Don't believe Ms. Hillary Clinton is strong enough to be President? Watch this.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Florida Legislative update on voting bills
Budget conferences are now happening in the Florida House and Senate on bills for the Governor’s paper ballot initiative.
The message to legislators now is PASS and FUND the bills.
Wednesday the 25th email your legislators and the Governor.
Members of the House Policy and Budget Council: ray.sansom@myfloridahouse.gov ; jack.seiler@myfloridahouse.gov ; kevin.ambler@myfloridahouse.gov ; loranne.ausley@myfloridahouse.gov ; aaron.bean@myfloridahouse.gov ; dorothy.bendross-mindingall@myfloridahouse.gov ; ellyn.bogdanoff@myfloridahouse.gov ; marty.bowen@myfloridahouse.gov ; mary.brandenburg@myfloridahouse.gov ; don.brown@myfloridahouse.gov ; dean.cannon@myfloridahouse.gov ; joyce.cusack@myfloridahouse.gov ; charles.dean@myfloridahouse.gov ; bill.galvano@myfloridahouse.gov ; andy.gardiner@myfloridahouse.gov ; Michael Grant ; adam..hasner@myfloridahouse.gov ; will.kendrick@myfloridahouse.gov ; dick.kravitz@myfloridahouse.gov ; matt.meadows@myfloridahouse.gov ; joe.pickens@myfloridahouse.gov ; priscilla.taylor@myfloridahouse.gov ; trey.traviesa@myfloridahouse.gov ; baxter.troutman@myfloridahouse.gov ; shelley.vana@myfloridahouse.gov ; juan.zapata@myfloridahouse.gov
Members of the House Economic Expansion and Infrastructure Council: dean.cannon@myfloridahouse.gov ; dick.kravitz@myfloridahouse.gov ; joyce.cusack@myfloridahouse.gov ; gary.aubuchon@myfloridahouse.gov ; susan.bucher@myfloridahouse.gov ; edward.bullard@myfloridahouse.gov ; larry.cretul@myfloridahouse.gov ; don.davis@myfloridahouse.gov ; mike.davis@myfloridahouse.gov ; Keith Fitzgerald ; rich.glorioso@myfloridahouse.gov ; doug.holder@myfloridahouse.gov ; peter.nehr@myfloridahouse.gov ; pat.patterson@myfloridahouse.gov ; betty.reed@myfloridahouse.gov
GE Protects World's Largest Power Plant
Solar Power takes charge in Europe. Why not the United States? This is just one more example of America's failing concept of capitalism. I have stated before my belief that American capitalist is a failed system. I should also tell you why I believe so. I will put it simply: Socialist Europe leads in fields such as technological advancements in healthcare. Communist China’s economy is emerging as crucial a player as the United States. It is time for American business and politicians to be more open to the integration of minor socialist practices within our economy specifically in the areas of healthcare, insurance, and the environment.
Business and investors pursuing honest ventures in environmental causes should not be an evading goal targeting to take place in the next decade but should pursue opportunities now, as seen in Europe.
Business and investors pursuing honest ventures in environmental causes should not be an evading goal targeting to take place in the next decade but should pursue opportunities now, as seen in Europe.
"GE Security Protects World's Largest Power Plant
April 2007
The world's largest solar power plant, Central Solar de Serpa (CSS), was dedicated in April in Serpa, Portugal. The plant features 32 hectares covered with 52,000 photovoltaic solar panels, with installed capacity of 11 megawatts - almost twice the capacity of as the next-largest solar power plant, which is located in Germany.
GE Energy Financial Services purchased and financed the project at a cost of 61 million euros (about US$80 million). The plant will be operated by PowerLight, a subsidiary of SunPower Corporation. CSS is located in the Alentejo region of southern Portugal, which has the most sunny days per year of any area in Europe.
It will produce enough to power 8,000 homes. To help ensure their power goes uninterrupted, the solar power plant is protected by GE Security equipment.
At the plant's inauguration, the Portugal Minister of Economics Manuel Pinho explained that CSS is expected to save over 30,000 tons of greenhouse gases compared with an equivalent energy production using fossil fuels. "
Source:
Sunday, April 22, 2007
St.Petersburg's Suncoast Resort Relocating
Iconic gay resort may become a Home Depot
The Suncoast Resort’s owners say they’ll reopen elsewhere.
By S.I. ROSENBAUMPublished April 21, 2007
ST. PETERSBURG -- The Suncoast Resort - for nine years a cultural icon of the Tampa Bay area's gay community -- may soon become a Home Depot.
Co-owner Tom Kiple said Friday he has a tentative sales agreement with the big-box store. But he said the sale depends upon the city's approval of two variance requests, which come before the Environmental Development Commission next month.
"This is not a done deal," Kiple said in his office on the hotel's third floor. "They have to know whether or not they can go on this property, and the only way to know is to go to the city and ask."
Even if the sale goes through, Kiple said the resort will not close. He said he has two possible new locations in mind, but he wouldn't say where.
Kiple would not reveal how much Home Depot offered for the property, which is appraised at $4.3 million, according to county records.
Kiple and his business partner, Lester Wolff, purchased the destitute 120-room Hosanna Hotel for $3-million in 1998 with plans to transform it into the world's largest gay and lesbian convention center.
Almost immediately, local activists attacked the new resort, calling it a gay "invasion."
The controversy helped make the resort a success, Kiple said. Within weeks, he said, he was booked solid for months.
Even back then, rumors circulated that the resort was soon to close.
"There was constantly somebody saying, 'Oh, it's sold, it's sold,'" he said.
Spurred by rumors, retail chains and developers showed up in his office to make offers on the 8.97-acre parcel, Kiple said.
None of the offers were good enough, he said. Instead, the sprawling pink stucco-and-concrete complex became a thriving nightspot, with shops, theme bars and weekend dance parties.
At least twice, the resort was struck by tragedy. In August of 2000, a 39-year-old partygoer drowned in the resort's swimming pool. And in July of 2006, a drunken driver heading home from the resort struck and killed a 12-year-old boy.
The resort has also begun to show its age. Grass has sprouted in the sand of the volleyball court. Many of the storefronts on the ground level are empty.
Kiple said he and Wolff kept those storefronts vacant in anticipation of a planned renovation. He said they have already invested in a new roof and updated wiring and plumbing.
"People say, 'Why don't you fix it up?' Well, believe it or not we have, but mostly in things you can't see," he said. "We were planning on millions of dollars of renovation, but it's better to relocate."
First, the city will have to sign off on two variances: one to let the new Home Depot keep large mechanical equipment on the premises, and another to have 233 fewer parking spaces than required by the City Code.
The Environmental Development Commission will consider the matter at its May 2 meeting at 2 p.m. at Council Chambers in City Hall.
If the deal goes through as planned, Kiple said it may be three months to a year before the resort relocates.
S.I. Rosenbaum can be reached at (813) 310 1246 or srosenbaum@sptimes.com.
© 2007 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111Contact the Times Privacy Policy Standard of Accuracy Terms, Conditions & Copyright
The Suncoast Resort’s owners say they’ll reopen elsewhere.
By S.I. ROSENBAUMPublished April 21, 2007
ST. PETERSBURG -- The Suncoast Resort - for nine years a cultural icon of the Tampa Bay area's gay community -- may soon become a Home Depot.
Co-owner Tom Kiple said Friday he has a tentative sales agreement with the big-box store. But he said the sale depends upon the city's approval of two variance requests, which come before the Environmental Development Commission next month.
"This is not a done deal," Kiple said in his office on the hotel's third floor. "They have to know whether or not they can go on this property, and the only way to know is to go to the city and ask."
Even if the sale goes through, Kiple said the resort will not close. He said he has two possible new locations in mind, but he wouldn't say where.
Kiple would not reveal how much Home Depot offered for the property, which is appraised at $4.3 million, according to county records.
Kiple and his business partner, Lester Wolff, purchased the destitute 120-room Hosanna Hotel for $3-million in 1998 with plans to transform it into the world's largest gay and lesbian convention center.
