18/09: Speaking Truth to Fanaticism
The Pope has been joined by the Archbishop of Greece who condemned "Islamic fanaticism" especially in Africa. Article here from Africa News. Hat tip Jihadwatch.
Because of the continuing furor over the Pope's remarks, I copy now my earlier post.
Pope Benedict XVI recently gave a speech that has angered some Muslims. The Vatican now has put an English translation of his lecture online here. The title is "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections"
The speech, overall, is a very strong argument for the place of a theological faculty within a university, for the intrinsic link between reason and faith, and a criticism of the modern restriction of reason to a scientific positivism. I heartily recommend a careful reading of this lecture.
This is the part that inflames Muslims (cont. below).
Because of the continuing furor over the Pope's remarks, I copy now my earlier post.
Pope Benedict XVI recently gave a speech that has angered some Muslims. The Vatican now has put an English translation of his lecture online here. The title is "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections"
The speech, overall, is a very strong argument for the place of a theological faculty within a university, for the intrinsic link between reason and faith, and a criticism of the modern restriction of reason to a scientific positivism. I heartily recommend a careful reading of this lecture.
This is the part that inflames Muslims (cont. below).
18/09: Religious Freedom Report
The State Department's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom is now available. The Report may be viewed on State's page here. The full report is downloadable as a pdf file. Hat tip Little Green Footballs.
I've put the Executive Summary in the extended section.
The worst offenders of religious freedom are designated Countries of Particular Concern. This year's list: "In November 2005, the Secretary re-designated Burma, China, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam as CPCs. Further details on U.S. actions in CPCs and other countries may be found in each individual country report." (half of these are Islamic--Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia--the other half are totalitarian regimes). So glad to see that free trade is bringing more and more freedom to the Chinese people (sarcasm alert).
I've put the Executive Summary in the extended section.
The worst offenders of religious freedom are designated Countries of Particular Concern. This year's list: "In November 2005, the Secretary re-designated Burma, China, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam as CPCs. Further details on U.S. actions in CPCs and other countries may be found in each individual country report." (half of these are Islamic--Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia--the other half are totalitarian regimes). So glad to see that free trade is bringing more and more freedom to the Chinese people (sarcasm alert).
Recently A Waco Farmer posted an excellent piece entitled The Age of Paine. One of his comments prompted a response from me. He wrote:" Plenty of contemporary commentators warn that the Middle East is culturally ill-prepared to embrace democratic rule; consequently, they cast the US project to remake the Middle East as unadulterated folly. The argument in a nutshell: how can a society without an understanding and appreciation of John Locke adopt popular government? President Bush has intimated that this argument is a form of racism (or at least Eurocentrism). An aside: as one who teaches freshman history, I can only hope that a democratic society without an appreciation for John Locke can survive." To which I expanded "A brilliant essay. I would add that we colonials were the beneficiaries of the military power of English nobles (Magna Carta)[, the] violence of the English Civil War in the 17th century, and the miracle of the Glorious Revolution. Much of our violence had been done for us already before our Revolution. But, re: the Midle East, before Locke, the English also had the Puritans, followers and adapters of a Reformed theology from Switzerland that taught that tyranny was devilish. Calvin in Geneva granted a right to nobles and magistrates to rebel against a tyrant, Knox in Scotland turned it into a religious duty incumbant upon all Christians. (Committment to limited government based not on Burke, but on a radical understanding of Human Depravity.)"
I now would like to expand on the contributions made by the Reformed Tradition, mediated through the Puritans, that have contributed to our understanding of republican government, especially the idea of limited government. (cont. below)
I now would like to expand on the contributions made by the Reformed Tradition, mediated through the Puritans, that have contributed to our understanding of republican government, especially the idea of limited government. (cont. below)
16/09: The Feeling on the Ground
I do not want to make too much of this anecdote, but, I think it may indeed say something about American opinion between San Jose/San Francisco and Manhattan.
The other day I was in a group of older Native American men, most of whom are not members of our church. These are not rabid Republicans, nor are they blind Democrats. World affairs came up, specifically Islamic terrorism. One man suggested we may need to nuke Iran. Everyone present shook their heads in agreement. The oldest present then said: "If ants are getting into your house, you can't get rid of them a few at a time in your kitchen; you go into your yard, pour gas on the ant hill, and set it on fire."
