has been honored by the Chicago political elite as an “educator”.
There is no reason given as to why we should take the other members of the board to be respectable and mainstream citizens, other than their listed positions, which in this day and age is pretty remarkable. If you go the Cultural Logic, the online Marxist publication, you will find a similar list of respectable citizens, all with positions at 45 nationwide universities. It is possible that Marxism is mainstream within our university system but hardly so in the general populous. From years of participation in online discussions, I have witnessed that university graduates are far more familiar with the writings of Karl Marx, than they are with The Federalist Papers. It is presumptuous to assume that because someone is a member of the university system that they represent mainstream America.
There is a pattern in Obama's background, that pattern is in the politicization of institutions that are not usually political. The church Obama attended for twenty years furthered a racist anti-American political agenda, which Obama professes to have known nothing about, but simultaneously Obama was involved in funding “educational” programs that can be more accurately described as programs of political indoctrination. (Ayers, who inspired those educational programs has described himself as a “soft communist), Proposals for education in science and math were turned down, while radical groups promoting Ayers political ideas were funded.
The story of Obama’s early political past as an Afro-American activist and Obama’s role in funding projects for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge is the story that needs to be told. America needs to understand the history of the man who would be president. Obama studied the work of Saul Alinsky and used educational funds to promote radical activism in education, and attended a church with a far left political activist agenda. Projecting that pattern forward, the next phase could manifest as appointments of radical activists to his cabinet or nominating an activists judge to the Supreme Court. When activist judges occupy the Supreme Court, they have the power to change our constitution from the bench.
The media is strongly advocating that our public dialogue stay focused on the economy. Racism is an acceptable second focus. Even a discussion about speculations that Obama is Muslim is given air time, although such speculations have little verifiable basis. However when it comes to reporting on Ayers, the media avoids straight reporting that would allow Americans to judge for themselves.
Although we are dealing with economic problems that will clearly have a long-range effect, it is a mistake to take our eye off of other issues, especially constitutional issues. In comparison to the effects of altering our constitution, the effects of our economic crisis are short term and temporary. In a country that struggles to balance national security and privacy, there is no reason to sacrifice constitutional concerns because we are facing an economic challenge.
Lets talk about racism! If Ayers, a domestic terrorist, were a black man from a poor neighborhood, instead of the offspring of a wealthy and established Chicago family, would Ayers today be a respectable citizen, honored by the Chicago elite?
When Obama justifies his relationship with Ayers by pointing to Ayers contemporary respected position among the Chicago elite, he acknowledges his own compliant fit with the standards of Chicago style politics as usual
It would take too much space to cover all the issues and so I will now close with one final point regarding a statement Obama made during the last debate, which said something to the effect that if we do not increase taxes on the wealthy, it is money out of the “system”. The system that Obama speaks of is clearly the economic system and so Obama has identified that he conceives the economic system to be one and the same as the government, an idea that fits comfortably into the heart of Marxist ideology. In Obama’s thought process, private enterprise, non-profit organizations, and private philanthropy are not a part of “the (economic) system”. If private enterprise, and the others, are to be included in “the system” then Obama’s statement is clearly false.
The Obama campaign has coined a new word to replace the phrase “redistribution of wealth” and that word is to be “fairness”. I am waiting for the Obama campaign to coin a new word for ‘wealth creation” and I expect it to be “taxation. which is the way “the (economic) system” that Obama identified, creates it’s operating funds. And Obama has a very large spending agenda, which follows the pattern of his Afro-American activist past. Quoting Stanley Kurtz, from Barack Obama, The Lost Years: “the politician chronicled here is profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan.”
This article has been sent as a letter to the editor to my local newspaper
Oct 27 2008 Since I wrote this article a new tape from Obama's past has emerged in which he discusses redistribution of wealth and changing the constitution:
Quoting Obama from his days as an Illinois State Senator in 2001:
Most of my friends are supporting Obama, often said, because my good friends are against the Iraq war, which is currently succeeding well enough that both candidates agree that we will pull out. The difference is how and why we will pull out of Iraq.
