October 2005 has been the 4th bloodiest month of the Iraq war, in terms of U.S. casualties. The 3 higher-death months were April 2004 (Battle of Fallujah #1), November 2004 (Battle of Fallujah #2), and January 2005 (which included 31 US dead from a single helicopter shootdown). October 2005’s toll far exceeds either March or April 2003, the first two months of the war.
Monthly Archive for October, 2005
To help make sure all Ohio voters can make an informed decision (instead of no decision at all), here’s a good site to check out for info. on all 5 of the state issues on the ballot Nov. 8th. This site has the official wording you’ll see in the voting booth, a “normal” explanation, plus arguments for and against each issue:
And for your convenience, here’s a summary of each issue (from the Secretary of State website, my attempt to stay non-biased):
State Issue 1 (Jobs)
The purpose of this amendment is to create jobs and stimulate economic growth in Ohio.
This amendment creates and preserves jobs, enhances educational opportunities, and improves the quality of life and general well-being of people and businesses in all areas of Ohio by improving local government public infrastructure, expanding Ohio’s research capabilities to promote product innovation, development and commercialization, and preparing economic development sites and facilities in Ohio. It declares that local government public infrastructure, and financial assistance for research and preparation of economic development sites and facilities in Ohio for and in support of industry, commerce and distribution (all referred to together as “development purposes”) are public purposes.
State Issue 2 (Voting)
The purpose of this amendment is to expand to all Ohio registered voters the option to vote up to 35 days prior to Election Day by mail or in person at the appropriate local board of elections.
Long lines at voting booths in recent years, inclement weather and work demands of Ohioans have discouraged some citizens from voting on Election Day. Issue 2 will make voting more convenient and easier for all Ohioans. Currently, only a few categories of persons are permitted to vote early by absentee ballot.
Issue 2 will allow all Ohioans to vote by mail.
Issue 2 will allow all Ohioans to vote in person at their local board of elections.
Issue 2 will allow Ohioans to vote up to 35 days prior to Election Day
Issue 2 will make voting more convenient and increase the opportunity to vote.
Issue 2 will increase voter participation by Ohioans in elections.
Increased participation in elections will make government more accountable to the people of Ohio and combat undue influence by a few and the corruption that currently pervades state government.
State Issue 3 (Political Contributions)
The purpose of this amendment is to restore confidence, level the playing field and reduce the influence of big money contributors in politics by significantly limiting campaign contributions to statewide and state legislative candidates and political parties.
Ohio’s state government has become mired in scandal. A “pay-to-play” culture - reflected in “Coingate,” undisclosed golf outings, and ongoing federal and state investigations – permeates state government. The endless drive to raise campaign money has tempted too many to cross ethical lines.
Rather than limiting the influence of big money, the General Assembly made the problem worse last year by raising individual contribution limits from $2,500 to $10,000! The legislature also lifted a ban on corporate contributions to political parties.
Issue 3 will restore reasonable contribution limits and reduce the influence of big money in government. Under this amendment, individual contributions will be limited to $2,000 per election for statewide candidates and $1,000 per election for state legislative candidates. The ban on corporate contributions to political parties will be restored.
The current influence of big money contributors in state government has corrupted government. Ohio’s sky high contribution limits only widen the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” making it increasingly difficult for average citizens to compete in the public arena. Government stops listening to the average citizen and only hears the big money contributor.
Big money allows special interests to shape policy and exercise greater influence over legislators than the voters who elect them. One need only look to the scandals that now plague Ohio.
State Issue 4 (Independent Redistricting)
The purpose of this amendment is to restore competitiveness to Congressional and State legislative races in Ohio.
Issue 4 will help make politicians more accountable and responsive to constituents.
Issue 4 will combat corruption in state government by making politicians listen more to constituents and less to big donors and special interests.
Issue 4 designates an independent, non-partisan commission to draw legislative districts with a goal of making the districts competitive, while preserving communities and minority rights.
The independent commission will replace the current system, which allows politicians to draw the districts to serve their own partisan interests. Currently, using sophisticated computer models, the political party in power manipulates the districts to maximize the number of seats it is likely to win and minimize the number likely to be won by the opposing party. The result is “safe seats” where incumbents almost never lose.
Consider these shocking statistics, which reflect the problem nationally and in Ohio:
- In 435 U.S. House races last year, only 13 seats changed party;
- In Ohio, every Congressman and State Senator up for election was re-elected and only a handful of State House incumbents lost;
- In Ohio, the average margins of victory were 44 points in Congressional races, 35 points in State Senate races, and 38 points in State House races.
