Joerg Haider is the leader of the Ultra Right Wing Patriot Party in Austria. His family were ardent Nazi's during Adolf Hitler's 12 year rule in Germany. He praised the Waffen S.S.., who were responsible for the massacre of the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto. He praised Nazi Germany's employment policies that saw the death of so many Jews in the slave labor camps of the Nazi's.
Haider's party secured 27% of the 1999 Austrian vote. On that basis, his party, with its strong anti-immigration stance, is now part and parcel of the Austrian government. Shades of the past. Hitler came to power the same way. Von asked him to form a government.
The rest is history. The fact that the century ended on such a low note is proof positive that Nazi philosophy still has its adherents.
February 14, 2000
February 7, 2000
Add to Favorites
The New York State election law should be amended so that each presidential candidate in a primary who secures 15,000 signatures statewide will be entitled to have his delegates on the ballot in each of the 31 Congressional Districts in the state.
As it now stands, the law requires candidates to secure signatures in all 31 Congressional Districts. This calls for party organization or well-heeled candidates like Steve Forbes.
I believe that the system should be changed so that the sole consideration should be the number of signatures, not the address of the signer.
Just look at the Republican primary where Senator John McCain, the principal challenge to party favorite Governor George W. Bush, cannot be on the ballot statewide because the present rules favor party favorites and discourage challengers. Legitimate candidates, such as Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes, are being shut out as well.
Ballot access is the democratic way. Anything less deprives voters of the right to pick their candidates.
As it now stands, the law requires candidates to secure signatures in all 31 Congressional Districts. This calls for party organization or well-heeled candidates like Steve Forbes.
I believe that the system should be changed so that the sole consideration should be the number of signatures, not the address of the signer.
Just look at the Republican primary where Senator John McCain, the principal challenge to party favorite Governor George W. Bush, cannot be on the ballot statewide because the present rules favor party favorites and discourage challengers. Legitimate candidates, such as Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes, are being shut out as well.
Ballot access is the democratic way. Anything less deprives voters of the right to pick their candidates.
February 1, 2000
Crew Cut for All Schoolboys
If New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is elected in November, 2000 to the U.S. Senate from New York, he will take office in January, 2001. He will then go from being the CEO and Chairman of the Board of the world's premier city to one of 100, and low man on the totem pole.
How would he handle this situation? A clue to the answer was revealed in the events surrounding the recent dismissal of Rudy Crew, the Chancellor of the New York City public school system by the Board of Education and vote for a temporary replacement by the same Board of Education on January 10, 2000.
For years, the Mayor has always emphasized his desire to have greater control over education as Mayor. He has the right to appoint three of the seven members of the Board of Education or 43%. Thus all that he needs at any time is one out of the other four members of the Board to have control.
When Crew was appointed, this Mayor had his choice ratified by the Board. They worked well together until the Mayor decided to have vouchers in the public schools. This would divert taxpayer money to be used for parochial school education, which to many people is clear violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state under the First Amendment to the constitution.
Crew broke with the Mayor and from that point on the relationship between the two men foundered until the three Mayoral appointees and one of the other four members refused to renew Crew's contract which expires in June, 2000. The Mayor applauded that decision by the Board of Education. Now the same Board hired a man who was opposed by the Mayor. The Board rejected the choice favored by the Mayor.
The Mayor immediately reacted by saying the same thing he has been saying for six years. He should have greater control over the public school system. The voters of New York State should consider his penchant for approving actions when he wins and disapproving actions when he loses. The Senate does not work that way. Will Giuliani's temper be so evident as Senator as it is as Mayor?
How would he handle this situation? A clue to the answer was revealed in the events surrounding the recent dismissal of Rudy Crew, the Chancellor of the New York City public school system by the Board of Education and vote for a temporary replacement by the same Board of Education on January 10, 2000.
For years, the Mayor has always emphasized his desire to have greater control over education as Mayor. He has the right to appoint three of the seven members of the Board of Education or 43%. Thus all that he needs at any time is one out of the other four members of the Board to have control.
When Crew was appointed, this Mayor had his choice ratified by the Board. They worked well together until the Mayor decided to have vouchers in the public schools. This would divert taxpayer money to be used for parochial school education, which to many people is clear violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state under the First Amendment to the constitution.
Crew broke with the Mayor and from that point on the relationship between the two men foundered until the three Mayoral appointees and one of the other four members refused to renew Crew's contract which expires in June, 2000. The Mayor applauded that decision by the Board of Education. Now the same Board hired a man who was opposed by the Mayor. The Board rejected the choice favored by the Mayor.
The Mayor immediately reacted by saying the same thing he has been saying for six years. He should have greater control over the public school system. The voters of New York State should consider his penchant for approving actions when he wins and disapproving actions when he loses. The Senate does not work that way. Will Giuliani's temper be so evident as Senator as it is as Mayor?