Obama sites the economic savings that would result from pulling out of Iraq At the same time Obama advocates transferring the troops to Afghanistan as part of his foreign affairs policy. Additionally Obama has declared that if Pakistan does not deliver Bin Laden. Obama will pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan. Obama first made this announcement during the democratic primaries, causing concern among Democrats, including Senator Biden. Still. Obama held firm and during the last debate again announced his plans to invade Pakistan in pursuit of Bin Laden. In order to capture Bin Laden, Obama will violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. Pakistan is a country with a large Muslim population and many nuclear warheads. Any candidate, who announces his willingness to invade Pakistan, should be ready to engage a discussion of how he will deal with the potential aftermath of such an action. It is alarming that Obama comes across as believing that our sole mission in fighting the war on terrorism is to get Bin Laden. Does Obama seriously believe that once we capture one leader that terrorism will end? I believe it is more likely that we will see a temporary surge in global terrorism when Bin Laden is captured or killed. To defeat an enemy, you must defeat the ideology, capturing a single man, just doesn’t do it.
As I write this blog, it is news that a researcher named Stanley Kurtz, has uncovered new information about Barack Obama’s early political history, unless one reads Kurtz’s articles, one will likely be unaware of the content of Kurtz’s research. The Obama campaign is portraying any discussion about his relationship to Bill Ayers, the co-founder of the 60’s domestic terrorist group, the weathermen, as a “smear” campaign, but a smear, as defined, in the Miriam Webster online dictionary, is “a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization”. Stanely Kurtz’s research is substantiated by means of the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and newspaper archives that record Obama’s early political past as an Afro-American activist
Until recently I considered Andersen Cooper of CNN to be a left-leaning pundit who is reasonably fair and balanced in his election coverage. Then came Stanley Kurtz’s in-depth research of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and Obama’s relationship to the founder, Bill Ayers. co-founder of 1960’s domestic terrorist group, the weathermen. The Kurtz report confirmed that Obama’ and Ayers "worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda," which "flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism.”
Sarah Palin was the first to make the Ayers-Obama relationship as a campaign talking point. Andersen Cooper responded to Palin with his “keeping them honest” report on the Ayers -Obama relationship and used Obama’s often-repeated version of the truth to substantiate that the discussion about Ayers was a desperate move by the McCain campaign. Are we to believe that Andersen Cooper was unaware of the Stanley Kurtz’s research? Or is it more likely that. Cooper believes that most of his viewers are exposed only to the mainstream media where Kurtz’s discoveries have received virtually no attention.
When the New York Times came out with its version of the Ayers story, it became more difficult for Anderson Cooper to ignore the fact of Kurtz’s investigation. When McCain framed the issue in terms of Obama’s dishonesty in his dealings with the public and subsequent questions raised as to who Obama really is, Cooper responded, using trademark Andersen Cooper ‘apparent sincerity’, by asking, “Do you think McCain really believes this”. The intent was clearly to portray McCain as a desperate and lunatic man and to bypass the legitimate issues raised by McCain and others. Cooper then went on to report that the Obama campaign was not worried and was convinced that the shoot the messenger strategy was working well. The polls were not yet responding to the vetting of Barack Obama, which the Obama campaign portrayed as “smearing”, unintentionally acknowledging that there are elements in Barack Obama’s past that need to avoid the light of day
The media tells us that the republicans (not the democrats) should have vetted Obama earlier in the campaign. They tell us that Obama’s early political activities are too complex a subject for us ordinary folk to understand The media is not yet reporting the facts in order that we can judge for ourselves, instead the media tells us that there is not enough time to explain this story in the short time before the election, as though the story can wait to be told later, when, if we believe the polls, it will be too late if we have a problem with Obama’s political history, once we know the details of his activities a “community organizer”. and an “educational reformer”.