The other day I was in a group of older Native American men, most of whom are not members of our church. These are not rabid Republicans, nor are they blind Democrats. World affairs came up, specifically Islamic terrorism. One man suggested we may need to nuke Iran. Everyone present shook their heads in agreement. The oldest present then said: "If ants are getting into your house, you can't get rid of them a few at a time in your kitchen; you go into your yard, pour gas on the ant hill, and set it on fire."
One of the biggest problems we face in both conflicts is the fact that the enemy have safe havens adjacent to combat areas. For the sanctuary situation for Afghanistan, see this excellent material from The Fourth Rail. Here Hat tip Instapundit. Pakistan has allowed the creation of a Taliban controlled region along the Afghan border.
16/09: Clinton-44: Part II
If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 (and at this moment, she is the most likely person to be the forty-fourth president of the United States--see Part I), America will endure; perhaps, we will even prosper.
Why it's probably going to be okay: What do I mean by "okay"? I mean we will be fine; she will be fine.
A personal aside: A few months back, in two separate off-line discussions on the same issue, I got on the wrong side of my friends, and Bosque Boys regulars, Gossenius and "Tocqueville" (quite a feat; they do not agree on much). I rendered them incredulous arguing that Harriet Miers would "be fine" as a Supreme Court justice (they both argued that she was unqualified).
Gossenius, especially, properly demanded that I explain my statement. At the time, I was at a loss to articulate what I knew in my soul: it does not take a legal genius to serve on the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are great legal minds, and they advocate brilliantly for their positions. But are they good jurists? Are they honest triers of fact? Or are they merely brilliant proponents of their particular political philosophies. Harriet would have been fine.
I am just enough of a "Jacksonian Democrat" to be increasingly convinced that common sense and integrity are more important qualities in leadership than ideology or conspicuous intelligence. It does not take an Ivy League-educated intellectual to serve as president of the United States. In fact, some of our least successful presidents have been geniuses (Herbert Hoover & JQ Adams, for example).
John Kerry would have been fine. Al Gore: fine. George Bush: fine. Mrs. Clinton will be fine, for she is a dedicated public servant who wants America to prosper and succeed. The presidency will test her, torment her and age her, but it will also demand her very best. I have a whole list of disagreements with Mrs. Clinton, but just like all of her predecessors, she will summon the total of her inner strength and the best elements of her personality to meet the awesome challenges of the office.
More importantly, our nation has the innate capacity to overcome mediocre leaders. Writing in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed: "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their [ability] to commit faults which they may afterwards repair." As a corollary, he wrote: "American democracy frequently errs in the choice of the individuals to whom it entrusts the power of the administration; but...the state prospers under their rule."
Why does American democracy prosper in spite of inferior leadership? Tocqueville offered three reasons: 1) the people are vigilant and jealous of their rights; 2) leaders are in power for relatively short periods of time; and, most importantly, 3) the interest of the leaders are more likely to be subsumed in the interest of the people. While aristocratic (or elite) "magistrates" might offer more sterling talents and virtues individually, there is "a secret tendency in democratic institutions that [works toward the good] of the community in spite of their vices and mistakes." Ironically, Tocqueville argues, "in aristocratic governments public men may frequently do harm without intending it; and in democratic states they bring about good results of which they have never thought."
Political passions tend to blind us to the good in American public servants. Looking back over American history, we do not see a pattern of good versus evil (although the partisans of the day certainly cast the contests in that light). The battles between Hamilton and Jefferson were fought on those terms, but we now see that Hamilton and Jefferson both were earnest in their love of country and both essential to our success. The same can be said for Jackson and Clay or McKinley and Bryan. Some Americans live long enough to participate on both sides of the divide. Ronald Reagan began his adulthood as a New Deal Democrat and adherent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but he lived to lead a counter-revolution that bears his name. In truth, he was right both times.
America perseveres.
Why it's probably going to be okay: What do I mean by "okay"? I mean we will be fine; she will be fine.
A personal aside: A few months back, in two separate off-line discussions on the same issue, I got on the wrong side of my friends, and Bosque Boys regulars, Gossenius and "Tocqueville" (quite a feat; they do not agree on much). I rendered them incredulous arguing that Harriet Miers would "be fine" as a Supreme Court justice (they both argued that she was unqualified).
Gossenius, especially, properly demanded that I explain my statement. At the time, I was at a loss to articulate what I knew in my soul: it does not take a legal genius to serve on the Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are great legal minds, and they advocate brilliantly for their positions. But are they good jurists? Are they honest triers of fact? Or are they merely brilliant proponents of their particular political philosophies. Harriet would have been fine.