Almost immediately, local activists attacked the new resort, calling it a gay "invasion."
The controversy helped make the resort a success, Kiple said. Within weeks, he said, he was booked solid for months.
Even back then, rumors circulated that the resort was soon to close.
"There was constantly somebody saying, 'Oh, it's sold, it's sold,'" he said.
Spurred by rumors, retail chains and developers showed up in his office to make offers on the 8.97-acre parcel, Kiple said.
None of the offers were good enough, he said. Instead, the sprawling pink stucco-and-concrete complex became a thriving nightspot, with shops, theme bars and weekend dance parties.
At least twice, the resort was struck by tragedy. In August of 2000, a 39-year-old partygoer drowned in the resort's swimming pool. And in July of 2006, a drunken driver heading home from the resort struck and killed a 12-year-old boy.
The resort has also begun to show its age. Grass has sprouted in the sand of the volleyball court. Many of the storefronts on the ground level are empty.
Kiple said he and Wolff kept those storefronts vacant in anticipation of a planned renovation. He said they have already invested in a new roof and updated wiring and plumbing.
"People say, 'Why don't you fix it up?' Well, believe it or not we have, but mostly in things you can't see," he said. "We were planning on millions of dollars of renovation, but it's better to relocate."
First, the city will have to sign off on two variances: one to let the new Home Depot keep large mechanical equipment on the premises, and another to have 233 fewer parking spaces than required by the City Code.
The Environmental Development Commission will consider the matter at its May 2 meeting at 2 p.m. at Council Chambers in City Hall.
If the deal goes through as planned, Kiple said it may be three months to a year before the resort relocates.
S.I. Rosenbaum can be reached at (813) 310 1246 or srosenbaum@sptimes.com.
© 2007 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111Contact the Times Privacy Policy Standard of Accuracy Terms, Conditions & Copyright
Thursday, April 19, 2007
White House Looses E-mails
The White House allegedly loss e-mails in regards to this scandal with their Attorney General; in my opinion this is potentially a major cover up. Some of you tech people please respond to my post, but am I correct in that even if e-mails are deleted for example from Outlook or Lotus Notes they still can be found on the hard drive? 2nd it is standard business procedure to keep your e-mails, the White House should certainly operate at higher standards. Or does it?
"U. S. ATTORNEYS
White House seeks to review GOP e-mails
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - President Bush's lawyers told the Republican National Committee on Tuesday not to turn over to Congress any e-mails related to the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys before showing them to the White House.
Democrats and Republican critics of the administration said the move suggests that the White House is seeking to develop a strategy to block the release of the non-government e-mails to congressional investigators by arguing that they're covered by executive privilege and not subject to review.
Scott M. Stanzel, deputy White House press secretary, called the action "reasonable" and said that any review of the e-mails would "be conducted in a timely fashion, to balance the committee's need for the information with the extreme over breadth of their requests." Party officials declined comment, but a GOP aide familiar with the negotiations said the RNC would comply with the White House request.
In a related development, the House Judiciary Committee plans to grant immunity to a former Justice Department liaison to the White House to force her to tell Congress what she knew about the firings. A vote to grant Monica Goodling "use immunity" could come as early as Thursday. Goodling had refused to testify and said she would invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.
Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., who'd asked the RNC to turn over any applicable e-mails by week's end, characterized the White House's stance as an "extreme and unnecessary" effort to block or slow the release of the e-mails.
Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration Justice Department official who's been critical of the administration and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, said the existence of the RNC e-mails is worrisome for the White House.
"The situation is very awkward for the administration because they don't know exactly what e-mails are there. What does seem very clear is that the e-mails did concern government business, which would include firing U.S. attorneys. Otherwise there would be no plausible claim," he said.
Fein said the administration might be considering seeking an injunction to prevent the Republican Party from releasing the e-mails to Congress.
Citing the leaking of the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers as an example, Fein said, "It's always more difficult to claim privilege after it's leaked out of your hands - or if it's never in your hands in the first place."
At the same time, Fein said, the White House is putting the Republican Party in a bind. "If you're the RNC, you're making yourself vulnerable to a claim you're impeding or endeavoring to impede a congressional investigation," he said.
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., general chairman of the Republican Party, said he wasn't involved in those discussions and referred legal questions to the RNC. "I'm sure they're going to try to do the right thing, but what that is I don't know. I'm sure they're burning the midnight oil with lawyers over there figuring it out."
The letter from special counsel Emmet T. Flood to the RNC's lawyer, Robert Kelner, said the White House must have an opportunity to review the documents to learn whether they must be preserved as part of the Presidential Records Act, but also to determine "whether the executive branch may need to take measures necessary to protect its other legal interests."
It's not known how many applicable e-mails exist dating back to at least 2005. The White House and RNC last week suggested some might have been lost, although experts say they likely can be retrieved.
But investigators know from documents already released by the Justice Department in the U.S. attorneys probe that some of the 50 current and former White House officials who had separate Republican Party e-mail accounts did send or receive e-mails related to the U.S. attorneys through their non-government accounts.
That includes Bush's deputy chief of staff and political adviser Karl Rove and a deputy of his.
The White House has yet to turn over internal documents and e-mails requested by Congress and has reserved the option of asserting executive privilege to protect internal communications. But Democrats say executive privilege doesn't apply to e-mails sent on non-government accounts. Some also have charged that White House aides might have purposely used non-government e-mail accounts for such communications in order to avoid scrutiny.
If the House Judiciary Committee authorizes immunity for Goodling, it would be the first granted in the congressional investigation into whether politics improperly influenced the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.
Goodling, through her lawyer, declined to comment on the House panel's plans. Her lawyer previously suggested that if Goodling testified, former colleagues under scrutiny might turn against her, or Democrats seeking political gain might twist her words.
Conyers said Tuesday that Goodling "clearly has much to contribute" to the investigation.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate's judiciary panel, said of the Democrats, "This is taking on the attributes not of a fishing expedition but a witch hunt. I just think it's driven by politics, and we ought to get serious."
Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Senate's panel on Thursday as to his role in the firings.
He and Bush have maintained that the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and that there was nothing improper about the decisions to bring in some new top prosecutors. But they haven't offered consistent explanations about the reasons for the firings. "
Sources:
"U. S. ATTORNEYS
White House seeks to review GOP e-mails
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - President Bush's lawyers told the Republican National Committee on Tuesday not to turn over to Congress any e-mails related to the firings last year of eight U.S. attorneys before showing them to the White House.
Democrats and Republican critics of the administration said the move suggests that the White House is seeking to develop a strategy to block the release of the non-government e-mails to congressional investigators by arguing that they're covered by executive privilege and not subject to review.
Scott M. Stanzel, deputy White House press secretary, called the action "reasonable" and said that any review of the e-mails would "be conducted in a timely fashion, to balance the committee's need for the information with the extreme over breadth of their requests." Party officials declined comment, but a GOP aide familiar with the negotiations said the RNC would comply with the White House request.
In a related development, the House Judiciary Committee plans to grant immunity to a former Justice Department liaison to the White House to force her to tell Congress what she knew about the firings. A vote to grant Monica Goodling "use immunity" could come as early as Thursday. Goodling had refused to testify and said she would invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.
Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., who'd asked the RNC to turn over any applicable e-mails by week's end, characterized the White House's stance as an "extreme and unnecessary" effort to block or slow the release of the e-mails.
Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration Justice Department official who's been critical of the administration and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, said the existence of the RNC e-mails is worrisome for the White House.
"The situation is very awkward for the administration because they don't know exactly what e-mails are there. What does seem very clear is that the e-mails did concern government business, which would include firing U.S. attorneys. Otherwise there would be no plausible claim," he said.
Fein said the administration might be considering seeking an injunction to prevent the Republican Party from releasing the e-mails to Congress.
Citing the leaking of the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers as an example, Fein said, "It's always more difficult to claim privilege after it's leaked out of your hands - or if it's never in your hands in the first place."