Thus we have only Kurtz’s interpretation about information in the CAC archives. Kurtz’s articles are well researched.
Since, Barack Obama rose rapidly from national obscurity to national prominence, the usual vetting process, which most political candidates undergo, hasn’t happened. Instead we are served up Barack Obama, the “rock star”. His pictures adorn so many magazines; it starts to feel that we are living in a one-party system. Missing has been an investigation that digs beneath the well-crafted surface description of Obama’s political past – a past packaged in terms such as “community organizer”, “educational. reform” and now a “board member” with other “respectable mainstream” citizens including William Ayers, former domestic terrorist and son of wealthy established Chicago family, who in recent years has been honored by the Chicago political elite as an “educator”.
There is no reason given as to why we should take the other members of the board to be respectable and mainstream citizens, other than their listed positions, which in this day and age is pretty remarkable. If you go the Cultural Logic, the online Marxist publication, you will find a similar list of respectable citizens, all with positions at 45 nationwide universities. It is possible that Marxism is mainstream within our university system but hardly so in the general populous. From years of participation in online discussions, I have witnessed that university graduates are far more familiar with the writings of Karl Marx, than they are with The Federalist Papers. It is presumptuous to assume that because someone is a member of the university system that they represent mainstream America.
There is a pattern in Obama's background, that pattern is in the politicization of institutions that are not usually political. The church Obama attended for twenty years furthered a racist anti-American political agenda, which Obama professes to have known nothing about, but simultaneously Obama was involved in funding “educational” programs that can be more accurately described as programs of political indoctrination. (Ayers, who inspired those educational programs has described himself as a “soft communist), Proposals for education in science and math were turned down, while radical groups promoting Ayers political ideas were funded.
The story of Obama’s early political past as an Afro-American activist and Obama’s role in funding projects for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge is the story that needs to be told. America needs to understand the history of the man who would be president. Obama studied the work of Saul Alinsky and used educational funds to promote radical activism in education, and attended a church with a far left political activist agenda. Projecting that pattern forward, the next phase could manifest as appointments of radical activists to his cabinet or nominating an activists judge to the Supreme Court. When activist judges occupy the Supreme Court, they have the power to change our constitution from the bench.
The media is strongly advocating that our public dialogue stay focused on the economy. Racism is an acceptable second focus. Even a discussion about speculations that Obama is Muslim is given air time, although such speculations have little verifiable basis. However when it comes to reporting on Ayers, the media avoids straight reporting that would allow Americans to judge for themselves.
Although we are dealing with economic problems that will clearly have a long-range effect, it is a mistake to take our eye off of other issues, especially constitutional issues. In comparison to the effects of altering our constitution, the effects of our economic crisis are short term and temporary. In a country that struggles to balance national security and privacy, there is no reason to sacrifice constitutional concerns because we are facing an economic challenge.
Lets talk about racism! If Ayers, a domestic terrorist, were a black man from a poor neighborhood, instead of the offspring of a wealthy and established Chicago family, would Ayers today be a respectable citizen, honored by the Chicago elite?
When Obama justifies his relationship with Ayers by pointing to Ayers contemporary respected position among the Chicago elite, he acknowledges his own compliant fit with the standards of Chicago style politics as usual
It would take too much space to cover all the issues and so I will now close with one final point regarding a statement Obama made during the last debate, which said something to the effect that if we do not increase taxes on the wealthy, it is money out of the “system”. The system that Obama speaks of is clearly the economic system and so Obama has identified that he conceives the economic system to be one and the same as the government, an idea that fits comfortably into the heart of Marxist ideology. In Obama’s thought process, private enterprise, non-profit organizations, and private philanthropy are not a part of “the (economic) system”. If private enterprise, and the others, are to be included in “the system” then Obama’s statement is clearly false.
