Keene Opines

New HOME!!!

2011-02-25T15:26:00.000-05:00

WE HAVE A NEW HOME!!!!!!!! VISIT US HERE!!!!

Media Update

2010-02-26T16:56:00.001-05:00

For those interested, I co-host the Thursday morning edition of Hofstra's Morning Wake-up Call from 7 to 9 on 88.7FM in Nassau, Queens, Brooklyn, parts of Manhattan, Bronx, Westchester, and Suffolk and online at WRHU.org.

Is Centralization Good For The Country?

2010-02-05T23:30:00.000-05:00

As the internet has played an important role in how the country communicates, it has made it easier to connect to people and businesses across the nation. But is this good? Is it good that we are stepping outside of our proverbial bubble and into the national landscape, personally? There are many arguments that can be made on both sides of the idea, however I find that there is one that simply makes more sense than the other.

Our nationalization has been a growing trend since the 1930s and the Great Depression. My adversaries would say that it is because the government is growing. I argue, however, that it is a redistribution of power, where power that had been in the cities, counties, and states and is now in the federal government. The internet has helped perpetuate this, as had the automobile and airplanes, because it has caused the federal government to handle the overlap in business practices across state lines. When we shop online, especially in an area like Keene, we are actually shopping outside of state lines. When you log onto Walmart.com, you are shopping from warehouses across the country. On Ebay, you are shopping from individual people or businesses that dot the country and even the world. It makes sense that the federal government would need to step in to make sure that one state isn't being hurt more than another because of the internet.

However, this causes the need for the federal government to do everything. It causes people to pin all of their hopes and dreams on one person [President Obama]. But why are people putting all of this hope and desire in the president when they could do the same for their governors, mayors, and legislators? Why do I not see people who are supporting someone like a Rick Lazio in New York saying that if he is elected that they don't need to pay their mortgage or that everything will be resolved in one year? We have become so centralized that we expect the top to have a trickle down effect through the rest of the nation, a lot like the idea of Reaganomics where the immense of wealth at the top will trickle down to the bottom. It doesn't work effectively. There are people at the top who have their own ambitions about where resources go and there are people on the bottom who demand something from the top because they have relied too heavily on the top to support themselves. This is not how a country should be when it is the national government's job to bail out companies. If Indiana banks are failing, then the state of Indiana should try to help its people. If Connecticut's insurance companies are failing, then the state of Connecticut should be working to help them.

When projects need to be funded, like highways, the federal government tantalizes the state governments by only offering funding if the state maintains certain legislation. Isn't that the definition of a "puppet government?" The federal government controls what happens in the lower level governments to the point that they are practically running them. What happened to the principles that the original colonies were founded upon, the idea that each state (at the time, colony) had it's own way of governing and its own belief system? If there were no differences in opinion, would there be both a Connecticut and a Massachusetts or one large Massachusetts? Since the 1910s when the Senate began to be popularly elected, the states have lost a direct impact on the federal government. Rather it is the people of these states that have a direct impact on the government. Although it sounds good, we look at some of the intellect of the voting population, it is worrisome. People complain that they don't like what Congress is doing (the Congress has maintained an approval rating in the 30% range for a while) but there is little turnover in the House of Representatives, the house that is to be a representation of the people. Despite the low approval rating, the low turnover must mean that Americans really love their representatives and the polls are wrong. The people have been electing and supporting people who are generally just pretty people (i.e. Scott Brown, etc.), although in some cases it is clearing understandable when the other option is not a great one, or are supporting a word: Change. As I mentioned in a previous post, change is a great motivator. But, when there is too much change, or change isn't happening fast enough, it makes government difficult to conduct when the voting population is consistently switching parties because they say "change." With the election of President Obama, people put their hopes and dreams at the top and expected it to trickle down.