At the same time, Fein said, the White House is putting the Republican Party in a bind. "If you're the RNC, you're making yourself vulnerable to a claim you're impeding or endeavoring to impede a congressional investigation," he said.
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., general chairman of the Republican Party, said he wasn't involved in those discussions and referred legal questions to the RNC. "I'm sure they're going to try to do the right thing, but what that is I don't know. I'm sure they're burning the midnight oil with lawyers over there figuring it out."
The letter from special counsel Emmet T. Flood to the RNC's lawyer, Robert Kelner, said the White House must have an opportunity to review the documents to learn whether they must be preserved as part of the Presidential Records Act, but also to determine "whether the executive branch may need to take measures necessary to protect its other legal interests."
It's not known how many applicable e-mails exist dating back to at least 2005. The White House and RNC last week suggested some might have been lost, although experts say they likely can be retrieved.
But investigators know from documents already released by the Justice Department in the U.S. attorneys probe that some of the 50 current and former White House officials who had separate Republican Party e-mail accounts did send or receive e-mails related to the U.S. attorneys through their non-government accounts.
That includes Bush's deputy chief of staff and political adviser Karl Rove and a deputy of his.
The White House has yet to turn over internal documents and e-mails requested by Congress and has reserved the option of asserting executive privilege to protect internal communications. But Democrats say executive privilege doesn't apply to e-mails sent on non-government accounts. Some also have charged that White House aides might have purposely used non-government e-mail accounts for such communications in order to avoid scrutiny.
If the House Judiciary Committee authorizes immunity for Goodling, it would be the first granted in the congressional investigation into whether politics improperly influenced the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.
Goodling, through her lawyer, declined to comment on the House panel's plans. Her lawyer previously suggested that if Goodling testified, former colleagues under scrutiny might turn against her, or Democrats seeking political gain might twist her words.
Conyers said Tuesday that Goodling "clearly has much to contribute" to the investigation.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate's judiciary panel, said of the Democrats, "This is taking on the attributes not of a fishing expedition but a witch hunt. I just think it's driven by politics, and we ought to get serious."
Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Senate's panel on Thursday as to his role in the firings.
He and Bush have maintained that the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and that there was nothing improper about the decisions to bring in some new top prosecutors. But they haven't offered consistent explanations about the reasons for the firings. "
Sources:
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Racial tension in Miami-Dade
Political
Commission change stirs tension; Racial tension in Miami-Dade politics could be exacerbated by a debate over the County Commission's structure. Source: The Miami Herald 04/03/2007
The next flare-up in Miami-Dade's increasingly tense ethnic politics might be attached to a long fuse lit months ago by Mayor Carlos Alvarez.
Answering questions after a late-January breakfast speech at the Miami City Club, he gingerly toed into a 20-year-old fight about how citizens should be represented on the County Commission.
''Without a doubt, there is a lot of interest in a combination of single-member districts and at-large,'' he said. ``It's a very touchy subject, but one there's a lot of interest in, without a doubt.''
From another politician at another time, it might have been a blip; polls show broad dissatisfaction with the County Commission, and Alvarez is not the first to suggest tinkering with its structure by adding members who are elected by the full county instead of a small district.
But the idea -- which Alvarez and others believe is bound to surface this spring when commissioners appoint a task force to study changing the county charter -- is seen as an attack by many black leaders, who fear their share of commission seats would fall. Some are especially apprehensive after two earlier incidents with racial undertones.
First, black voters overwhelmingly opposed Alvarez's successful bid to increase his power, fearing an end to the commission's ability to spread jobs and contracts among various ethnic groups.
Less than two months later, Alvarez infuriated many prominent black leaders when he fired transit director Roosevelt Bradley -- one of the county's highest-ranking black administrators.
In that environment, ''the issue of at-large elections will definitely scrape the scab off the political relations between the various ethnic groups,'' said Miami attorney H.T. Smith, a prominent black leader. ``This is a power grab by elitists who believe they're smarter than everybody else.''
Smith was one of several people who testified in a 1986 federal lawsuit that gave rise to the current system of 13 single-member districts.
The suit alleged that the County Commission -- at the time, commissioners were elected countywide -- was not representing Dade County's growing minority population. Anglos made up 78 percent of the commission in 1986 but just 56 percent of the voters.
The few black commissioners who were elected countywide were too beholden to the votes and fundraising of whites and Hispanics, Smith said, which limited their ability to take on issues such as police brutality, affordable housing and economic development.
''It would be like an Israeli being elected by all Muslims,'' Smith said. ``If he wanted to get elected again, he would have to soften his rhetoric and couldn't be an outspoken advocate.''
NOTABLE FIGHT
In one notable fight leading up to the lawsuit, black homeowners in Northwest Dade were unable to stop former Miami Dolphins owner Joe Robbie from building a football stadium in their neighborhood.
''There was a great deal of frustration,'' said George Knox, a former Miami city attorney and one of the plaintiffs. ``There was no person who actually represented the interests of the people who resided in that geographic area.''
But Knox has also joined the ranks of politically prominent leaders who believe at-large commission seats need to be considered during an upcoming review of the county's charter.
''I think history is not going to support the notion that single-member district elections solved any of the problems or allayed any of the fears,'' Knox said. ``Blacks may not be very much better off in terms of the economics and politics since '86.''
The commission is stuck in a classic political crunch: hated as a body, loved as individuals. Scandals have driven its approval rating down around 40 percent, according to a poll conducted in January by the Metropolitan Center at Florida International University. But no commissioner has lost a reelection bid in 13 years; when half of them faced voters in 2006, not a single one was even taken to a runoff.
That makes significant change unlikely without a structural overhaul, which would need voters' approval.
''Commissioners were very committed to their districts but not always willing to see countywide issues -- that's the problem when you don't have any at-large members,'' said Ric Katz, a long-time lobbyist and campaign strategist. ``Having some at-large members would bring that perspective back to the commission.''
Such a debate, however, will inevitably be drenched in racial and ethnic suspicion and fueled by the ongoing tension between Alvarez and the commission.
''In light of what has occurred, I think now we need these four districts and their representatives more than ever,'' said Commissioner Audrey Edmonson.
Smith said the issue could be divisive enough to bring back the ethnic political battles of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Those fights peaked during a 1990 visit by South African leader Nelson Mandela, whose arrival was protested by some Cuban-Americans upset with Mandela's support for Fidel Castro. Smith responded by launching a massive tourism boycott that lasted three years.
''It's not like the tension is gone,'' Smith said. ``It's just below the surface.''
Former Miami Mayor Xavier Suarez, who joined Knox as a plaintiff in 1986, said he remains skeptical of at-large seats but believes voters are frustrated enough to try almost anything.
ISSUE `INESCAPABLE'
Former County Manager Merrett Stierheim floated the notion during his public appearances opposing the strong-mayor campaign, stopping short of an endorsement but saying the conversation is ``inescapable.''
He chaired a committee during the lawsuit that recommended a combination of at-large and single-member seats, but the proposal failed with voters because it was attached to a salary increase for commissioners.
A similar hybrid is used in Jacksonville, where the city council includes 14 districts and five at-large members who are elected county-wide but must reside in one of five residency areas.
The federal judge who ruled on the 1986 lawsuit suggested a similar system would not violate voting-rights laws.
''There were all sorts of systems that could have been in place,'' said U.S. District Judge Donald Graham. ``There were probably methods by which they could have had some at-large seats in those days, but they decided not to give it a try.''
CAMPAIGN COSTS
Countywide campaigns rely heavily on radio, television and polling, and require far more fundraising than district races; Edmonson said many legitimate candidates simply could not afford to run.
Four candidates in the 2004 mayor's race -- the last major countywide race in Miami-Dade -- spent more than $1 million. By contrast, not a single commission candidate spent more than Dorrin Rolle's $409,792.
The charter review task force, which the commission is supposed to convene every five years, is expected to tackle other explosive issues, as well. Commissioner José ''Pepe'' Diaz wants the group to discuss reinstating elections for constitutional officers: sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser and elections supervisor.