I am just enough of a "Jacksonian Democrat" to be increasingly convinced that common sense and integrity are more important qualities in leadership than ideology or conspicuous intelligence. It does not take an Ivy League-educated intellectual to serve as president of the United States. In fact, some of our least successful presidents have been geniuses (Herbert Hoover & JQ Adams, for example).
John Kerry would have been fine. Al Gore: fine. George Bush: fine. Mrs. Clinton will be fine, for she is a dedicated public servant who wants America to prosper and succeed. The presidency will test her, torment her and age her, but it will also demand her very best. I have a whole list of disagreements with Mrs. Clinton, but just like all of her predecessors, she will summon the total of her inner strength and the best elements of her personality to meet the awesome challenges of the office.
More importantly, our nation has the innate capacity to overcome mediocre leaders. Writing in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed: "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their [ability] to commit faults which they may afterwards repair." As a corollary, he wrote: "American democracy frequently errs in the choice of the individuals to whom it entrusts the power of the administration; but...the state prospers under their rule."
Why does American democracy prosper in spite of inferior leadership? Tocqueville offered three reasons: 1) the people are vigilant and jealous of their rights; 2) leaders are in power for relatively short periods of time; and, most importantly, 3) the interest of the leaders are more likely to be subsumed in the interest of the people. While aristocratic (or elite) "magistrates" might offer more sterling talents and virtues individually, there is "a secret tendency in democratic institutions that [works toward the good] of the community in spite of their vices and mistakes." Ironically, Tocqueville argues, "in aristocratic governments public men may frequently do harm without intending it; and in democratic states they bring about good results of which they have never thought."
Political passions tend to blind us to the good in American public servants. Looking back over American history, we do not see a pattern of good versus evil (although the partisans of the day certainly cast the contests in that light). The battles between Hamilton and Jefferson were fought on those terms, but we now see that Hamilton and Jefferson both were earnest in their love of country and both essential to our success. The same can be said for Jackson and Clay or McKinley and Bryan. Some Americans live long enough to participate on both sides of the divide. Ronald Reagan began his adulthood as a New Deal Democrat and adherent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but he lived to lead a counter-revolution that bears his name. In truth, he was right both times.
America perseveres.
16/09: Clinton-44: Part I
If elected president of the United States in 2008, Hillary Clinton will make the least attractive and least affable chief executive of the modern media age. From the piercing laugh (oftentimes when nothing is funny) to the menacing scowl when the TV cameras catch her in unguarded moments, Mrs. Clinton tends to come across unnervingly manufactured, even soulless at times.
A sensitive person winces at the potential for insult and imitation, if professional comedians ever draw their bead on the Senator from New York. Essentially humorless, Mrs. Clinton projects a deep cynicism that seems unbecoming as the leader of the free world. Up to this point, her most memorable public utterance remains, "the vast right-wing conspiracy," when she famously identified a mysterious cabal engaged in a plot to bring down her and her husband.
Having said all that, if she is elected (and at this moment, she is the most likely person to be the forty-fourth president of the United States), America will endure; perhaps, we will even prosper.
Why she's probably going to win: 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the election will transpire in the sixth year of the war in Iraq. Even if things get dramatically better in the Middle East, Americans will remain sour on our actions for at least a decade. While the economy is arguably quite robust presently, the public seems less than satisfied. We are not likely to see any dramatic upswings in consumer confidence during the next two years. The two candidates who most likely would run strongest against the Democratic candidate, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are unlikely to win the Republican nomination.
So, given the likely list of GOP nominees, the war and the Bush economy (that cannot seem to "get no respect") and factoring in the traditional restlessness of the American electorate at the presidential level, it follows that almost any Democratic nominee can win the general election (even John Kerry). If Hillary wants the nomination, she is likely to get it. If she gets the nomination, she is likely to win election.
Might she decline? Most American statesman, given the opportunity to be president, jump at the chance. For reasons of pride and personal satisfaction as well as public interest (granted, these two reasons are closely related; that is, most politicians believe that it is in the public interest for them to be in charge), the presidency is the irresistible and irreplaceable capstone to a political career in our nation.
Bottom-line: The Democratic nomination is Clinton's to lose or decline. My bet is that she accepts it.
See Part II for why we will endure; Part III will offer a scenario in which we might even prosper.
