CNN.com - GOP lawmaker: Tax-return measure aimed at IRS oversight - Nov 22, 2004
In this day and age - can this lead to any substantive benefit?
Monday, November 22, 2004
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The 28th Amendment
No one man, No single individual should be the focus of a change to the constitution - a document for all "the people". Let me be even more specific - It cannot/shoud not be for a future presidency.
In this day and age when images are so vulnerable to manipulation it is dangerous.
In a day and age when governance is second to the pursuit of power, it is dangerous.
In this day and age when a single party apparatus controls all branches of government, it is dangerous.
The constitution is to me thought of in long time periods. To change the constitution for one man, to enable him to run for this center of this power, is like what Mike Ditka did to the New Orlean Saints to draft Ricky Williams.
It is short sighted to AmendForArnold.
Can any one man be worth this risk?
Do we really want to change the constitution because we haven't done it in a while?
No one man, No single individual should be the focus of a change to the constitution - a document for all "the people". Let me be even more specific - It cannot/shoud not be for a future presidency.
In this day and age when images are so vulnerable to manipulation it is dangerous.
In a day and age when governance is second to the pursuit of power, it is dangerous.
In this day and age when a single party apparatus controls all branches of government, it is dangerous.
The constitution is to me thought of in long time periods. To change the constitution for one man, to enable him to run for this center of this power, is like what Mike Ditka did to the New Orlean Saints to draft Ricky Williams.
It is short sighted to AmendForArnold.
Can any one man be worth this risk?
Do we really want to change the constitution because we haven't done it in a while?
Friday, November 19, 2004
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: The Power of One
Here is a piece by a man how has served both side of the aisle. He is concerned "omnious signs of 'group think'"
I read somewhere that the rule that the Republicans rolled back for Tom Delay recently, was actually put into place by Republicans to take out Democrat Dan Rostinkowski (if I'm spelling it right).
This is the kind of "fair and balanced" approach to governance that makes me concerned. It is this kind of momentum that is the biggest concerns.
Here is a piece by a man how has served both side of the aisle. He is concerned "omnious signs of 'group think'"
I read somewhere that the rule that the Republicans rolled back for Tom Delay recently, was actually put into place by Republicans to take out Democrat Dan Rostinkowski (if I'm spelling it right).
This is the kind of "fair and balanced" approach to governance that makes me concerned. It is this kind of momentum that is the biggest concerns.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
The New York Times > Washington > House Republicans Adopt Change That Would Benefit DeLay
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. How far will the Red Party go to unify power, for the sake of power? How aggressive will they get in their tactics? We have 4 years to find out.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. How far will the Red Party go to unify power, for the sake of power? How aggressive will they get in their tactics? We have 4 years to find out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)