Because voters only focus on the President and their Senators, they don't bother to research who Rick Lazio is or who David Paterson is. They may only know Andrew Cuomo from his father, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. They don't pin their hopes and dreams on every elected position and that is how bad politicians get into office. They follow the word of change, Glenn Beck, or whoever is influencing the population. But by following these influences, is America getting everything it can? I say no. This centralization has caused our local governments to become helpless and useless. They see that something is wrong in their community, go to the polls, and expect a new president and senator to fix everything when it is the state senator and the city council that is screwing up. Centralization has also brought forward progression that may be in the best interest for the nation in general, but may not be for many parts of the country. Let's use healthcare reform as an example. Currently, the Democrats in Washington want to pass a law that requires citizens to have health insurance, but possibly not offer a public option. My opinion on this bill is that if you require people to have insurance, the government must offer a cheap, basic option so every can make this requirement. However, this legislation does not favor those in states like Massachusetts that already have a policy in place. So, passing the healthcare bill in Congress would hurt Massachusetts residents more than help them. Congress is trying to create a blanket legislation rather than having states handle the problem from within the states. My suggestion would be to rather than have the bill be about requiring citizens to have insurance (I have not heard many people who have said that they did not want insurance) it should be more about making it more accessible. The federal government should allow people to purchase insurance from outside of the state, hence creating more competition. I also suggest that the federal government encourage states that want to initiate their own public option program to do so and allow residents from other states to buy into it. This creates a much smaller program that is much easier to handle and would be less expensive to operate than the current legislation. And not only that, but it would be a good revenue boost for states that may need it, as they may charge a higher rate to out of state customers due to the fact that they are not contributing tax money to the enterprise. That way, you maintain both accessibility and excellence through competition and government assistance.

In short, blanket policies are not as effective as localized ones. The people of our nation need to direct their attention to where it should really be: at the local level, because if the federal government is not doing the jobs it should, then the states should be picking up the gaps and exceeding the expectations of its citizenry.

Until Next Time,

Dennis J. Foley

2010-02-01T23:57:00.001-05:00

Announcement will be postponed one week.

The Future is Bright...

2010-01-07T00:04:00.000-05:00

New plans regarding the future of The Peconic Company and The Keene Observer will be announced on February 1st!! Be sure to stay connected to KeeneOpines for updates and announcements that are soon to come!!

The Peconic Company

The Status of The Keene Observer

2009-11-23T23:26:00.000-05:00

Hello everyone,

What you are currently viewing is a blog called KeeneOpines, which will be the op-ed/editorial arm of The Keene Observer once its publication begins. In the meantime, please enjoy and examine the commentary being provided by its staff.

The Peconic Company

Government and People... and them again...

2009-11-22T22:54:00.000-05:00

Free Staters think that government is bad, corrupt, and controlling. Now, with that said, I must question that statement: do Free Staters think that government itself is bad or the people within that government is bad? Based on their postings, literature, broadcasts, etc., I would have to assume that they believe in the former. They feel that getting rid of the structure will resolve issues... and of course I must differ.

If you were to eliminate the structure of government and create a society that had no formal leader, no public collaboration, and no one employed by that system, the Free Staters would say that the problem is solved, there is no one controlling anyone's life. But, there is an issue with that. Let's say that there is a corrupt government official like Boss Tweed, for example. If there were no formal government, that doesn't mean that a figure like Tweed would be eliminated, he would just play a different role in society, most likely business. If people like Tweed were out of government and into business, then the businesses would all be corrupt with all of these people. Or these people may become doctors and keep charging people over and over for operations they did not receive so that they can get their hefty paycheck. Or even make "mistakes." Life would become corrupt and would be Mafia-esque.

However, if you were to eliminate the people from those public offices and elect people who are not corrupt rather than eliminating the offices, qualified people can make society stronger. And, those corrupt members of our society will face the punishments of being corrupt by a well oiled society. People fail to realize that people run our government and not some oversized robot that does not have feelings and is out of touch with society.

The people who are like the Free Staters feel that government has failed us because they did not get what they wanted from our society and feel that it is the "power figures" fault for it not going their way. Newsflash, sometimes you must compromise to achieve a common goal as a society, which is the purpose of government. These vague and cliché phrases like "liberty", "freedom", and "rights" are meant to pull heartstrings and get people to support them even though these words have no substance behind them. These people are a crying shame to investigative journalists and devalue the power of the press. When it comes to reporting and interviewing others, they have lost the reputation as a real news group because of their handling of interviewees. When they go to ask the mayor or other people questions, they get no response. Why? Because the Free Staters don't treat government officials like PEOPLE!!! They make these officials seem like people who run on gasoline and are only programed to screw the Free State syndicate. When people are treated like that and are only asked accusatory questions, they will not give you the light of day, no matter what your rights are because they have rights, too. What the Free Staters fail to understand, amongst other things, is the idea of everyone having rights, liberties, and freedoms. They feel that in theory everyone should have these rights, but in practice, feel that only they deserve these rights. Look at the videos on their website. All you will see is them complaining how they get arrested for everything and that government isn't held accountable for anything. They even went as far as telling the city manager to just fire people. Just fire people? What if I went to their place of work, walked up to the manager, and told the manager that I wanted Johnny on the griddle fired because he "purposefully" undercooked my hamburger? How different would it be for the government? They can't just fire someone because some loonie walks in and says so because they have rights, too. They have the right, along with every other citizen, to be innocent until proven guilty, and just saying someone is guilty is like claiming the said person is a witch. Is that what we want from our society? People just walking around calling for a witch hunt of the government because they got caught smoking a doobie one night and got arrested for it? Or for actually imposing on the rights of others? The Free Staters have easily proven that they have tunnel vision and show little regard to an alternative opinion. They have also shown little regard of the people of the government.