As one commentator states, “Competitive elections for the state legislature and Congress, with a handful of exceptions, no longer exist in Ohio.”
Issue 4 will restore accountability by making elections meaningful again and in so doing make corruption less likely. Applying strict criteria in the amendment and considering proposals from the public the independent commission will maximize the number of competitive districts in Ohio and enhance the influence of all voters in the electoral process.
State Issue 5 (Board of Elections)
The purpose of this amendment is to create a bi-partisan and independent state board of elections supervisors to administer elections similar to the county boards of elections.
In recent elections, public confidence in the fairness of the election process has been undermined by actions of the Secretary of State. Citizens need to have trust and confidence restored in their electoral system.
Issue 5 will restore public confidence by replacing the Secretary of State as the state’s chief elections officer with a bi-partisan board of elections supervisors similar to the local county boards of elections. If a bi-partisan system is good enough for all 88 counties, it should be good enough for Ohio as a whole.
Issue 5 will lessen partisanship in the administration of elections in Ohio at the state level.
Issue 5 will prevent those who are involved in administering elections at the state level from mixing personal political agendas with their public duties.
Issue 5 will create a bi-partisan board with 9 appointed members—4 appointed by the Governor, 4 appointed by Members of the General Assembly of the opposite party and one member appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issue 5 will not create another layer of bureaucracy in State government. Money now used for this service could be transferred to the state board of elections.
Issue 5 will not replace the bi-partisan county boards of elections that currently administer and will continue to administer elections at the local level.
“The 2,000 Americans killed in combat in Iraq since 2003 are more than were lost in Vietnam in the first four years of U.S. combat (1961-1965, when just over 1,800 died). This total is more than were lost in the last two years of combat (1971-1972, when just over 1600 died).”Maurice Isserman
co-author of America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News
The United Nations has reached the age of 60 with its first blush of youth and idealism long gone, but hoping that experience and a mid-life rethink will give it new purpose.
Last year it embarked on reform, having been told by its Secretary General Kofi Annan that it was at a “fork in the road”.
It was generally felt that whatever its past problems, it had to be put in better shape for the future.
“Indispensable” is the word used to describe the UN by a former British ambassador there, Lord David Hannay.
“When the mountains fall in Pakistan or a tsunami sweeps the world, everyone asks: ‘Where is the UN?’” he told the BBC News website.
“The 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated the bankruptcy of any alternative,” he claimed.
|
The veto was a recipe for UN paralysis for the duration of the Cold War
|
“The unilateral way has not been shown to have been a brilliant policy to put it mildly. If the alternative to the UN is not viable then we must make this organisation work better.
“They are getting very close to the Vietnam position in the US in that Iraq is becoming a problem. Candidates in the 2008 elections won’t want thousands of troops there.
“They might declare a fudged semi-success, but they are sure going to conclude you can’t do that again.”
‘UN resolutions’
That, of course, is not the view of US President George Bush. In a speech to the General Assembly in September last year, he stated that the United States and its allies had in effect been supporting the UN when they invaded Iraq:
“The dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a ceasefire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions - then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance.
“And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say ’serious consequences’, for the sake of peace there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world,” he declared.
Whatever the judgment of history on the Iraq war, it was, according to David Hannay, the end of the Cold War which gave the UN the chance of a “second life”.
“After the Cold War ended, the inconceivable became the conceivable,” he said.
“Before then the UN could think only of its own survival. It could not stop a war between the superpowers or wars between their proxies. It did useful work popping up here and there. But that was not what it was set up to do.”
Peacekeeper
What it was set up to do was basically to stop all further wars.
The original idealism was expressed by Lord Halifax, the British ambassador to the United States, who as chairman put the final draft of the UN Charter to the delegates in the Opera House in San Francisco with the words:
“This issue upon which we are about to vote is as important as any we shall ever vote in our lifetime.”
The charter was passed unanimously and even the press got up and cheered.
But whether the idealism was really that strong or universal is doubtful. Right from the start, the victors from World War II - the US, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China - insisted that they be given veto powers.
They were determined not to allow any action or intervention with which they seriously disagreed and, for the duration of the Cold War, this was a recipe for UN paralysis.