Even the task force's composition has become a political football. Under a bill sponsored by Commissioner Katy Sorenson, 10 local groups -- including in NAACP, League of Cities and Chamber of Commerce -- would each appoint one member. A competing bill filed by Diaz would allow one appointment from the mayor, each of the 13 commissioners and each of seven municipalities.
As 2007 is the 50th anniversary of Miami-Dade's charter, Commissioner Carlos Gimenez said task force will undergo a ''soup to nuts'' review.
''This should be the charter for the 21st century,'' he said.
Commission change stirs tension; Racial tension in Miami-Dade politics could be exacerbated by a debate over the County Commission's structure. Source: The Miami Herald 04/03/2007
The next flare-up in Miami-Dade's increasingly tense ethnic politics might be attached to a long fuse lit months ago by Mayor Carlos Alvarez.
Answering questions after a late-January breakfast speech at the Miami City Club, he gingerly toed into a 20-year-old fight about how citizens should be represented on the County Commission.
''Without a doubt, there is a lot of interest in a combination of single-member districts and at-large,'' he said. ``It's a very touchy subject, but one there's a lot of interest in, without a doubt.''
From another politician at another time, it might have been a blip; polls show broad dissatisfaction with the County Commission, and Alvarez is not the first to suggest tinkering with its structure by adding members who are elected by the full county instead of a small district.
But the idea -- which Alvarez and others believe is bound to surface this spring when commissioners appoint a task force to study changing the county charter -- is seen as an attack by many black leaders, who fear their share of commission seats would fall. Some are especially apprehensive after two earlier incidents with racial undertones.
First, black voters overwhelmingly opposed Alvarez's successful bid to increase his power, fearing an end to the commission's ability to spread jobs and contracts among various ethnic groups.
Less than two months later, Alvarez infuriated many prominent black leaders when he fired transit director Roosevelt Bradley -- one of the county's highest-ranking black administrators.
In that environment, ''the issue of at-large elections will definitely scrape the scab off the political relations between the various ethnic groups,'' said Miami attorney H.T. Smith, a prominent black leader. ``This is a power grab by elitists who believe they're smarter than everybody else.''
Smith was one of several people who testified in a 1986 federal lawsuit that gave rise to the current system of 13 single-member districts.
The suit alleged that the County Commission -- at the time, commissioners were elected countywide -- was not representing Dade County's growing minority population. Anglos made up 78 percent of the commission in 1986 but just 56 percent of the voters.
The few black commissioners who were elected countywide were too beholden to the votes and fundraising of whites and Hispanics, Smith said, which limited their ability to take on issues such as police brutality, affordable housing and economic development.
''It would be like an Israeli being elected by all Muslims,'' Smith said. ``If he wanted to get elected again, he would have to soften his rhetoric and couldn't be an outspoken advocate.''
NOTABLE FIGHT
In one notable fight leading up to the lawsuit, black homeowners in Northwest Dade were unable to stop former Miami Dolphins owner Joe Robbie from building a football stadium in their neighborhood.
''There was a great deal of frustration,'' said George Knox, a former Miami city attorney and one of the plaintiffs. ``There was no person who actually represented the interests of the people who resided in that geographic area.''
But Knox has also joined the ranks of politically prominent leaders who believe at-large commission seats need to be considered during an upcoming review of the county's charter.
''I think history is not going to support the notion that single-member district elections solved any of the problems or allayed any of the fears,'' Knox said. ``Blacks may not be very much better off in terms of the economics and politics since '86.''
The commission is stuck in a classic political crunch: hated as a body, loved as individuals. Scandals have driven its approval rating down around 40 percent, according to a poll conducted in January by the Metropolitan Center at Florida International University. But no commissioner has lost a reelection bid in 13 years; when half of them faced voters in 2006, not a single one was even taken to a runoff.
That makes significant change unlikely without a structural overhaul, which would need voters' approval.
''Commissioners were very committed to their districts but not always willing to see countywide issues -- that's the problem when you don't have any at-large members,'' said Ric Katz, a long-time lobbyist and campaign strategist. ``Having some at-large members would bring that perspective back to the commission.''
Such a debate, however, will inevitably be drenched in racial and ethnic suspicion and fueled by the ongoing tension between Alvarez and the commission.
''In light of what has occurred, I think now we need these four districts and their representatives more than ever,'' said Commissioner Audrey Edmonson.
Smith said the issue could be divisive enough to bring back the ethnic political battles of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Those fights peaked during a 1990 visit by South African leader Nelson Mandela, whose arrival was protested by some Cuban-Americans upset with Mandela's support for Fidel Castro. Smith responded by launching a massive tourism boycott that lasted three years.
''It's not like the tension is gone,'' Smith said. ``It's just below the surface.''
Former Miami Mayor Xavier Suarez, who joined Knox as a plaintiff in 1986, said he remains skeptical of at-large seats but believes voters are frustrated enough to try almost anything.
ISSUE `INESCAPABLE'
Former County Manager Merrett Stierheim floated the notion during his public appearances opposing the strong-mayor campaign, stopping short of an endorsement but saying the conversation is ``inescapable.''
He chaired a committee during the lawsuit that recommended a combination of at-large and single-member seats, but the proposal failed with voters because it was attached to a salary increase for commissioners.
A similar hybrid is used in Jacksonville, where the city council includes 14 districts and five at-large members who are elected county-wide but must reside in one of five residency areas.
The federal judge who ruled on the 1986 lawsuit suggested a similar system would not violate voting-rights laws.
''There were all sorts of systems that could have been in place,'' said U.S. District Judge Donald Graham. ``There were probably methods by which they could have had some at-large seats in those days, but they decided not to give it a try.''
CAMPAIGN COSTS
Countywide campaigns rely heavily on radio, television and polling, and require far more fundraising than district races; Edmonson said many legitimate candidates simply could not afford to run.
Four candidates in the 2004 mayor's race -- the last major countywide race in Miami-Dade -- spent more than $1 million. By contrast, not a single commission candidate spent more than Dorrin Rolle's $409,792.
The charter review task force, which the commission is supposed to convene every five years, is expected to tackle other explosive issues, as well. Commissioner José ''Pepe'' Diaz wants the group to discuss reinstating elections for constitutional officers: sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser and elections supervisor.
Even the task force's composition has become a political football. Under a bill sponsored by Commissioner Katy Sorenson, 10 local groups -- including in NAACP, League of Cities and Chamber of Commerce -- would each appoint one member. A competing bill filed by Diaz would allow one appointment from the mayor, each of the 13 commissioners and each of seven municipalities.
As 2007 is the 50th anniversary of Miami-Dade's charter, Commissioner Carlos Gimenez said task force will undergo a ''soup to nuts'' review.
''This should be the charter for the 21st century,'' he said.
Blair blames murders on black culture
Political
Blair blames spate of murders on black culture: Political correctness not helping, says PM: Community leaders react angrily to comments
Source: The Guardian 04/12/2007
Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.
One accused him of misunderstanding the advice he had been given on the issue at a Downing Street summit.
Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth. He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".
It needed to be addressed by a tailored counter-attack in the same way as football hooliganism was reined in by producing measures aimed at the specific problem, rather than general lawlessness.
Mr Blair's remarks are at odds with those of the Home Office minister Lady Scotland, who told the home affairs select committee last month that the disproportionate number of black youths in the criminal justice system was a function of their disproportionate poverty, and not to do with a distinctive black culture.
Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been "lurching into total frankness" in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that "the black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids".
Mr Blair said he had been moved to make his controversial remarks after speaking to a black pastor of a London church at a Downing Street knife crime summit, who said: "When are we going to start saying this is a problem amongst a section of the black community and not, for reasons of political correctness, pretend that this is nothing to do with it?" Mr Blair said there needed to be an "intense police focus" on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders "taken out of circulation".
Last night, British African-Caribbean figures leading the fight against gang culture condemned Mr Blair's speech. The Rev Nims Obunge, chief executive of the Peace Alliance, one of the main organisations working against gang crime, denounced the prime minister.