Also, their little network thingy (or whatever it is) has a very fitting name: the "Obscured Truth Network." I think it is very accurate, especially with the content they put up. Talk, talk, talk, clip, talk, clip, talk, talk, clip, talk, clip. How are viewers supposed to think of these people legitimately as being muckrakers if they don't even know if they are seeing the truth? You see, they may think that they are unveiling things that "mainstream media" and the "bureaucrats" are trying to hide, but from the aspect of the viewer, it looks like they have something to hide themselves, or felt that certain clips were "more worthy" than others to make it to air. Everyone has a word for that and it is censorship. The Free Staters have seemed to have made it a priority to make it look like the government is censoring everything they do. But by looking at their own content, it would lead me to believe that the Free Staters are strong believers in censorship. At times I wish I was in Keene right now because I would be having so much fun asking the Free Staters on camera, "What is liberty? What is liberty? [Get a response] But that's not what I asked. Did you know that it is not your right to impede on the progress of emergency officials? [Get a response] That's not what I asked. I asked if your Constitution says anything along the lines 'All citizens have the right to impede emergency officials from doing their job?' It doesn't? Oh, also, if I asked everyone in Central Square at 4:20 what 'the power to tax is the power to destroy' means and where it originated from, would they be able to answer it correctly?" However, luckily for the Free Staters, I am receiving a quality education from my suburban sanctuary a couple hundred miles away where I am enlightened to the truth from actual historians, political scientists and journalists, amongst many others.

Until next time,

Dennis J. Foley

EiC

Expectations...Rhetoric...Research Exercises?

2009-11-15T01:46:00.000-05:00

Looking at how President Obama's presidency has fared thus far, it is interesting to see how the two main sides look at Obama. Most Democrats and general Obama supporters feel that he is not making enough progress quick enough. The Republicans and other conservatives are looking for anything and everything they can point out as a failure of Obama's administration for their campaigns. What I find intriguing is that people voted for Obama because they wanted "change" and now they aren't seeing the results of that claim. I feel the claim Obama made that he wants to being change to America, end the war in Iraq, win the war in Afghanistan, fix the economy and the healthcare system will make or break his presidency, as do many other people. He has created such a high standard for himself that if he fails to complete all of his goals, it would be a failure. We have not had a president in the position that Obama has found himself in in recent history. Is this because of the situation our country finds itself in at the moment, or is it because of campaigning? If Obama had not campaigned on complete change of what had been going on, but rather smaller aspects of it, would he be seeing the resentment many Americans are feeling towards him and the Democrats? It would be possible, but unfortunately we will never know. The rhetoric used in campaigning is what has affected recent elections, most notably the most recent election. "Change" is the driving force in most of the elections. Usually, incumbents have the upper-hand in reelection campaigns due to the personal branding and the much larger campaign war chest than their opponent. But, this past election, we saw three incumbents who spent a lot more (or had more available to spend) than their opponent either lose, win by a small margin, or have a vote that is still undecided. Looking in New York City, incumbent mayor Mike Bloomberg had spent 10x more than his opponent, Bill Thompson, did. The rhetoric of bringing change to City Hall brought the vote to a 4-5% margin rather than the 10-12% margin that was polled before the election. In the New Jersey governor's race, John Corzine lost to a candidate that was seemingly not much more superior than he was, but because of the "change" Chris Christie wanted to bring to Trenton, Corzine lost the election. In suburban Nassau County, NY, where the election for county executive is still undecided, incumbent Tom Suozzi had been considered a very popular executive, but with Ed Mangano calling for a "tax revolt" and more change to the county, Suozzi was only ahead by 237 votes at the end of election day, with the recount and absentee ballot counting to conclude fairly soon. Is rhetoric, rather than policies and history winning elections for some and losing some for others? If so, then politics will not be fun since people who get tickled by a word will automatically vote for the person who mentioned that word. It would make the general population one big search engine. Type in "change", "lower taxes", and "liberty" and you will start to see votes pile in, but never will the population ask what you mean by change or liberty. They assume it's the change and liberty that they are thinking of an voila! you have a new public official running things.