A sensitive person winces at the potential for insult and imitation, if professional comedians ever draw their bead on the Senator from New York. Essentially humorless, Mrs. Clinton projects a deep cynicism that seems unbecoming as the leader of the free world. Up to this point, her most memorable public utterance remains, "the vast right-wing conspiracy," when she famously identified a mysterious cabal engaged in a plot to bring down her and her husband.
Having said all that, if she is elected (and at this moment, she is the most likely person to be the forty-fourth president of the United States), America will endure; perhaps, we will even prosper.
Why she's probably going to win: 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the election will transpire in the sixth year of the war in Iraq. Even if things get dramatically better in the Middle East, Americans will remain sour on our actions for at least a decade. While the economy is arguably quite robust presently, the public seems less than satisfied. We are not likely to see any dramatic upswings in consumer confidence during the next two years. The two candidates who most likely would run strongest against the Democratic candidate, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are unlikely to win the Republican nomination.
So, given the likely list of GOP nominees, the war and the Bush economy (that cannot seem to "get no respect") and factoring in the traditional restlessness of the American electorate at the presidential level, it follows that almost any Democratic nominee can win the general election (even John Kerry). If Hillary wants the nomination, she is likely to get it. If she gets the nomination, she is likely to win election.
Might she decline? Most American statesman, given the opportunity to be president, jump at the chance. For reasons of pride and personal satisfaction as well as public interest (granted, these two reasons are closely related; that is, most politicians believe that it is in the public interest for them to be in charge), the presidency is the irresistible and irreplaceable capstone to a political career in our nation.
Bottom-line: The Democratic nomination is Clinton's to lose or decline. My bet is that she accepts it.
See Part II for why we will endure; Part III will offer a scenario in which we might even prosper.
No, I am not being sarcastic with this heading. Yesterday the House approved the spending transparency bill, changing House rules so that earmarks are explicit, with sponsor names attached. Instapundit has details here:
"PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: THE EARMARK-REFORM RULES CHANGE has passed the House 245-171. This is an excellent day.
Neither this, nor the passage of S. 2590 this week, means that the problem of wasteful -- and often corrupt -- pork has been solved. But it does mean that a much greater dose of transparency has been applied, and I think that's likely to make a very significant difference.
How big a difference, of course, will depend on the extent to which people continue to pay attention.
UPDATE: Here's a list of how they voted. You might want to let your Rep. know how you feel about his/her vote.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The White House has issued a statement from President Bush on the reform:
I applaud the House of Representatives for voting again this week in support of greater transparency and accountability in government. H.R. 1000 would shine a brighter light on earmarks by requiring disclosure of the sponsors of each provision. This reform would help improve the legislative process by making sure both lawmakers and the public are better informed before Congress votes to spend the taxpayers’ money.
I'm told the White House regards this as "a good first step." Indeed."
(An okie gardener again) Interesting to me is the breakdown of Ayes and Nays by party (from the House Clerk) Dems like darkness rather than light on spending.
Republican Y 199 N 24 NV 8
Democratic Y 45 N 147 NV 9
Independent Y 1
TOTALS Y 245 N 171 NV17
"PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: THE EARMARK-REFORM RULES CHANGE has passed the House 245-171. This is an excellent day.
Neither this, nor the passage of S. 2590 this week, means that the problem of wasteful -- and often corrupt -- pork has been solved. But it does mean that a much greater dose of transparency has been applied, and I think that's likely to make a very significant difference.
How big a difference, of course, will depend on the extent to which people continue to pay attention.
UPDATE: Here's a list of how they voted. You might want to let your Rep. know how you feel about his/her vote.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The White House has issued a statement from President Bush on the reform:
I applaud the House of Representatives for voting again this week in support of greater transparency and accountability in government. H.R. 1000 would shine a brighter light on earmarks by requiring disclosure of the sponsors of each provision. This reform would help improve the legislative process by making sure both lawmakers and the public are better informed before Congress votes to spend the taxpayers’ money.
I'm told the White House regards this as "a good first step." Indeed."
(An okie gardener again) Interesting to me is the breakdown of Ayes and Nays by party (from the House Clerk) Dems like darkness rather than light on spending.
Republican Y 199 N 24 NV 8
Democratic Y 45 N 147 NV 9
Independent Y 1
TOTALS Y 245 N 171 NV17
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the AP via the Washington Post:
"Former Texas governor Ann Richards, the witty and flamboyant Democrat who went from homemaker to national political celebrity, died Sept. 13 after cancer was diagnosed this year, a family spokeswoman said. She was 73."