January 29, 2000
Guns and Bartok
The U.S. Senate is currently controlled by the Republican Party, 55-45. One of the key races in 2000 is who is going to replace a liberal Democrat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan? The Republican candidate is NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the Democratic candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton. New York is considered as one of the most liberal states In the country, largely because of the huge Democratic vote in New York City. Rudy Giuliani could not have been elected without a large number of Democrats voting for him.
The voters have to decide whether the Democratic Senate seat being vacated is to remain Democratic or be an extra Republican seat? New York City is a truly great city. One of the reasons why is the culture of the city (theatre, museums, architecture, Central Park, Empire State Building, World Trade Towers, Rockefeller Center—including the Tree, Radio City, the Skyline, etc.).
When Mayor Giuliani first became Mayor, he announced that each department head would have to cut his or her budget by 10%. He made this announcement on NY City's cultural landmark radio station WNYC. When a woman listener protested the cut, he said that everybody had to be prepared to accept the 10% cut Shortly thereafter, he announced that he would eliminate WNYC as a municipally owned radio station. Here, he joined ultra conservative Newt Gingrich, as both men believe that government should not finance radio or television stations.
Thus, Giuliani singled out WNYC for a 100% cut, not a 10% cut. Today, WNYC is finding it harder and harder to remain as a public radio station. Giuliani’s action is aligned with the Republican Party's agenda, in the control of men like North Carolina's Jesse Helms, to cut funds to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
If control of the Senate should come to the Democrats, one of the most significant results would be to fund the great public museums more adequately than has been done under Republican control of the House and Senate. The history of the 20th century shows that Republicans controlled the presidency 52%-48%. But in the last 20 years, they have controlled it 60%-40% (12-8). During these 20 years, the Republican Party has become more and more conservative and have had more control of the House and Senate than at any time since FDR was first elected 68 years ago.
During the recent decades, the size of the federal budget has increased dramatically,. Yet, at the same time, the actual dollars for culture has been decreased. The Democratic Party and its candidates must stand on the side of the cultural life of our country. They can start by reversing the tide of reactionary Republicans like Helms and Gingrich. The election of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Senator from New York is a must.
The voters have to decide whether the Democratic Senate seat being vacated is to remain Democratic or be an extra Republican seat? New York City is a truly great city. One of the reasons why is the culture of the city (theatre, museums, architecture, Central Park, Empire State Building, World Trade Towers, Rockefeller Center—including the Tree, Radio City, the Skyline, etc.).
When Mayor Giuliani first became Mayor, he announced that each department head would have to cut his or her budget by 10%. He made this announcement on NY City's cultural landmark radio station WNYC. When a woman listener protested the cut, he said that everybody had to be prepared to accept the 10% cut Shortly thereafter, he announced that he would eliminate WNYC as a municipally owned radio station. Here, he joined ultra conservative Newt Gingrich, as both men believe that government should not finance radio or television stations.
Thus, Giuliani singled out WNYC for a 100% cut, not a 10% cut. Today, WNYC is finding it harder and harder to remain as a public radio station. Giuliani’s action is aligned with the Republican Party's agenda, in the control of men like North Carolina's Jesse Helms, to cut funds to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
If control of the Senate should come to the Democrats, one of the most significant results would be to fund the great public museums more adequately than has been done under Republican control of the House and Senate. The history of the 20th century shows that Republicans controlled the presidency 52%-48%. But in the last 20 years, they have controlled it 60%-40% (12-8). During these 20 years, the Republican Party has become more and more conservative and have had more control of the House and Senate than at any time since FDR was first elected 68 years ago.
During the recent decades, the size of the federal budget has increased dramatically,. Yet, at the same time, the actual dollars for culture has been decreased. The Democratic Party and its candidates must stand on the side of the cultural life of our country. They can start by reversing the tide of reactionary Republicans like Helms and Gingrich. The election of Hillary Rodham Clinton as Senator from New York is a must.
January 21, 2000
blahblahblahgate
The six Republican candidates for President debated each other on January 6. During the course of the debate they described the Democratic administration under President Clinton as the most corrupt presidency in this country's history; they attacked the time honored constitutional principle of separation of church & state embodied in the first amendment to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights); attacked Roe v. Wade and urged that a conservative Republican be elected in 2000 so as to guarantee the appointment of conservatives to the Supreme Court who will make sure that abortions will be abolished.
Thus, it is clear that the Republican Party is in the control of a right wing conservative group in their party. Ironically, chronologically, the three most corrupt Presidents were Republican Ulysses S. Grant, Republican Warren G. Harding ("Teapot Dome") and Republican Richard M. Nixon ("Watergate"). So much for corrupt presidencies.
Insofar as separation of church & state and abortion are concerned, the issues are joined: the Democratic Party as a 'Liberal' party is on one side and the conservative Republican Party (by their own admission) is on the other side.
The campaign for the next President should emphasize these issues, especially since the next President may appoint five new Supreme Court justices.