The Obama campaign has coined a new word to replace the phrase “redistribution of wealth” and that word is to be “fairness”. I am waiting for the Obama campaign to coin a new word for ‘wealth creation” and I expect it to be “taxation. which is the way “the (economic) system” that Obama identified, creates it’s operating funds. And Obama has a very large spending agenda, which follows the pattern of his Afro-American activist past. Quoting Stanley Kurtz, from Barack Obama, The Lost Years: “the politician chronicled here is profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan.”
Published in the Journal of Black Studies, the results are striking. Burnside and Whitehurst produced two bar graphs, one representing bills of which Obama was the main sponsor, arranged by subject, and a second displaying bills Obama joined as a cosponsor. In the chart depicting bills of which Obama was the main sponsor, the bar for "social welfare" legislation towers over every other category. In the chart of Obama's cosponsored bills, social welfare legislation continues to far exceed all other categories, although now crime-related bills are visibly present in second place, with regulation and tax bills close behind. According to Burnside and Whitehurst, other than social welfare and a bit of government regulation, "Obama devoted very little time to most policy areas quoted from Barack Obama, The Lost Years by Stanley Kurtz
This article has been sent as a letter to the editor to my local newspaper
Oct 27 2008 Since I wrote this article a new tape from Obama's past has emerged in which he discusses redistribution of wealth and changing the constitution:
Quoting Obama from his days as an Illinois State Senator in 2001:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Government socialism and the Non-profit Economy
Today it is over three years since I composed my first two blogs. My thoughts about what to write about remain consistent with my first two efforts.
In the meantime I have published a number of blog posts at Andersen Studio Days and Nights I understand the need for diplomacy in addressing controversial issues and indeed I attempt to the best of my ability to be diplomatic, but if acceptable diplomacy is to keep one's voice silent and to not question the powers that be, then we are no longer living in a democratic society. Since so much of the activities resulting from the collaboration between government and non-profit organizations borders on socialism and indeed sometimes crosses the line to Marxism, that silence for the sake of acceptance by the powers that be is not a viable alternative. On the other hand, it is probably better to publish my opinions in a venue that is not directly connected to our business and
to that end, I have decided to use this blog to publish my thoughts in a semi-anonymous manner that has fewer restraints by censorship.
The Maine Arts Commission is published on a government website. When I first started this blog in 2005, there was a creative economy list serve, which I welcomed. Maine is a fairly private state and the list serve seemed like a great opportunity to connect with Mainers living in other communities. However it soon became apparent that the list serve was "juried" by the Maine Arts Commission, sponsored by the state of Maine government. Although government censorship on freedom of speech seems fundamentally un-American, it didn't seem entirely inappropriate in the messy world of internet dialogues. However when an petition that I received from Wendy Rosen, who is a highly influential member of the professional crafts community, was rejected by the jury at The Maine Arts Commission, it became my first introduction to the cold shoulder response with which the Maine Art Commission greets the for-profit (small) business community. Since those days, I have come to privately refer to The Maine State Art Commission as a bureaucracy of elitism, which is not surprising when the governor's inspiration is Richard Florida.
The email I sent to be published on the Maine state creative economy list serve concerned the labeling of crafts made in China. These crafts were being imported into the United States with paper labels identifying that they were made in China. The paper labels could easily be removed and underneath were hand painted American names that portrayed the crafts as an American-made craft. Wendy was writing to Mainers because our Senator, Olympia Snowe, was on the relevant congressional committee, and so Wendy Rosen was requesting that we bring the matter to the attention of Senator Snowe. When I submitted the petition to The Maine Arts Commission's Creative Economy List Serve, it was rejected by the jury. On advise, I addressed a letter of complaint to the governor's wife and she contacted the Maine Arts Commission, who sent me a letter explaining that the contribution was rejected because the jury perceived it to be "spam". The obvious rationalization did not hold water, as it is common knowledge that spam is a product of mass mailing, and I sent a single email to the creative economy list serve. In that contribution I requested that Maine crafters write to Senator Snowe. If the "jury" at the Maine Arts Commission identifies such a request as "spam", it only indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the Maine Arts Commission, a belief that has been continually reinforced in the ensuing years.