Wayne Slater, the senior political writer for The Dallas Morning News and famous Karl Rove-watcher, pens a flattering tribute to the former governor, which is worth reading.
An excerpt:
"When Ms. Richards first took office as governor, she retained her predecessor's huge cotton-trader's desk, but little else in the office.
"Gone were the Tom Lea oil paintings of cowboys and cattle. They were replaced by contemporary art: an impressionist beach scene and huge photographs of outdoor settings tinted in green and mauve.
"In one corner was a sculpture of a woman, erect and serene, playing a lute on the back of a tiger. The metaphor was not lost on her."
The Speech. Unfortunately, most of us were introduced to Ann Richards in 1988, when she offered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. That particular venue begs for partisanship and crude characterizations, and she delivered. We all remember the line that made her famous:
"Poor George. He can't help it - he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
Employing a thick Texas drawl and sprinkling her address with colorful "Texasisms," the Waco native and Baylor graduate touched on all the boilerplate items one would expect to hear from a loyal party functionary: FDR, the Depression and the "little man." Republicans were uncaring, corporate malefactors intent on polluting the water and starving children. She cast Ronald Reagan as the personification of cruelty and incompetence, while she held up Jesse Jackson as the epitome of American statesmanship. It was an unabashedly political speech, but not inappropriate for that particular stage.
Even though candidate George H.W. Bush, the primary target of her blistering attack, overcame the verbal assault to win election as president that year, the speech launched Richards into the national orbit. Two years later, Richards won the governorship of Texas. Two years after that, she chaired the Democratic National Convention that nominated Bill Clinton, who defeated the incumbent President Bush.
Those were heady times for Governor Richards. With public opinion polls registering strong approval for her in Texas and beyond, her star seemed on the rise. Then all the laughter turned to sorrow. George Bush the son (whom she and Molly Ivins called "the shrub") emerged to challenge her reelection juggernaut and square the family accounts. The forty-seven-year-old "ne'er-do-well" seemed an unlikely figure to settle the score. Inarticulate and lacking accomplishment and political experience, he was easy to "misunderestimate." Governor Richards did not realize until much too late that she was in a fight, and the legend of George W. was born.
Sadder and Wiser: The governor left the Texas statehouse proudly proclaiming that she "had opened government to everyone," but she was humbled, relegated to CNN and Doritos commercials. And she softened some in her later years, explaining that life had made her "sadder and wiser" over time.
A personal aside: I saw that side of her once. I attended a funeral in Waco a few years ago where she eulogized her cousin. She was wonderful. She spoke simple words before simple people. Her Texas accent was less accentuated, her tone was soft and comforting, and her words were meaningful. She owned the room and won me over.
It is easy to demonize a hard-charging, take-no-prisoners party loyalist, but American politics would not be American politics without rabid believers and verbal brawlers. Let us not judge her too harshly. Ann Richards was a hard woman in a hard game. She came from way back in the pack and ascended to the national stage on the strength of her passion for "justice" and her inner drive to win. She gave no quarter, and she asked for none. In the end, however, the story of Ann Richards embodies and reinforces the notion of opportunity and equality and the ideal that hard work and determination can lead to triumph.
Although I will never forget her ringing condemnation in that noisy hall in the summer of 1988, I prefer to remember her for her softer words of consolation and community that I heard in the smallish memorial chapel in Waco ten years later.
Rest in peace, Ann Richards. "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
"Former Texas governor Ann Richards, the witty and flamboyant Democrat who went from homemaker to national political celebrity, died Sept. 13 after cancer was diagnosed this year, a family spokeswoman said. She was 73."
Wayne Slater, the senior political writer for The Dallas Morning News and famous Karl Rove-watcher, pens a flattering tribute to the former governor, which is worth reading.
An excerpt:
"When Ms. Richards first took office as governor, she retained her predecessor's huge cotton-trader's desk, but little else in the office.
"Gone were the Tom Lea oil paintings of cowboys and cattle. They were replaced by contemporary art: an impressionist beach scene and huge photographs of outdoor settings tinted in green and mauve.
"In one corner was a sculpture of a woman, erect and serene, playing a lute on the back of a tiger. The metaphor was not lost on her."
