Forgive me, readers, but the latest project I am working on (to be announced, shortly, on this blog, even), is requiring me to do a test post. This should be the only one, and I do hope you understand.
We’ll be back to our regularly scheduled happenings, soon, including the outing of even more sell-outs.
Guest writer, Dr. Walter Brasch joins us today with a column about Bush, Foreign Energy, American workers, Outsourcing, Illegal immigration, low wages, and more… As always, the guests views do not necessarily represent the views of MindSpeak, or its primary author. If you would like to be a guest writer for MindSpeak, please contact.
The Not-so-Secret Foreign Energy Source
by Walter Brasch
President Bush, several years after most Americans, has decided the nation can’t be dependent upon foreign energy sources.
For much of his life, when he wasn’t stoned or wasted, and especially when he was running what came to be a series of failed corporations, Bush worshipped the power of oil, while denouncing global warming as junk science. But now, as an enlightened president who is prevented by his own incompetence and inability to deal with the insurgency and unable to drill for oil in Iraq, Bush has decided that alternative energy is necessary. He has a plan—ethanol. It’s cheap, he says. It’s available from American corn crops, he claims. It’s primarily provided by Archer Daniels Midland, which has consistently been a large donor to political campaigns, primarily Republican. But, just in case ethanol isn’t as reliable as Bush believes it could be, there’s still the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Our oil-slicked President believes killing animals and disrupting the ecological balance in the ANWR to drill for oil beneath the frozen tundra is also part of the solution to the oil crisis. By 2025, according to government projections, and assuming a ten year development during which no oil is pumped, oil produced in ANWR will represent only about 1 to 2 percent of the Americans’ daily needs; if all the oil in ANWR were successfully mined, it would represent less than a one year supply.
But, while Bush says we shouldn’t depend upon foreign energy, he really means we should depend upon foreign energy, not in the form of natural resources but in a human form.
Sean-Paul, over at agonist,org, has a post up about Congressman Charlie Gonzales. It appears that Congressman Gonzales - a democrat - has voted AGAINST the Markey Amendment because he is opposed to “regulating the Internet.”
Later that same afternoon, however, Congressman Gonzales offered up an amendment - sponsored by AT&T, no less - to regulate search engines. Democrats were absolutely dumbfounded, as Gonzales had stated, earlier, publicly, that he was opposed to regulating the Internet.
Oh Charlie… Have you no shame?
Gonzales represents the San Antonio, TX area - home of AT&T.
Technorati Tags: AT&T, Gonzales Amendment, Markey Amendment, Charlie Gonzales
Meet Congressman Gene Green. Congressman Green is a Democrat representing the 29th district in Texas. Congressman green has been representing Texas since 1993. Congressman Green, as a Democrat, has sworn to uphold the democratic values, and is expected to vote as his liberal constituents expect. Congressman Green, however, is a sell out.
On April 26th, 2006, the Markey Amendment to the COPE Act went for a vote before the House Energy & Commerce Committee, of which Congressman Green is a member. The Markey Amendment - if passed - would ensure network neutrality across the Internet - in essence saving the Internet from (telecom/cable) big business. Congressman Green - directly opposite of Democratic party lines, and values - voted against the Markey Amendment.
I have spent the past several hours attempting to determine why Congressman Green voted to support big business. I believe I have come up with the answer. Congressman Green has sold out to the big telecommunications and cable companies. I do not make these comments lightly, and below I will provide the data, and links, to back it up.
Do you use Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, or Comcast for your Internet access? If so, you may want to learn about some legislation the big phone and cable companies are pushing. It’s a legislation that will get rid of Net Neutrality. In other words, AT&T, Time Warner, etc… will begin charging websites for access to their networks. The amount of fees paid by those websites will dictate how fast the site loads - or if it loads at all.
Not sure what all this is about? Go read this FAQ… I’ll wait.
It works like this. If the big guns have their way, then each and every website may* have to pay for access to the big company’s networks in order for their site to be accessible to those customers. The companies are planning on charging in a tier model. The higher the price paid, the faster the site will load, and the more accessible it will be.
What’s at stake? The Internet as we know it. The future of media is the Internet. This dispute is over who will control new technologies.
What else is at stake? Every. single. website. If the big guns win, and net neutrality disappears, then this blog, and every other website I run, may be forced off of the Internet, as I can’t afford to pay for extra charges like that.
Hundreds of millions of other websites may disappear, too. New technologies may suddenly become limited, or may only be available to certain people on certain networks, and not available to people using other networks.
Please… Support net neutrality, and call your representative today and ask them to vote FOR net neutrality. If the public masses don’t cry foul, and cry LOUDLY, the government won’t support this bill. Ensure the future of the ‘net as we know it. Call. Support. Get the word out.