In the meantime I have published a number of blog posts at Andersen Studio Days and Nights I understand the need for diplomacy in addressing controversial issues and indeed I attempt to the best of my ability to be diplomatic, but if acceptable diplomacy is to keep one's voice silent and to not question the powers that be, then we are no longer living in a democratic society. Since so much of the activities resulting from the collaboration between government and non-profit organizations borders on socialism and indeed sometimes crosses the line to Marxism, that silence for the sake of acceptance by the powers that be is not a viable alternative. On the other hand, it is probably better to publish my opinions in a venue that is not directly connected to our business and
to that end, I have decided to use this blog to publish my thoughts in a semi-anonymous manner that has fewer restraints by censorship.
The Maine Arts Commission is published on a government website. When I first started this blog in 2005, there was a creative economy list serve, which I welcomed. Maine is a fairly private state and the list serve seemed like a great opportunity to connect with Mainers living in other communities. However it soon became apparent that the list serve was "juried" by the Maine Arts Commission, sponsored by the state of Maine government. Although government censorship on freedom of speech seems fundamentally un-American, it didn't seem entirely inappropriate in the messy world of internet dialogues. However when an petition that I received from Wendy Rosen, who is a highly influential member of the professional crafts community, was rejected by the jury at The Maine Arts Commission, it became my first introduction to the cold shoulder response with which the Maine Art Commission greets the for-profit (small) business community. Since those days, I have come to privately refer to The Maine State Art Commission as a bureaucracy of elitism, which is not surprising when the governor's inspiration is Richard Florida.
The email I sent to be published on the Maine state creative economy list serve concerned the labeling of crafts made in China. These crafts were being imported into the United States with paper labels identifying that they were made in China. The paper labels could easily be removed and underneath were hand painted American names that portrayed the crafts as an American-made craft. Wendy was writing to Mainers because our Senator, Olympia Snowe, was on the relevant congressional committee, and so Wendy Rosen was requesting that we bring the matter to the attention of Senator Snowe. When I submitted the petition to The Maine Arts Commission's Creative Economy List Serve, it was rejected by the jury. On advise, I addressed a letter of complaint to the governor's wife and she contacted the Maine Arts Commission, who sent me a letter explaining that the contribution was rejected because the jury perceived it to be "spam". The obvious rationalization did not hold water, as it is common knowledge that spam is a product of mass mailing, and I sent a single email to the creative economy list serve. In that contribution I requested that Maine crafters write to Senator Snowe. If the "jury" at the Maine Arts Commission identifies such a request as "spam", it only indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the Maine Arts Commission, a belief that has been continually reinforced in the ensuing years.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Creative Economy
There is a new list serve that has been circulating the states that goes by the name of "The Creative Economy" . The list-serve is coming from the governor's office of my state..
I live in a rural community and welcomed the idea of a public discussion of creative economy that can bring together geographically separated people.
I have been trying to discover what the term "creative economy" actually represents and who is behind this movement. There is a book that is recurringly referrenced. It is The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida.
I don't like the title of the book. It rings of the elitism of Ayn Rand.
But, before rushing to judgement, I am trying to gain an understanding of the broader spectrum of ideas that are being considered under the banner of The Creative Economy.
I read an internet article by Richard Florida. He communicates enthusiasm but his ideas don't gell as a whole to these ears.
As I am writing this I decided to find that article but instead I came across of a reveiw of Florida's latest book. found here http://www.creativeclass.org/
In a reveiw credited to Publishers Weekly, these words scream out at me:
the loss of even a few geniuses can have tremendous impact, adding that the "overblown" economic threat posed by large nations such as China and India obscures all the little blows inflicted upon the U.S. by Canada, Scandinavia, New Zealand and other countries with more open political climates.