The Speech. Unfortunately, most of us were introduced to Ann Richards in 1988, when she offered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. That particular venue begs for partisanship and crude characterizations, and she delivered. We all remember the line that made her famous:
"Poor George. He can't help it - he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
Employing a thick Texas drawl and sprinkling her address with colorful "Texasisms," the Waco native and Baylor graduate touched on all the boilerplate items one would expect to hear from a loyal party functionary: FDR, the Depression and the "little man." Republicans were uncaring, corporate malefactors intent on polluting the water and starving children. She cast Ronald Reagan as the personification of cruelty and incompetence, while she held up Jesse Jackson as the epitome of American statesmanship. It was an unabashedly political speech, but not inappropriate for that particular stage.
Even though candidate George H.W. Bush, the primary target of her blistering attack, overcame the verbal assault to win election as president that year, the speech launched Richards into the national orbit. Two years later, Richards won the governorship of Texas. Two years after that, she chaired the Democratic National Convention that nominated Bill Clinton, who defeated the incumbent President Bush.
Those were heady times for Governor Richards. With public opinion polls registering strong approval for her in Texas and beyond, her star seemed on the rise. Then all the laughter turned to sorrow. George Bush the son (whom she and Molly Ivins called "the shrub") emerged to challenge her reelection juggernaut and square the family accounts. The forty-seven-year-old "ne'er-do-well" seemed an unlikely figure to settle the score. Inarticulate and lacking accomplishment and political experience, he was easy to "misunderestimate." Governor Richards did not realize until much too late that she was in a fight, and the legend of George W. was born.
Sadder and Wiser: The governor left the Texas statehouse proudly proclaiming that she "had opened government to everyone," but she was humbled, relegated to CNN and Doritos commercials. And she softened some in her later years, explaining that life had made her "sadder and wiser" over time.
A personal aside: I saw that side of her once. I attended a funeral in Waco a few years ago where she eulogized her cousin. She was wonderful. She spoke simple words before simple people. Her Texas accent was less accentuated, her tone was soft and comforting, and her words were meaningful. She owned the room and won me over.
It is easy to demonize a hard-charging, take-no-prisoners party loyalist, but American politics would not be American politics without rabid believers and verbal brawlers. Let us not judge her too harshly. Ann Richards was a hard woman in a hard game. She came from way back in the pack and ascended to the national stage on the strength of her passion for "justice" and her inner drive to win. She gave no quarter, and she asked for none. In the end, however, the story of Ann Richards embodies and reinforces the notion of opportunity and equality and the ideal that hard work and determination can lead to triumph.
Although I will never forget her ringing condemnation in that noisy hall in the summer of 1988, I prefer to remember her for her softer words of consolation and community that I heard in the smallish memorial chapel in Waco ten years later.
Rest in peace, Ann Richards. "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
In an earlier post I had some info on the legislation that has passed Congress creating a searchable database of Federal grant, etc, spending. Here. Now, here is information from Tim Chapman on a related vote to change House Rules so as to make spending legislation explicit, obvious, and with the sponsor's name attached. The prospects for this change being approved are dicey. Link here. A portion of the info is here:
"The more controversial measure is a proposed House rules change that would change the current culture of earmarking in Congress. Under the proposed change, all committee reports for appropriations bills, authorization bills or tax bills will be required to contain a list of all the earmarks in the legislation along with the names of the member who requested the earmark. Also, conference reports will be required to contain the same list with additions from the conference. Members who find a particular earmark inappropriate or egregious will have the freedom to highlight that project.
The House Rules Committee is holding a committee markup on the rule change tomorrow and a vote has been scheduled for Thursday. The vote will be close.
Appropriators (of course) have problems with the legislation. As many as 15 appropriators could oppose the measure as it is currently written. There is hope of winning some Democratic votes though. The place to look for Democrat votes will be amongst the 35 moderates — a remnant of the blue dogs — who voted for line item veto powers for the President. But these votes will not come easy."
cont.
"The more controversial measure is a proposed House rules change that would change the current culture of earmarking in Congress. Under the proposed change, all committee reports for appropriations bills, authorization bills or tax bills will be required to contain a list of all the earmarks in the legislation along with the names of the member who requested the earmark. Also, conference reports will be required to contain the same list with additions from the conference. Members who find a particular earmark inappropriate or egregious will have the freedom to highlight that project.
The House Rules Committee is holding a committee markup on the rule change tomorrow and a vote has been scheduled for Thursday. The vote will be close.
Appropriators (of course) have problems with the legislation. As many as 15 appropriators could oppose the measure as it is currently written. There is hope of winning some Democratic votes though. The place to look for Democrat votes will be amongst the 35 moderates — a remnant of the blue dogs — who voted for line item veto powers for the President. But these votes will not come easy."
cont.