But, how does this get changed? What must the general population do to change this. Well, there are two main options: 1. Use your cable box and 2. Meet the candidates. Let's start with option one. Your cable box has a variety of news networks for a reason: they all offer different opinions. I can guarantee that if you go to FOX and watch some of their coverage on news events and then go to MSNBC it will be very different. So, my challenge to everyone, if option one is the path you choose to take, is to watch at least an hour of each major network a week. Watch FOX News; MSNBC; CNN; if you get Bloomberg watch that, too; and also watch your local news stations (and all of them, not just WHDH and not just WBZ or WCVB, every single one of them). Local stations also have their biases (seen more in New York City, but it is applicable to nearly every station) so it is important to watch all of your local stations as well. Who knows, you may find you like how another station covers their stories compared to your usual station. Option one is a good option for those who either can't get out or don't want to get out and meet the candidates for office and is an excellent way to connect with the rest of society and create a knowledge base for understanding every angle on an issue.

Option two involves a good bit of mobility. Go and try to meet the candidates that are running for office. Get to know them and ASK THEM QUESTIONS!! There is no better way to get involved with your government than to be involved yourself. Whether they are running for city council or U.S. President, go and meet that person because it will help you determine and reconsider where you stand on major issues. It will also allow you to better understand what John Corzine is trying to insinuate when he has a multitude of photos of a portly Christie in his ads. Entertaining? Yes. Educational? Yes. SO GO ASK!!

Don't get brainwashed by propaganda from candidates for public office and interest groups (*cough*, can't let my buddies slide through a post without a mention) who have THEIR best interests in mind, not YOURS. Don't let a Free State website or TV show or radio show or pamphlet or whatever other form of ambiguous media they try to use give you vague words like "liberty" and "freedom" as acceptable forms of policy establishment. It's very Sarah Palin-esque and we all know what happened to her.

Until next time,

Dennis J. Foley

EiC

Minor Hiatus

2009-11-06T23:58:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone!

Sorry for the minor hiatus, The Observer has been doing a little restructuring and I have had a few things in my life that I've had to handle that took precedence over this (sorry). I'm just writing to inform all of you that, as you may have noticed, is not The Keene Observer anymore, but rather Keene Opines. Does that mean The Observer is toast? Absolutely not. What we are doing is making this blog purely the editorial section of a new and improved Observer.

Speaking of a new and improved Observer, I am looking to bring on board reporters, photographers, graphic designers, and other smaller positions that would likely pay. If you are interested or want to learn more about it, email me at peconicnews@live.com and I can answer any questions and further explain the idea behind it.

There will be a new editorial soon, I just need to finish editing it (when I find the time to do it).

So, until next time,

Dennis J. Foley

EiC

[Editorial] Be a Skeptic

2009-10-21T16:56:00.000-04:00

Always be a skeptic. You may think of that phrase as a liberal or libertarian thing to say, but when you think about it, it means a whole lot more. We all spend our lives listening to each other’s stories, ideals, and dreams and usually we leave with some sort of an opinion. You may be a conspiracy theorist who may believe that the Bush administration had something to do with 9/11 or someone who thinks that all big business is bad. However, because you may have these beliefs, it does not allow you to stop listening to other people or their ideas. Someone that is seriously interested in making a change to their society will take in more than just spewing out facts. Take the Free Staters for example (more because of first-hand experience, but this applies to most groups). I say, “The issue that made me turn 100% against the Free Keene activists is that they think that cops are robots, who lack emotion and only do what they are told. It pains me to see people write that and to know that my own father had spent 20 hours straight outside of the house today working in New York City to protect and serve” (The Keene Observer, 19 October 2009). After some back and forth discussion in the comment area of the story, Ian Freeman summed up his argument into one statement: “Cops can ignore the law - it's called discretion as you agree above. Yes, it DOES mean they can ignore you breaking bad laws. Even judges can ignore their own rules.” Ian, I assume, wasn’t interested in listening to other ways to handle their activism, like protesting to their legislators and city council people rather than the cops whose jobs are to protect the law and the people (in this case) in Keene. There shows a lack in a balance of study. Anyone would say something like that because it is what they believe. An interesting point that Dr. Howard Dean brought up during a discussion with my history class was how people often make emotional decisions in relation to politics. Citing a book, he said that there was an experiment done that took Bush supporters and Kerry supporters, put them in an MRI machine and asked them questions about each candidate. When asked a question that went against their favored candidate, the supporter would try to down play how bad the act or opinion really was. However, when the supporter was asked about their opinion of the opposing candidate after a question regarding an act or opinion that was unfavorable, the supporter would state how bad that candidate was. So, about the Free Keene supporters, the fact that they support this project doesn’t make them bad people because it is an emotional issue (even though I disagree with them).