The notable exception was the Korean War, which the Security Council launched to stop the North from conquering the South. The Council was able to act only because of the self-defeating absence of the Soviet Union. It was boycotting the Council at the time in a row over who should represent China. It soon returned and did not make the same mistake again.
Sidelined
Blocked from a real interventionist role, the UN fell back on useful humanitarian and monitoring missions but also took refuge in passing resolutions which had little bearing on actual world politics.
The Middle East is an example of its impotence. It failed to stop wars in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Its key Security Council resolution 242, outlining a solution for the Israelis and Palestinians along the lines of land for peace, has been only partially fulfilled, and in the Middle East partially has meant not nearly enough.
It did send troops to the Congo in the 1960s when the country began to fall apart after the precipitate departure of the Belgians. The breakaway province of Katanga was brought back under central control, but the experience was not a happy one for the UN, and was symbolised by the death in an air accident in the jungle of its Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold.
In more recent years, it has perhaps been more successful.
Its sanctions helped persuade white South Africans to hand over to majority rule. Its quiet diplomacy helped bring an end to the Iran-Iraq War, and it played useful roles in winding up conflicts and developing democracy in Namibia, Mozambique, Cambodia, El Salvador and East Timor.
However it failed in Bosnia (where intervention was led by the US and its Nato allies) and Kosovo (it was Nato which acted against Serbia, not the UN) and above all in Rwanda where it failed to prevent genocide. It became immersed in scandal over its programme to send food and medicines to Iraq.
‘Two cheers’
And in the background, it was developing international obligations - against torture, against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, on the Law of the Sea among many others - which helped to bind the member states together in a worldwide rule of law.
It also drew up plans and goals to alleviative poverty in an effort to show the poorer countries that it was interested in more than war.
It did lose the confidence of the US under President Bush and, partly to try to regain that confidence, the UN decided to reform itself last year.
The results have been worth “two cheers”, said David Hannay.
The two cheers would acknowledge the decision to set up a Peacebuilding Commission to try to avoid future conflicts, the Council on Human Rights to take over from the discredited Commission on Human Rights, a commitment to a convention against terrorism by July and the new duty on member states to fulfil a “responsibility to protect” their citizens, which if not honoured could open the way for UN intervention.
The absent cheer would mark a failure to take tougher action on the spread of nuclear weapons, to define terrorism and to lay our clear guidelines for the use of force.
And there has been no agreement on enlarging the Security Council.
The five permanent members remain the same as those who first took their seats as veto-holders in 1945.
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Story from BBC NEWS
Published: 2005/10/23 12:59:31 GMT
© BBC MMV
Kilroy to take on Pryce for House
Some see race as referendum on GOP direction
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Jonathan Riskind and Robert Vitale
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Saying central Ohio voters are ready to send a message of change to President Bush and congressional Republicans, Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy yesterday said she will run next year against GOP Rep. Deborah Pryce, of Upper Arlington.
The race will pit a proven Democratic vote-winner in Franklin County, home to most of the 15th congressional district’s constituents, against a veteran lawmaker who is the fourth-ranking House GOP leader.
Several national political analysts said a serious challenge to Pryce, in a district that essentially was split between Bush and Democrat John Kerry last year, could be seen as a national barometer of overall Republican fortunes in the 2006 midterm elections. Democrats are hoping to make gains in the House and Senate by targeting GOP ethics scandals, the still struggling economy and Bush’s Iraq policy.
Kilroy, who will formally declare her candidacy today, made it clear in an interview with The Dispatch that she intends to use Pryce’s place in GOP leadership ranks to tie her to Bush, an increasingly unpopular war, and indicted former House GOP Leader Tom DeLay, of Texas.
“The people of this country think the country is going in the wrong direction, and in the wrong direction under the leadership of Bush, DeLay and Deborah Pryce,” Kilroy said. “A lot of voters understand that the way to send a message to Bush is to change Congress in the midterms.”
Pryce, 54, has not faced a serious challenge since winning the seat in 1992. Her political director, Kathy Kerr, said the congresswoman would not comment until a potential opponent files papers to run in 2006.
Franklin County GOP Chairman Doug Preisse acknowledged that the district is becoming more competitive because of Franklin County’s decadelong swing toward the Democrats. But he said Pryce’s standing in the congressional leadership makes her constituents “darn lucky” to have her.
“I don’t know that (Kilroy) brings a heck of a lot to the table in terms of national policy,” he said.
Kilroy said she will run as a “fiscally responsible, socially progressive” Democrat who’d push for better jobs at home and an exit strategy in Iraq.
