We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I mentioned this last week but it is developing rather quickly with no response from the USA that I can find.
Russians Will Claim North Pole For Moscow
Will Santa Claus be forced to learn Russian? Isn't global warming about to claim the North Pole as one of its victims? What about the polar bears? Will they be drafted into Putin's army?
No word from Moscow on answers to any of these pressing questions. But nothing will deter them from planting a Russian flag on the seabed, staking claim to a place that every other country on the planet sees as belonging to no one: Two Russian vessels - including an atomic icebreaker - are expected to reach the Pole this afternoon. There they will release two mini-submarines which will drop a metal tube containing a Russian flag onto the seabed
This cannot go unanswered. In typical Soviet Union fashion Putin is cunningly taking advantage of our current situation to attempt a brazen taking of a huge amount of the globe, rich in oil and mineral resources.
Sometimes 80% of failure is showing up in the wrong places at the wrong times. Anyway, someone just sent this to me, and it's almost as bad as getting AARP lit in the mail, tho' one needs laugh at our decrepitude and failings, else grace is gone:
Seems the fever swamps of the Potomac have the Democrats confused.
Also please note the use of "Progressive", as in Progressive Causus"..simply note the voting record and personal philosophies of these "Progressives" and one can easily substitute "Socialist" for "Progressive"...or in the case of Maxine Waters "Rascist and Socialist".
House Dems upset over split on war
By Mike Soraghan
August 02, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reversed herself on Iraq strategy Wednesday, revealing a fight within the Democratic Caucus over how much Democrats should compromise to gain agreement with Republicans on the unpopular war.
Progressive Caucus leaders were fuming after they walked into a meeting with Pelosi to find out that she had decided to allow a vote Thursday on an Iraq bill they consider too mild.
Sponsored by Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.), the bill would order President Bush to deliver within two months a plan on how to redeploy troops. It will be on the suspension calendar, meaning there will be no amendments, but it needs a two-thirds majority to pass.
That bill got 24 Republican votes in the Armed Services Committee last week, but it may lose votes from liberal Democrats who have pledged not to support Iraq redeployment measures that don’t include a “date certain.”
“It takes us backwards,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), an Out of Iraq caucus leader. “If Democrats want to give Republicans votes to go home with when they’ve done nothing to redeploy our troops, that’s bad.”
Progressive leaders feel that such measures give cover to Republicans to go home for the August break and tell constituents they have voted for redeployment, without voting on strict measures that would order Bush to bring the troops home.
But Abercrombie said it’s wrong to say he’s providing cover to Republicans.
“It would be amusing if it wasn’t such a dumb thought,” Abercrombie said. “In a time of war, we should not be positioning ourselves for political advantage.”
The issue at first appeared to be settled early Wednesday. House Democratic leaders had decided against holding votes before the August recess on any redeployment measures. Pelosi had agreed with other Democrats that voting on Abercrombie’s bill, or another proposal by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), would give Republicans a way out on the war issue.
Abercrombie, however, did not accept that. He went to the floor in the morning and started voting with Republicans on motions to adjourn, in protest of Democratic handling of a children’s health insurance bill. Then he made his own motion to adjourn to contest the leadership’s decision not to bring his Iraq bill to the floor.
“I was sending signals,” said Abercrombie, adding that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) then came over “and expressed his consternation.”
“Then, wonder of wonders, I was able to concentrate the attention of leadership in a very positive way,” said Abercrombie.
He would not say he was promised a vote, but Democratic aides said the bill will come up Thursday.
“I guess they decided we know what we’re doing,” Abercrombie said.
Later that morning, Woolsey, joined by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), walked into a meeting to learn that Abercrombie’s measure would get a vote.
The Progressive Caucus members were delivering a message and a letter stating that they would not support withdrawal measures if they failed to set a timeline for combat troops to be out of Iraq. The lawmakers told Pelosi they saw Abercrombie’s bill as a step backward.
“[Pelosi] sees it differently,” Woolsey said.
Schakowsky said there was agreement that the “really big votes” start in September, when Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, is scheduled to give a report on the progress of President Bush’s “surge” policy.
“The question is what will best position us,” she said. “The discussion was whether this in any way negates that the House took a firm position” earlier this summer, when Democrats voted for withdrawal by April of 2008.
Abercrombie is, in fact, a member of the Progressive Caucus, but he has not gotten other members to support his plan. He brought it up several weeks ago, at which point members expressed their dislike, an aide said. Members had been relieved when it appeared to go away.
Founded in 1991 by Bernard Sanders the only avowed Socialist in Congress at the time, it is simply, well, a socailist caucus with many members now committee chairmen.
Here are a few of their goals as listed in Wiki:
According to their website, the CPC advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare," fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in strike actions and collective bargaining, the abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of gay marriage, strict campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on free trade and what they see as corporate welfare, an increase in income tax on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.
An array of national progressive organizations will work to support the efforts of the caucus, including the Institute for Policy Studies, The Nation Magazine, Moveon.org, National Priorities Project, Jobs with Justice Campaign, Peace Action, Americans for Democratic Action, and Progressive Democrats of America. Also co-sponsoring the kickoff event were the NAACP, ACLU, Progressive Majority, League of United Latin American Citizens, Rainbow/Push Coalition, National Council of La Raza, Hip Hop Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, and the National Hip Hop Political Convention. The CPC has long maintained cordial ties with the Democratic Socialists of America, which hosted its website during the 1990s
The Wiki site lists the membership and other interesting facts.