Mr Obunge, who attended the Downing Street summit chaired by Mr Blair in February, said he had been cited by the prime minister: "He makes it look like I said it's the black community doing it. What I said is it's making the black community more vulnerable and they need more support and funding for the work they're doing. . . . He has taken what I said out of context. We came for support and he has failed and has come back with more police powers to use against our black children."
Keith Jarrett, chair of the National Black Police Association, whose members work with vulnerable youngsters, said: "Social deprivation and delinquency go hand in hand and we need to tackle both. It is curious that the prime minister does not mention deprivation in his speech."
Lee Jasper, adviser on policing to London's mayor, said: "For years we have said this is an issue the black community has to deal with. The PM is spectacularly ill-informed if he thinks otherwise.
"Every home secretary from [David] Blunkett onwards has been pressed on tackling the growing phenomenon of gun and gang crime in deprived black communities, and government has failed to respond to what has been a clear demand for additional resources to tackle youth alienation and disaffection".
The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.
Answering questions later Mr Blair said: "Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don't think it's the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.
"I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them."
Some people working with children knew at the age of five whether they were going to be in "real trouble" later, he said.
Mr Blair is known to believe the tendency for many black boys to be raised in families without a father leads to a lack of appropriate role models.
He said: "We need to stop thinking of this as a society that has gone wrong - it has not - but of specific groups that for specific reasons have gone outside of the proper lines of respect and good conduct towards others and need by specific measures to be brought back into the fold."
The Commission for Racial Equality broadly backed Mr Blair, saying people "shouldn't be afraid to talk about this issue for fear of sounding prejudiced".
Mr Blair spoke out as a second teenager was due to appear in court charged with the murder of 14-year-old Paul Erhahon, stabbed to death in east London on Friday. He was the seventh Londoner under 16 to be murdered since the end of January, and his 15-year-old friend, who was also stabbed, remains in hospital.
Blair blames spate of murders on black culture: Political correctness not helping, says PM: Community leaders react angrily to comments
Source: The Guardian 04/12/2007
Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture. His remarks angered community leaders, who accused him of ignorance and failing to provide support for black-led efforts to tackle the problem.
One accused him of misunderstanding the advice he had been given on the issue at a Downing Street summit.
Black community leaders reacted after Mr Blair said the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth. He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".
It needed to be addressed by a tailored counter-attack in the same way as football hooliganism was reined in by producing measures aimed at the specific problem, rather than general lawlessness.
Mr Blair's remarks are at odds with those of the Home Office minister Lady Scotland, who told the home affairs select committee last month that the disproportionate number of black youths in the criminal justice system was a function of their disproportionate poverty, and not to do with a distinctive black culture.
Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been "lurching into total frankness" in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that "the black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids".
Mr Blair said he had been moved to make his controversial remarks after speaking to a black pastor of a London church at a Downing Street knife crime summit, who said: "When are we going to start saying this is a problem amongst a section of the black community and not, for reasons of political correctness, pretend that this is nothing to do with it?" Mr Blair said there needed to be an "intense police focus" on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders "taken out of circulation".
Last night, British African-Caribbean figures leading the fight against gang culture condemned Mr Blair's speech. The Rev Nims Obunge, chief executive of the Peace Alliance, one of the main organisations working against gang crime, denounced the prime minister.
Mr Obunge, who attended the Downing Street summit chaired by Mr Blair in February, said he had been cited by the prime minister: "He makes it look like I said it's the black community doing it. What I said is it's making the black community more vulnerable and they need more support and funding for the work they're doing. . . . He has taken what I said out of context. We came for support and he has failed and has come back with more police powers to use against our black children."
Keith Jarrett, chair of the National Black Police Association, whose members work with vulnerable youngsters, said: "Social deprivation and delinquency go hand in hand and we need to tackle both. It is curious that the prime minister does not mention deprivation in his speech."
Lee Jasper, adviser on policing to London's mayor, said: "For years we have said this is an issue the black community has to deal with. The PM is spectacularly ill-informed if he thinks otherwise.
"Every home secretary from [David] Blunkett onwards has been pressed on tackling the growing phenomenon of gun and gang crime in deprived black communities, and government has failed to respond to what has been a clear demand for additional resources to tackle youth alienation and disaffection".
The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.
Answering questions later Mr Blair said: "Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don't think it's the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.
"I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them."
Some people working with children knew at the age of five whether they were going to be in "real trouble" later, he said.
Mr Blair is known to believe the tendency for many black boys to be raised in families without a father leads to a lack of appropriate role models.
He said: "We need to stop thinking of this as a society that has gone wrong - it has not - but of specific groups that for specific reasons have gone outside of the proper lines of respect and good conduct towards others and need by specific measures to be brought back into the fold."
The Commission for Racial Equality broadly backed Mr Blair, saying people "shouldn't be afraid to talk about this issue for fear of sounding prejudiced".
Mr Blair spoke out as a second teenager was due to appear in court charged with the murder of 14-year-old Paul Erhahon, stabbed to death in east London on Friday. He was the seventh Londoner under 16 to be murdered since the end of January, and his 15-year-old friend, who was also stabbed, remains in hospital.
Sodomy Halts Debates on Bill
Political
Sodomy Halts Debates on Sexual Offences Bill
Source: All Africa 04/12/2007
Port Louis, Apr 12, 2007 (L'Express/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
Political debates on the Sexual Offences Bill - a piece of draft legislation that deals mainly with the stiffening of laws in cases of rape and other sexual offences - have stumbled upon the term "sodomy."
Not that the word is mentioned in this remarkable piece of legislation that in actual fact seeks to depenalize the act of sodomy. The bill is remarkable in the sense that the word sodomy is not used at all. We know the sexual act will be rendered legal - when the bill is voted - by the fact that "penetration of the penis" in the "anus without consent" will constitute a rape that will be subject to penal servitude not exceeding 45 years. At the end of the bill, the repeal of section 249 of the Criminal Code is provided for. As it stands now, section 249 provides that sodomy and bestiality are crimes punishable by a penal servitude of 5 years.
MMM leader Paul Berenger has not yet expressed himself on the matter and MSM leader Pravind Jugnauth has already at the outset opposed the depenalization of consensual sodomy, qualifying it as "immoral" and saying that Government's move was "a telltale sign of a society that was losing its values". Even within the majority alliance, the matter of sodomy is causing a rift and has prevented any dispassionate debate on the more important matter of harsher sentences for rapists.
The main criticisms against the depenalization of sodomy are that it is "immoral."The main arguments for it are that the right to practise sodomy is part of the broader constitutional right to sexual privacy. The debate in Mauritius is, however, slightly different.
In actual fact, the precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act, which does not lead to procreation. Furthermore, sodomy has many synonyms: buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act and deviant sexual intercourse.
Respect for individual private lives
While, in theory, this may include heterosexual oral sex, anal sex, masturbation and bestiality, in practice and - in general - such laws are primarily enforced against sex between men. Historians, however, dispute the reason for the emergence of such laws but they have roots in antiquity and are linked to religious proscriptions against certain sexual acts.
Contemporary supporters of sodomy laws argue that there are additional reasons for retaining them. They include public health concerns about anal sex or concerns that legalisation of homosexuality will lead to a declining population.
But more and more around the world, courts are striking down sodomy laws in decisions that gay rights supporters the world over have hailed as "historic." As an example, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the US Supreme Court wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. ( ) The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime". The petitioners in this case were homosexuals.
As mentioned earlier, the situation in Mauritius is slightly different. As a general rule, men homosexuals rarely publicise the fact that their sexual behaviour is in actual fact a crime according to Mauritian laws. And the police do not make it a regular practice of arresting homosexuals because they practise sodomy in the privacy of their homes. Sodomy between adults of different sex is also practised on a regular basis in Mauritius as elsewhere. When it is consensual, there is no question of a crime having been committed because it cannot be proved.