Technorati Tags: net neutrality
You know, I can remember when the Texas legislature meant something. The scary thing is, it hasn’t been all that long ago, as I only started paying attention to politics in the last ten years.
I’ve been following this school finance fiasco for a little bit, although I’ve refrained from commenting on it because, well, others are doing such a bang-up job. Not to mention, I’m still a little uncertain on what a lot of things mean, and the potential ramifications of things.
Here what I do know. First off, I don’t agree with the bills as they’re written. Vince Leibowitz has written a post deconstructing each proposed bill, and explaining just what they mean. It’s a pretty telling post. I especially love the escalating cigarette tax. Let me dive into that one a bit - just the shallow end…
Everyone take a minute out from the fray of the latest legislative hoopla, and welcome TexasKOS.com to the polisphere.
TexasKOS.com is the newest progressive political blog to hit the Texas polisphere. Charged with the task of taking Texas back, this group of intrepid individuals has jumped to challenge of new media as a way to get the word out.
Give ‘em a visit!
ATTENTION: Call your STATE representatives and tell them to vote AGAINST this rule!!! (Click here to find out your state representative and their phone number. Make sure you call the “Texas STATE Representative”)
A procedural rule will be introduced TODAY (04-21-06) in the House as the first frontal assault on teachers, schools, and school districts. The rule will dictate the procedure of the house and will regulate amendments, costs, and most importantly the required focus of the legislation.
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that the current property tax is an unconstitutional statewide property tax. Now, Austin is in a frenzy trying to fix the problem and “get out of dodge.”
If legislators vote for the proposed rule TODAY (04-21-06), they will be voting for restricting House Bill 1 (The Highland Park Windfall Proposal) to only taxation issues and will not address school funding.
This will mandate that no amendment can be offered to increase teacher pay, no new textbooks, no funding for school facilities, no teacher health insurance, and no extra funding for transportation during these time of extraordinary gas prices.
It is time to hold the legislature accountable to teachers and students. It is time for our elected officials to focus their attention on school funding and not just creating huge windfalls for Highland Park, Alamo Heights, or Bellaire while forgetting Edgewood, Houston, Dallas, or the thousands of other school districts.
By voting for a rule today, they are saying no to education for potentially the next decade!
This bill is expected to be introduced by Rep. Beverly Wooley, although the rumors are flying that it’s Rep. Craddick’s baby, and has the push and backing of Governor Perry.
In the words of another concerned blogger:
“In other words, no amendments for teacher pay raises or health insurance or new textbooks and other non-essentials. I mean, I guess the real question is, is our legislators learning?”
Call your STATE lege rep, today, and tell them to vote NO for this rule. Voting yes will jeapordize our children and their education for years to come.
Look at it this way, people…. By removing the statewide property tax - something they HAVE to do - they will be removing a significant amount of funding from our schools. This whole session was called for education…
Folks, we’re 50 out of 50 for educational spending. If we can’t afford to pay our teachers, and give them mandatory pay increases (yearly raises), or even cost of living increases, they’ll go somewhere else. We need our teachers. We need textbooks. Kids need to be able to get to school.
Don’t be boneheaded about this and assume that Perry and the conservative lege know what they’re doing. Make the call, and let them know how pissed off you are that nothing is being done about education.
Technorati Tags: Texas, Education, texas education reform
I found this press release on the Texas House website… It appears Burt Solomons has proposed a pretty damned equitable solution to our education issues… I think it merits at least a strong debate:
Austin, TX – On the first day of a special session to fix school finance Representative Burt Solomons (Carrollton) filed legislation that would allow Texans to vote to permanently increase the state’s funding of public schools. “HJR 15 is an opportunity to make public education the state’s number one priority,” said Rep. Solomons. This is the third time since 2003, Rep. Solomons has filed a constitutional amendment to set the minimum state funding of the public school system at 50 percent.
Vince, over at Capitol Annex, has written a lengthy post detailing the pieces of legislation introduced during the current special session. He details each of the proposed bills, and gives his take (on a 1-10 scale) as to the chances each has of passing.
Thus far, my favorite bill is HB26:
HB 26 (Burnam): Relating to the imposition of an income tax on income that exceeds $100,000 to provide property tax relief and fund public education; providing penalties.
I think this would be the first income tax ever proposed that would only affect the “rich”. Although technically $100,000/yr isn’t rich (it’s considered upper-middle class), it’s still a high cap for such a piece of legislation. Essentially what this proposal would do is establish an income tax for any individual whose income exceeded $100,000, with all such money (from tax) dedicated to property tax relief and public education.
Unfortunately, Vince raises a valid point. He rates this bill as a 1 out of 10 chance of passing. Why? “Texas is too tax phobic.”
Technorati Tags: Texas, income tax