That brings me to the other facet of today’s editorial: the follower. The follower shouldn’t just start believing something because they like what they hear. In politics, this is called “drinking the Kool-Aid.” Shop around for ideologies that may better fit your principles because you may look back and realize that it was a mistake in believing in something that wasn’t in your best interest. When you read something political, like this, be a skeptic. Ask yourself “How would this happen?” or “Who would this benefit?” or any other question relevant to you. Let’s again take a look at the Free Staters. Ask yourself “Why hasn’t this been successfully implemented in the past?” or “What makes this better than the Conservatives or the Liberals?” There are always reasons why the “good” political theories aren’t in place today.

Let’s take a deeper look at the Free State argument. They generally believe in little to no government. Most people may not realize that Libertarianism/Anarchism is similar to Socialism/Communism. They both expect strong private support or strong public support, rather than a mix of the two. In theory, both expect little to no government. In Libertarianism, all property is private, and in Communism, all the property is shared. The biggest difference between the two, though, is the risk v. reward. Libertarianism has high risks, but big rewards. Communism has small risks, but small rewards. Libertarianism allows those that are natural predators to eat the prey alive, monopolizing markets and allowing unfair business practices. Communism prevents business to be a private venture, so that forces everyone to reap the benefits from successful business. However, it creates little competition, reducing the need for a high standard of services. Between the two, Communism has been tried most recently and was known to be a failure. Why? For the same exact reasons that Libertarianism would be a failure: the government/need for power. In both systems, there will be an inherent need for a leader (which will be discussed in further detail in a later editorial) or an urge to take advantage of a great opportunity. Communism was used as a suppression tool by most notably the Soviet government. It took all the businesses and private ventures and made them government-controlled. With Libertarianism, any venture could monopolize a market to the point where it would be under the same style of control as a Communist-run business. It would inhibit growth and would actually suppress the freedoms of the citizens because there would be nothing to step in between unfair business practices (like raising prices uncontrollably on purpose due to crisis, etc.). Business owners could suppress the public to the freedoms that the Free Staters promise with Libertarianism. There is a much larger and deeper argument that can be made, but that is the general argument. I can almost guarantee that no Free Stater would tell you that because that is not what they plan to happen in their “Free State” society.

So, be careful what you read. Be skeptical of everything, even the skeptics. Be even skeptical of this, because for all you know, I could be lying, the Free Staters could be lying, and your politician could be lying. But, the only way to know what you feel is correct is doing research and using YOUR logic. Just because they raise an issue and provide a possible solution doesn’t mean that a problem actually exists or the proposed solution would actually work.

Until next time,

Dennis J. Foley (EiC)

P.S.- Theoretically, every philosophy is correct, but the concern is whether they actually work in practice.

The Whigs Are Back!!

2009-10-20T19:57:00.000-04:00

If you were asked what was the fastest growing mainstream political movement in America, what would you guess? How about the Whigs? That's right, the Whigs are the fastest growing grassroots political movement in America (the party grew 10x its size in one year to 30,000 this past July) and it would make sense that it is so. Looking at their principles, I find it hard as a Moderate to disagree with them. With the political divide spreading further and further apart, it has become more difficult to find a party to align with. With the Republicans being controlled by the conservatives and the Democrats becoming very liberal, the center has become so wide that a void has developed. The Whigs have come in and filled that void. Their focus on returning the power to the states will help each state maintain its identity. Other focuses they have are stronger fiscal control (hopefully reduce spending by 25%) and maintaining individual's rights on moral issues. With that said, though, don't expect a presidential candidate in 2012 with a 'W' next to their name just yet. But, what is great about their plan to grow is that they are taking baby steps, starting down at the local levels. They have progressed to now having candidates for Congress in Florida. So, for those who thought that the Whigs can only be found in history books, the Whigs are now among us and likely here to stay.

For more info, check out the Modern Whigs' website.