45 years behind bars
So the move by Government is purely a technical one. Attorney General Rama Valayden, aware of this absurdity in our laws, has chosen to justify Government's decision by saying that many women, because they have to find fault with their husbands whom they wish to divorce, often say the latter have engaged in sodomy. Not many lawyers agree but this is really beside the point.
After the proclamation of the Sexual Offences Act, nothing will have changed in the sexual behaviour of consenting adults. But when a man rapes another man or has non-consensual anal sex with a woman, instead of the actual five years, the rapist will be liable to a maximum of 45 years behind bars. To all intents and purposes, this is about the only change that the depenalization of sodomy will bring in the country.
The debate, however, will be anything but rational because in it will be mixed a large dose of political demagogy, religious zealousness and - let's face it - much hypocrisy.
Sodomy Halts Debates on Sexual Offences Bill
Source: All Africa 04/12/2007
Port Louis, Apr 12, 2007 (L'Express/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
Political debates on the Sexual Offences Bill - a piece of draft legislation that deals mainly with the stiffening of laws in cases of rape and other sexual offences - have stumbled upon the term "sodomy."
Not that the word is mentioned in this remarkable piece of legislation that in actual fact seeks to depenalize the act of sodomy. The bill is remarkable in the sense that the word sodomy is not used at all. We know the sexual act will be rendered legal - when the bill is voted - by the fact that "penetration of the penis" in the "anus without consent" will constitute a rape that will be subject to penal servitude not exceeding 45 years. At the end of the bill, the repeal of section 249 of the Criminal Code is provided for. As it stands now, section 249 provides that sodomy and bestiality are crimes punishable by a penal servitude of 5 years.
MMM leader Paul Berenger has not yet expressed himself on the matter and MSM leader Pravind Jugnauth has already at the outset opposed the depenalization of consensual sodomy, qualifying it as "immoral" and saying that Government's move was "a telltale sign of a society that was losing its values". Even within the majority alliance, the matter of sodomy is causing a rift and has prevented any dispassionate debate on the more important matter of harsher sentences for rapists.
The main criticisms against the depenalization of sodomy are that it is "immoral."The main arguments for it are that the right to practise sodomy is part of the broader constitutional right to sexual privacy. The debate in Mauritius is, however, slightly different.
In actual fact, the precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act, which does not lead to procreation. Furthermore, sodomy has many synonyms: buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act and deviant sexual intercourse.
Respect for individual private lives
While, in theory, this may include heterosexual oral sex, anal sex, masturbation and bestiality, in practice and - in general - such laws are primarily enforced against sex between men. Historians, however, dispute the reason for the emergence of such laws but they have roots in antiquity and are linked to religious proscriptions against certain sexual acts.
Contemporary supporters of sodomy laws argue that there are additional reasons for retaining them. They include public health concerns about anal sex or concerns that legalisation of homosexuality will lead to a declining population.
But more and more around the world, courts are striking down sodomy laws in decisions that gay rights supporters the world over have hailed as "historic." As an example, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the US Supreme Court wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. ( ) The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime". The petitioners in this case were homosexuals.
As mentioned earlier, the situation in Mauritius is slightly different. As a general rule, men homosexuals rarely publicise the fact that their sexual behaviour is in actual fact a crime according to Mauritian laws. And the police do not make it a regular practice of arresting homosexuals because they practise sodomy in the privacy of their homes. Sodomy between adults of different sex is also practised on a regular basis in Mauritius as elsewhere. When it is consensual, there is no question of a crime having been committed because it cannot be proved.
45 years behind bars
So the move by Government is purely a technical one. Attorney General Rama Valayden, aware of this absurdity in our laws, has chosen to justify Government's decision by saying that many women, because they have to find fault with their husbands whom they wish to divorce, often say the latter have engaged in sodomy. Not many lawyers agree but this is really beside the point.
After the proclamation of the Sexual Offences Act, nothing will have changed in the sexual behaviour of consenting adults. But when a man rapes another man or has non-consensual anal sex with a woman, instead of the actual five years, the rapist will be liable to a maximum of 45 years behind bars. To all intents and purposes, this is about the only change that the depenalization of sodomy will bring in the country.
The debate, however, will be anything but rational because in it will be mixed a large dose of political demagogy, religious zealousness and - let's face it - much hypocrisy.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
National Progressive Coalition
Political
Venture Philanthropy Goes Into Politics; The model, connecting wealthy investors with needy charities, has moved into the political arena with the New Progressive Coalition
Source: BusinessWeek Online 04/13/2007
In recent years, Silicon Valley venture capitalists have led a growing effort to transform the philanthropic sector through what's been dubbed "venture philanthropy". The efforts of folks like eBay (EBAY) founder Pierre Omidyar and Acumen Fund founder Jacqueline Novogratz to use capital markets to solve social ills have struck a chord.
Sure, many of the benefiting businesses may not have the greatest profit margins, but already wealthy investors can measure their profits in terms of social capital [for example, how many meals were served to homeless people] as well as cash.
The business focus, meanwhile, brings metrics and efficiency to a sector renowned for just the opposite. Now, as the 2008 election approaches and campaigning heats up, a wealthy Silicon Valley venture capitalist is applying these VC techniques to politics. August Capital general partner Andy Rappaport and his wife, Deborah, have invested $1.5 million in a for-profit venture called the New Progressive Coalition.
NPC bases its business model on the idea that the progressive movement has historically supported candidates, not organizations--donations rise and fall with political races, while between elections, ideas and issues lag. The right, on the other hand, benefits from a robust network of think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute that keep ideas alive even when there's no election in the offing.
NPC hopes to use the Web to build a similar kind of infrastructure by connecting left-leaning organizations--many of which are newly formed grassroots groups with inexperienced leadership--with investors who are keen to provide ongoing time and money.
To build powerful progressive-thought leadership, "We need to experiment by supporting a large number of small efforts," says Rappaport. "Some will succeed, and we'll be able to throw more money and effort at them and build them to scale." As with the philanthropic venture organizations, shareholders will be able to measure their profits using a double bottom line--the monetary return that will keep the business afloat and the political return that will eventually build powerful think tanks that can keep step with the right.
Here's how the coalition works: Member organizations pay annual dues of up to $5,000 on a sliding scale, based on the size of their budgets. This allows them to be listed in the online "marketplace" and also gives them access to technical assistance and professional advice from NPC's 58-person advisory team, drawn from a variety of fields including marketing and finance.
So far, about 200 groups have signed on, including national pro-choice group Choice USA and independent online rag Alternet.org. Meanwhile, investors--so far, just 220--pay an annual membership fee of $250 for networking, events, publications, and help connecting to groups to which they can donate money and time. They can search the database online, or they can get more focused advice from NPC professionals.
The group's executive director, Kirstin Falk, worked on Wall Street and in a political nonprofit before she met the Rappaports and agreed to launch NPC, which is located in a former dot-com building in downtown San Francisco. Falk says there is a vast underserved group of potential donors who may lack the ability to write seven-figure checks, but who are nonetheless able to devote both money and time to the progressive causes they embrace.
She points to 1.16 million people in the U.S. who both make more than $150,000 and self-identify as progressive [according to a September, 2006, analysis conducted by Ammo Marketing). Yet according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign contributions, just 130,000 individuals have given more than $2,000 to progressive candidates, groups, and political action committees [PACs].
Falk thinks the problem is that many of these people don't have an easy way to find groups that are meaningful to them. Therein lies an opportunity. By setting up NPC as a business, she hopes to be able to grow the matchmaking service to a size that will make it a one-stop shop for anyone interested in making a political donation to a liberal cause. "I think a lot of people have gotten stuck thinking every organization needs to be a for-profit or non-profit," says Falk. "Innovation doesn't really happen unless you break these silos down. It's less about the legal structure and more about what you want to accomplish."