She said she will readily defend a vote this summer to raise Franklin County’s sales tax, which she said was made necessary in part because of federal policies shifting the burden of programs to local government.
Pryce has supported Bush’s policy in Iraq and says the economy is getting stronger because of GOP-sponsored tax cuts.
Pryce has risen in the House to Republican Conference chairwoman, the fourth-ranking leadership post. She has a more moderate record on social issues such as abortion, favoring a woman’s right to choose.
Kilroy, 56, served eight years on the Columbus school board before winning four-year terms as a county commissioner in 2000 and 2004. Opponents have tried unsuccessfully to paint her in both races as a far-out liberal, and although she doesn’t shy away from stands such as her support for same-sex marriage rights, she said the 2006 elections won’t be fought over “wedge issues.”
The district is not a GOP lock, judging by the past two presidential elections. It stretches from Columbus through western Franklin County, and into Madison and
Union counties.
Bush won the district with 52 percent of the vote in 2000, but the race ended in a virtual dead heat last year.
About 87 percent of eligible voters in the 15th district are Franklin County residents, meaning they also are constituents of Kilroy’s, who was reelected with 53 percent of the vote last year against Republican state Sen. David Goodman, of Bexley.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, touted Kilroy yesterday as a proven vote-getter who can deliver on a theme that
it’s time for a change in Congress, but who also will serve as an independent voice in the House.
Still, “Pryce will be a substantial favorite,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “If somebody asked me today and I had $10 to bet, I would put the $10 on Pryce.”
But Sabato has predicted that the Statehouse scandals besieging Ohio Republicans might make a tough year nationally for the GOP an even rougher ride in Ohio in 2006. So while a wellfunded incumbent will be hard to defeat, “next year I couldn’t imagine that any Republican seriously opposed would believe he or she is a shoo-in in Ohio,” Sabato said.
Amy Walter, House editor of the independent Cook Political Report in Washington, agreed, saying that while there won’t be the same presidential passion among Democrats in 2006, the atmosphere right now is “toxic” for Republicans in Ohio. There are three or four other marginally Republican districts in Ohio — including the seats held by GOP Reps. Pat Tiberi, of Columbus, and Steven C. LaTourette, of Madison, in northeastern Ohio — in which national Democrats will try to field serious candidates, Walter said.
“These are the sorts of districts, like Deborah Pryce’s, that I am keeping a very close eye on and absolutely could fall into the category of competitive races,” Walter said.
Pryce had nearly $579,000 in her campaign coffers as of Sept. 30, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission.
Kilroy said she will raise enough money to be competitive. She won her two county commissioner races after being greatly out-spent by GOP opponents.
One Democrat already has declared a candidacy in the 15th district. Mark Losey, a Columbus lawyer and former assistant prosecutor in Logan County, said yesterday that he will stay in the race.
The League of Pissed Off Voters along with Columbus Indy Voter has released their 2005 Voter Guide for the Nov. 8th elections. You can read it online here or if you’re interested in printing out some copies and distributing them, comment to this post and send me your email address, I’ll send it to you. It’s just one page so print out as many as you can and let’s get them out there! If you do decide to help distribute them, there are some format requests from Columbus Indy Voter:
“It should be double sided & cut in half. Any color paper as long as it’s clear. If you get a chance, let us know how many you copied, because we are trying to have a total by the end of how many voter guides got circulated and were they from our network of rogue photocopying bandits or were they from our own official print run.”
Last but certainly not least:
the official voter guide release party
with Menya Thykeo, Tanikka Henriquez
and Billy ‘Upski’ Wimsatt!
+ our endorsed candidates
and Billy ‘Upski’ Wimsatt!
+ our endorsed candidates
Friday, October 21, 2005
Little Brother’s, 1100 N. High St.
Columbus, OH 43201
6-9 PM release party
9-? voter guide distribution/street canvassing in the short north
Little Brother’s, 1100 N. High St.
Columbus, OH 43201
6-9 PM release party
9-? voter guide distribution/street canvassing in the short north
I just got this news from Lorraine E. Bieber, Deputy Field Director for Reform Ohio Now, “Mary Jo Kilroy has just announced this morning that she will be running in 2006 for 15th congressional district against Deborah Pryce!” I’m so excited to hear this!! I couldn’t find anything official to post (not even on Google News) cause it’s such brand spankin’ new news. So you heard it here first!