Thus, it is clear that the Republican Party is in the control of a right wing conservative group in their party. Ironically, chronologically, the three most corrupt Presidents were Republican Ulysses S. Grant, Republican Warren G. Harding ("Teapot Dome") and Republican Richard M. Nixon ("Watergate"). So much for corrupt presidencies.
Insofar as separation of church & state and abortion are concerned, the issues are joined: the Democratic Party as a 'Liberal' party is on one side and the conservative Republican Party (by their own admission) is on the other side.
The campaign for the next President should emphasize these issues, especially since the next President may appoint five new Supreme Court justices.
January 15, 2000
House Judiciary Runs Amok
In the history of our country only two presidents have been impeached. In the aftermath of the Civil War President Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives. However, he was not removed from office when the Senate failed, by one vote, to achieve the requisite 2/3 majority.
This year, a prosecutor, with ties to a right wing group, came forth with four counts for the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. The House Judiciary Committee, controlled by a conservative 21 Republican majority, voted to impeach the Democratic President on all four counts. These 21 each had four votes to cast. At the end, their total vote was 83-1 to impeach.
The entire House then voted along party lines to impeach the President providing a razor thin margin but only on two counts. Immediately after, four moderate Republicans tried to recant their votes. Had they done so earlier, the House would not have impeached the President. In the Senate, with the President having his say for the first time, not only couldn't the Republicans achieve a 2/3 vote, but they also could not achieve a majority on either count.
The factual record above leads me to the following conclusions:
The most significant vote was the vote in the House Judiciary Committee as there never was any opinion anywhere else that two of the four counts amounted to an impeachable offense. Thus, it is clear that the 83-1 vote by the 21 member majority was an abuse of political power. As for the other two counts, virtually all of the country's constitutional experts concluded that none of the four counts were impeachable offenses. By the vote in the Judiciary Committee and in the entire House, the Republican Party showed how irresponsible a political party can be.
It is clear then, that the Democrats should retake the House of Representatives if for no other reason than the disgraceful act of impeaching the President.
This year, a prosecutor, with ties to a right wing group, came forth with four counts for the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. The House Judiciary Committee, controlled by a conservative 21 Republican majority, voted to impeach the Democratic President on all four counts. These 21 each had four votes to cast. At the end, their total vote was 83-1 to impeach.
The entire House then voted along party lines to impeach the President providing a razor thin margin but only on two counts. Immediately after, four moderate Republicans tried to recant their votes. Had they done so earlier, the House would not have impeached the President. In the Senate, with the President having his say for the first time, not only couldn't the Republicans achieve a 2/3 vote, but they also could not achieve a majority on either count.
The factual record above leads me to the following conclusions:
The most significant vote was the vote in the House Judiciary Committee as there never was any opinion anywhere else that two of the four counts amounted to an impeachable offense. Thus, it is clear that the 83-1 vote by the 21 member majority was an abuse of political power. As for the other two counts, virtually all of the country's constitutional experts concluded that none of the four counts were impeachable offenses. By the vote in the Judiciary Committee and in the entire House, the Republican Party showed how irresponsible a political party can be.
It is clear then, that the Democrats should retake the House of Representatives if for no other reason than the disgraceful act of impeaching the President.
January 1, 2000
It's the Constitution, Stupid
Senator Orrin Hatch, one of six conservative Republicans seeking his party's nomination for President was recently interviewed on Public Television (Channel 13 in the New York area). In it he said that he is worried about the possibility that Liberal Democrats, such as Vice-President Al Gore or former Senator Bill Bradley would make the Supreme Court more liberal than it is now. He said that the next President would appoint three new Supreme Court justices, or possibly five. Senator Hatch emphasized that this should be a major issue in the 2000 presidential campaign.
I believe that control of the Supreme Court is a major issue. But, unlike Senator Hatch, my fear is that a conservative Republican elected in 2000, with a Republican Senate (that is now controlled by the Republicans, 55-45) insures that the Supreme Court would become more conservative than it is now. There would be no doubt that other judges like Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas will be appointed and approved in the Senate.
The Democratic presidential candidates and the Democratic Party must emphasize the crucial difference between the philosophies of the two parties. Too much is at stake to avoid citing this as a major issue in the national elections in 2000. Can you imagine how many longstanding cases will be overturned by such a conservative court?
I believe that control of the Supreme Court is a major issue. But, unlike Senator Hatch, my fear is that a conservative Republican elected in 2000, with a Republican Senate (that is now controlled by the Republicans, 55-45) insures that the Supreme Court would become more conservative than it is now. There would be no doubt that other judges like Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas will be appointed and approved in the Senate.
The Democratic presidential candidates and the Democratic Party must emphasize the crucial difference between the philosophies of the two parties. Too much is at stake to avoid citing this as a major issue in the national elections in 2000. Can you imagine how many longstanding cases will be overturned by such a conservative court?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)