Michael Kieschnick is president and co-founder of Working Assets--and one of NPC's biggest investors. During the 2006 election cycle, he asked NPC to identify groups that were doing cost-effective work on issues rather than candidates. The search turned up VoteVets.org, a PAC that strives to put into Congress war veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are critical of the war's execution. VoteVets has been part of NPC since its launch. Kieschnick gave the PAC $100,000 and continues to support its efforts. "I've been an activist and donor on many issues. NPC is the only place that brings the two together," he says.
Meanwhile, membership organizations are just starting to reap the rewards of their affiliation. Roz Lemieux, executive director of the New Organizing Institute, has renewed her membership for a second year, paying $500 in 2007 to be a member of the NPC. The Washington [D.C.)-based, social welfare-focused nonprofit trains young political organizers on how to use technology to further progressive causes. Last year, one investor referred by NPC walked in the door two weeks before a large training, wrote a check for $2,000 on the spot, and volunteered full-time.
The investor later followed up with an additional $8,000. Beyond such donations, Lemieux has also relied on NPC for professional support. "They donated their space for an event we did in San Francisco, offered assistance finding a contract fundraiser, and forced my hand on tracking metrics," says Lemieux. "They're useful as a resource for operations and management and planning that help us be more fundable."
NPC has been running in beta since October, 2005, but it is just starting to gain momentum. In late March, the business was accepted into the Women's Technology Cluster, a prominent San Francisco tech company incubator, and Falk is preparing to hit Sand Hill Road for a second round of funding for NPC in the next month. Rappaport hopes that the for-profit model will pare down funding inefficiencies and allow the group to be self-sustaining. "Most progressive organizations struggle because of the fickleness of donors," he says. "Like a traditional startup, if we can get it to cash-flow positive, then an initial influx of startup capital is all it needs."
NPC plans to grow its staff from nine to 15 in the next couple of years, while its business plan talks about attracting 80,000 investors by 2011. Right now, the organization is focusing on expanding its product line. It recently launched a proprietary "political return on investment" tool, designed to measure success in six sectors: advocacy/organizing; electoral; idea generation/dissemination; infrastructure/capacity; leadership, and media.
It will include 54 measurements that cover everything from the average years of experience among the senior leaders to the percentage increase in the budget or revenue from the previous year. This will help investors to gauge which groups will most effectively use their donations. In the fall, they hope to launch political mutual funds. These will be pre-screened portfolios of organizations to which donors can contribute.
These are promising ideas, but it's still too early to say how successful NPC will be. Even Rappaport agrees, saying, "The ability of the organization to really deliver the goods is going to be a function of how fast it grows its membership."
Venture Philanthropy Goes Into Politics; The model, connecting wealthy investors with needy charities, has moved into the political arena with the New Progressive Coalition
Source: BusinessWeek Online 04/13/2007
In recent years, Silicon Valley venture capitalists have led a growing effort to transform the philanthropic sector through what's been dubbed "venture philanthropy". The efforts of folks like eBay (EBAY) founder Pierre Omidyar and Acumen Fund founder Jacqueline Novogratz to use capital markets to solve social ills have struck a chord.
Sure, many of the benefiting businesses may not have the greatest profit margins, but already wealthy investors can measure their profits in terms of social capital [for example, how many meals were served to homeless people] as well as cash.
The business focus, meanwhile, brings metrics and efficiency to a sector renowned for just the opposite. Now, as the 2008 election approaches and campaigning heats up, a wealthy Silicon Valley venture capitalist is applying these VC techniques to politics. August Capital general partner Andy Rappaport and his wife, Deborah, have invested $1.5 million in a for-profit venture called the New Progressive Coalition.
NPC bases its business model on the idea that the progressive movement has historically supported candidates, not organizations--donations rise and fall with political races, while between elections, ideas and issues lag. The right, on the other hand, benefits from a robust network of think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute that keep ideas alive even when there's no election in the offing.
NPC hopes to use the Web to build a similar kind of infrastructure by connecting left-leaning organizations--many of which are newly formed grassroots groups with inexperienced leadership--with investors who are keen to provide ongoing time and money.
To build powerful progressive-thought leadership, "We need to experiment by supporting a large number of small efforts," says Rappaport. "Some will succeed, and we'll be able to throw more money and effort at them and build them to scale." As with the philanthropic venture organizations, shareholders will be able to measure their profits using a double bottom line--the monetary return that will keep the business afloat and the political return that will eventually build powerful think tanks that can keep step with the right.
Here's how the coalition works: Member organizations pay annual dues of up to $5,000 on a sliding scale, based on the size of their budgets. This allows them to be listed in the online "marketplace" and also gives them access to technical assistance and professional advice from NPC's 58-person advisory team, drawn from a variety of fields including marketing and finance.
So far, about 200 groups have signed on, including national pro-choice group Choice USA and independent online rag Alternet.org. Meanwhile, investors--so far, just 220--pay an annual membership fee of $250 for networking, events, publications, and help connecting to groups to which they can donate money and time. They can search the database online, or they can get more focused advice from NPC professionals.
The group's executive director, Kirstin Falk, worked on Wall Street and in a political nonprofit before she met the Rappaports and agreed to launch NPC, which is located in a former dot-com building in downtown San Francisco. Falk says there is a vast underserved group of potential donors who may lack the ability to write seven-figure checks, but who are nonetheless able to devote both money and time to the progressive causes they embrace.
She points to 1.16 million people in the U.S. who both make more than $150,000 and self-identify as progressive [according to a September, 2006, analysis conducted by Ammo Marketing). Yet according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign contributions, just 130,000 individuals have given more than $2,000 to progressive candidates, groups, and political action committees [PACs].
Falk thinks the problem is that many of these people don't have an easy way to find groups that are meaningful to them. Therein lies an opportunity. By setting up NPC as a business, she hopes to be able to grow the matchmaking service to a size that will make it a one-stop shop for anyone interested in making a political donation to a liberal cause. "I think a lot of people have gotten stuck thinking every organization needs to be a for-profit or non-profit," says Falk. "Innovation doesn't really happen unless you break these silos down. It's less about the legal structure and more about what you want to accomplish."
Michael Kieschnick is president and co-founder of Working Assets--and one of NPC's biggest investors. During the 2006 election cycle, he asked NPC to identify groups that were doing cost-effective work on issues rather than candidates. The search turned up VoteVets.org, a PAC that strives to put into Congress war veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are critical of the war's execution. VoteVets has been part of NPC since its launch. Kieschnick gave the PAC $100,000 and continues to support its efforts. "I've been an activist and donor on many issues. NPC is the only place that brings the two together," he says.
Meanwhile, membership organizations are just starting to reap the rewards of their affiliation. Roz Lemieux, executive director of the New Organizing Institute, has renewed her membership for a second year, paying $500 in 2007 to be a member of the NPC. The Washington [D.C.)-based, social welfare-focused nonprofit trains young political organizers on how to use technology to further progressive causes. Last year, one investor referred by NPC walked in the door two weeks before a large training, wrote a check for $2,000 on the spot, and volunteered full-time.
The investor later followed up with an additional $8,000. Beyond such donations, Lemieux has also relied on NPC for professional support. "They donated their space for an event we did in San Francisco, offered assistance finding a contract fundraiser, and forced my hand on tracking metrics," says Lemieux. "They're useful as a resource for operations and management and planning that help us be more fundable."
NPC has been running in beta since October, 2005, but it is just starting to gain momentum. In late March, the business was accepted into the Women's Technology Cluster, a prominent San Francisco tech company incubator, and Falk is preparing to hit Sand Hill Road for a second round of funding for NPC in the next month. Rappaport hopes that the for-profit model will pare down funding inefficiencies and allow the group to be self-sustaining. "Most progressive organizations struggle because of the fickleness of donors," he says. "Like a traditional startup, if we can get it to cash-flow positive, then an initial influx of startup capital is all it needs."
NPC plans to grow its staff from nine to 15 in the next couple of years, while its business plan talks about attracting 80,000 investors by 2011. Right now, the organization is focusing on expanding its product line. It recently launched a proprietary "political return on investment" tool, designed to measure success in six sectors: advocacy/organizing; electoral; idea generation/dissemination; infrastructure/capacity; leadership, and media.