Has the whole country gone mad, I wonder? Of course the loss of jobs to China is a serious threat, in fact I recently heard that my state has lost more jobs to China than any other nation, and all I am hearing about is Richard Florida?!?
Are these "few geniuses" more important that the entire population of the country?
I wonder by what measure one determines the status of genius? Undoubtedly the same measure that Richard Florida uses to rate the creative index of the fifty states. That is, Richard Florida's personal preferences.
I go upstairs to comment to my octogenarian father who is engrossed in watching a session of Congress on Cspan.
Dad tells me that the government just made a deal to sell our telecommunications industry to China.
This sounds serious but I have to find out the whole story for my self before I rush to conclusions.
Father continues that Congress has just voted to elliminate credit card dept relief through bankruptcy.
And this is combined with loss of jobs and lowered income ,I think, but more to find out about for myself.
I wonder if the governor of our state is as enthralled by the philosophy of Richard Florida as are others that I am encountering. He (the governor) is schedualed to be at a forum on the creative economy in a nearby town at the end of March.
I have to find out these things before then.
I live in a rural community and welcomed the idea of a public discussion of creative economy that can bring together geographically separated people.
I have been trying to discover what the term "creative economy" actually represents and who is behind this movement. There is a book that is recurringly referrenced. It is The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida.
I don't like the title of the book. It rings of the elitism of Ayn Rand.
But, before rushing to judgement, I am trying to gain an understanding of the broader spectrum of ideas that are being considered under the banner of The Creative Economy.
I read an internet article by Richard Florida. He communicates enthusiasm but his ideas don't gell as a whole to these ears.
As I am writing this I decided to find that article but instead I came across of a reveiw of Florida's latest book. found here http://www.creativeclass.org/
In a reveiw credited to Publishers Weekly, these words scream out at me:
the loss of even a few geniuses can have tremendous impact, adding that the "overblown" economic threat posed by large nations such as China and India obscures all the little blows inflicted upon the U.S. by Canada, Scandinavia, New Zealand and other countries with more open political climates.
Has the whole country gone mad, I wonder? Of course the loss of jobs to China is a serious threat, in fact I recently heard that my state has lost more jobs to China than any other nation, and all I am hearing about is Richard Florida?!?
Are these "few geniuses" more important that the entire population of the country?
I wonder by what measure one determines the status of genius? Undoubtedly the same measure that Richard Florida uses to rate the creative index of the fifty states. That is, Richard Florida's personal preferences.
I go upstairs to comment to my octogenarian father who is engrossed in watching a session of Congress on Cspan.
Dad tells me that the government just made a deal to sell our telecommunications industry to China.
This sounds serious but I have to find out the whole story for my self before I rush to conclusions.
Father continues that Congress has just voted to elliminate credit card dept relief through bankruptcy.
And this is combined with loss of jobs and lowered income ,I think, but more to find out about for myself.
I wonder if the governor of our state is as enthralled by the philosophy of Richard Florida as are others that I am encountering. He (the governor) is schedualed to be at a forum on the creative economy in a nearby town at the end of March.
I have to find out these things before then.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Sitting on A Log
Feb 24 2005
To Blog or Not to Blog, That is the question.
To Blog because the space is here, made available through the graciousness of the world through this moment in time and the technology of man and because I have responded to the invitation and formulated my place in the space.
This log on which I sit is situated in the woods that I have wandered so many times throughout my life. I am alone in the woods and my thoughts are unrestricted by social institutions, or professional considerations. It's just the woods with the salt water pond not too far off and which ever direction I choose to wander it all leads to the ocean.
To Blog or Not to Blog, That is the question.
To Blog because the space is here, made available through the graciousness of the world through this moment in time and the technology of man and because I have responded to the invitation and formulated my place in the space.
This log on which I sit is situated in the woods that I have wandered so many times throughout my life. I am alone in the woods and my thoughts are unrestricted by social institutions, or professional considerations. It's just the woods with the salt water pond not too far off and which ever direction I choose to wander it all leads to the ocean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)