It will include 54 measurements that cover everything from the average years of experience among the senior leaders to the percentage increase in the budget or revenue from the previous year. This will help investors to gauge which groups will most effectively use their donations. In the fall, they hope to launch political mutual funds. These will be pre-screened portfolios of organizations to which donors can contribute.
These are promising ideas, but it's still too early to say how successful NPC will be. Even Rappaport agrees, saying, "The ability of the organization to really deliver the goods is going to be a function of how fast it grows its membership."
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Evolving Thoughts on Health Care
Politics & Economics --- CAPITAL: How the Thinking About Health Care Has Evolved
Source: The Wall Street Journal 04/12/2007
"Debating the ailments of the American health-care system is a chronic disease. It sometimes seems the same experts have been making the same points for decades: The U.S. spends more on health care than other countries, but doesn't have healthier people.
Americans with generous insurance use health care readily, and doctors provide it on demand because third parties pay the bill. And so on.
"I remember this from 1993," former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said this week at a Washington forum, recalling his years in the Clinton administration. "Every time I think about health care, I get a headache."
It would be easy to fill a column with the ways in which the health-care debate never changes. But, without offering optimism that a grand solution is imminent, three things are now apparent that -- if not new -- at least weren't widely appreciated 15 or 20 years ago.
Employer-based health insurance is slowly dying.
The notion that requiring employers to provide health insurance is the best route to universal coverage is fading. Sure, nearly 60% of Americans still get health insurance on the job. But even in a growing economy with a tight labor market, employer coverage is eroding. Fifteen years ago, says Joseph Antos of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, "large employers were concerned about rising health spending, but they were not leading the march to a big solution." Now they want out.
Employers -- either through premiums or through taxes -- will be paying part of the health-care tab for a long time, but there is surprising interest in requiring that every individual get health insurance, and then subsidizing those who can't afford it.
We don't know as much about medical science as we need to know.
It always has been true that there is a lot about disease doctors didn't know, and it is true doctors can cure diseases that were killers just a decade ago. But it is also increasingly clear that ignorance about what treatments work well and for whom is very costly, especially as new treatments are discovered and new technologies deployed. The flap over stents versus drugs for heart disease is only the latest example.
"I don't think there was very much recognition [15 years ago] about how little we know in areas that we spend large amounts of money on . . . ," says economist Gail Wilensky, a former Medicare administrator now at Project Hope, a global public-health charity. Dartmouth Medical School researchers have been showing for decades how differently medicine is practiced from one town to the next. There is surprisingly little agreement on what works and what doesn't. There is, however, a consensus that figuring that out is important and getting the health-care system to make better use of information technology is crucial to that end.
Americans want a lot of health care, are willing to pay for a lot of it and don't like their choices limited.
Maybe this isn't exactly new, but it is more certain. Americans rebelled against managed care, and particularly didn't like employers forcing them to enroll. "One of the lessons of the '90s is that every consumer insists on the right to choose a poor-quality physician," Ronald Williams, chief executive of Aetna Inc., said at that Washington forum, which was sponsored by the Hamilton Project, the outfit Mr. Rubin and others founded to devise ideas for centrist Democrats.
So no matter how many experts prescribe big integrated health-care plans as the best way to get medical care, Americans won't be forced into them. Some may choose such plans, but they want choice -- and politicians won't enact legislation that denies them choice.
Politicians and employers may, however, be willing to make Americans pay to satisfy their unlimited hunger for health care. President Bush, no fan of tax increases, has proposed raising taxes on those with the most generous health plans. Jason Furman, a former Clinton and Kerry campaign aide, floated a proposal this week that says Americans ought to pay more for the health care they buy (with the best-off paying more out of pocket than the poor.)
Some say the biggest change is that the anxiety of American workers and businesses about the costs and shortcomings of the U.S. health-care system have reached a crescendo and something big will happen soon. Could be. But we've heard that before.
One veteran of the health-care wars, Robert Reischauer, the former Congressional Budget Office director who now heads the Urban Institute think tank, observes a repeating 15-year cycle in which "building optimism and enthusiasm" about big-time health reform is "dashed by realities and politics."
Complaints about the American health-care system haven't -- yet -- produced the political will to do something, particularly since that something will pinch some big interests and generate fierce opposition no matter what form it takes. Some things don't change. "
Source: The Wall Street Journal 04/12/2007
"Debating the ailments of the American health-care system is a chronic disease. It sometimes seems the same experts have been making the same points for decades: The U.S. spends more on health care than other countries, but doesn't have healthier people.
Americans with generous insurance use health care readily, and doctors provide it on demand because third parties pay the bill. And so on.
"I remember this from 1993," former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said this week at a Washington forum, recalling his years in the Clinton administration. "Every time I think about health care, I get a headache."
It would be easy to fill a column with the ways in which the health-care debate never changes. But, without offering optimism that a grand solution is imminent, three things are now apparent that -- if not new -- at least weren't widely appreciated 15 or 20 years ago.
Employer-based health insurance is slowly dying.
The notion that requiring employers to provide health insurance is the best route to universal coverage is fading. Sure, nearly 60% of Americans still get health insurance on the job. But even in a growing economy with a tight labor market, employer coverage is eroding. Fifteen years ago, says Joseph Antos of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, "large employers were concerned about rising health spending, but they were not leading the march to a big solution." Now they want out.
Employers -- either through premiums or through taxes -- will be paying part of the health-care tab for a long time, but there is surprising interest in requiring that every individual get health insurance, and then subsidizing those who can't afford it.
We don't know as much about medical science as we need to know.
It always has been true that there is a lot about disease doctors didn't know, and it is true doctors can cure diseases that were killers just a decade ago. But it is also increasingly clear that ignorance about what treatments work well and for whom is very costly, especially as new treatments are discovered and new technologies deployed. The flap over stents versus drugs for heart disease is only the latest example.
"I don't think there was very much recognition [15 years ago] about how little we know in areas that we spend large amounts of money on . . . ," says economist Gail Wilensky, a former Medicare administrator now at Project Hope, a global public-health charity. Dartmouth Medical School researchers have been showing for decades how differently medicine is practiced from one town to the next. There is surprisingly little agreement on what works and what doesn't. There is, however, a consensus that figuring that out is important and getting the health-care system to make better use of information technology is crucial to that end.
Americans want a lot of health care, are willing to pay for a lot of it and don't like their choices limited.
Maybe this isn't exactly new, but it is more certain. Americans rebelled against managed care, and particularly didn't like employers forcing them to enroll. "One of the lessons of the '90s is that every consumer insists on the right to choose a poor-quality physician," Ronald Williams, chief executive of Aetna Inc., said at that Washington forum, which was sponsored by the Hamilton Project, the outfit Mr. Rubin and others founded to devise ideas for centrist Democrats.
So no matter how many experts prescribe big integrated health-care plans as the best way to get medical care, Americans won't be forced into them. Some may choose such plans, but they want choice -- and politicians won't enact legislation that denies them choice.
Politicians and employers may, however, be willing to make Americans pay to satisfy their unlimited hunger for health care. President Bush, no fan of tax increases, has proposed raising taxes on those with the most generous health plans. Jason Furman, a former Clinton and Kerry campaign aide, floated a proposal this week that says Americans ought to pay more for the health care they buy (with the best-off paying more out of pocket than the poor.)
Some say the biggest change is that the anxiety of American workers and businesses about the costs and shortcomings of the U.S. health-care system have reached a crescendo and something big will happen soon. Could be. But we've heard that before.
One veteran of the health-care wars, Robert Reischauer, the former Congressional Budget Office director who now heads the Urban Institute think tank, observes a repeating 15-year cycle in which "building optimism and enthusiasm" about big-time health reform is "dashed by realities and politics."
Complaints about the American health-care system haven't -- yet -- produced the political will to do something, particularly since that something will pinch some big interests and generate fierce opposition no matter what form it takes. Some things don't change. "
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