Word from across the pond

2009-10-20T16:07:00.000-04:00

Because "Free Minds" TV likes bring up the UK like it's TEH EVOL! I thought I'd bring in the views of a Brit, a friend now living in Edinburgh (from Leeds) so on Health Care in the USA:

Well it's passed the five committees, congrats Democrats But now the real work begins. Much is still up in the air as to what the final bill will entail.

Firstly the House has yet to merge its three Bills into one. Now this wouldn't have being a problem if the Blue Dogs hadn't attempted a last minute surge in the last committee and turned a remarkably similar bill into a compromise. Now Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders have to agree on several competing questions.

Public Option: this is big, in fact Health Reform hinges on it. Why? Because the Congress has decided to throw money at health insurers to maximise coverage, so there needs to be at lease some cost control element to it. Otherwise the bill just doesn't work. Obama could pass a bill without the Public Option but it would be a massive defeat and everyone knows it. Now the House is debating two possible public options.

1) The Robust Public Option: The key to RPO are the rates are linked to Medicare +5%. Also called Medicare Plus 5, it is the most liberal PO still on the table. The Progressive caucus have threatened to vote against the bill if the public option isn't Robust and Pelosi likes it too. But make no mistake, this isn't a Progressive's wet dream (that's single payer), and Robust PO has broad support and even some Blue Dogs actively support it. Why? Because it works best, it's cheaper brings down rates faster and is easier to understand. But in rural states it would not be great because of how Medicare rates are calculated (as someone with no experience of Medicare I don't know the details) so the more conservatives Dems are looking for a compromise

2) The Weak Public Option: The idea is the public option stands alone and has to negotiate rates on its own in the open market. By its very name you can see what it's about, it's weaker so it's less competitive so insurance companies can keep rates higher and make more profit. But it does add some degree of competition.

The Blue Dogs were at first very vocal against the Public Option because a large amount of campaign cash flows from the Healthcare Industry to their re-election campaigns. As a consequence we saw them propose a co-op solution to cost containment to Pelosi to consider. But that issue is practically dead. Why? Because CBO came out and said basically "Co-ops don't work" and even worse "RPO is fiscally better than WPO". For the supposedly "fiscally responsible" blue dogs to ask their constituent to pay more taxes when they didn't need to was a tall order. Indeed they are breaking ranks.

The Maths: If we assume no Republican will support the bill and the Blue dogs say no Pelosi is 14 votes short. At least two Blue Dogs said yes to RPO so we'll see.

The other key problem in the House is how to pay for it. Progressives favour a surtax on the very wealthy, for obvious reasons. But there are two other options.

1) A soda tax: and other "sin" taxes would certainly help income revenue but it's hard to calculate how much tax it could raise and is a tax which hit the middle and working class more. But if it encourages people to act more healthy it could help reduce health problems anyway (debatable). It would also be go against Obama's promise for no taxes on the Middle/ Working class.

2) A tax on Healthcare Benefits: is the Republican idea of paying for healthcare (though they'd never vote for it) and would make the bill very bipartisan in my view (and hopefully the American People) even if not a single Republican voted for it. Economically speaking it's a great idea. It would generate a lot of funds and would reduce massive inefficiency in the system. But many workers gave up pay increases for better health insurance and the house progressives have said NO! so basically that's not going to happen in the House- but Pelosi has threatened it. Labour would also baulk at the proposal and could lead to a split party and a nasty Mid-Term.

And even if they solve the "how do I pay for it" and "what's the public option" questions, there are other issues that need to be resolved. For example the Republicans voted for Kucinich's Amendment which gives states the right to create a single payer system if the states vote for it. One of the more progressive states in America (Vermont) tried this only to be told it's illegal. In other words it would allow America to do what Canada did in her quest for Single Payer. The Republicans hoped it would kill it bill but we'll see if Pelosi keeps it.

I want to turn to the Senate now and explain what's happening there. The Newly released Finance Bill will be merged with HELP Bill and the final details will be hammered out with Baucus, Reid and Dodd with several other big players like Schumer and Snowe in there. Should be messy and probably behind closed doors.

In the senate RPO is called the Rockefeller Amendment which was handily defeated in the Finance Committee. It doesn't have 60 votes but it probably has about 47-53 votes depending. Now WPO is basically in the HELP bill and written by Dodd and has the backing of Schumer. By all rights WPO should be in the finance bill too but isn't. The Conservative Democrats beholden to the Health Insurance Industry have felt massive pressure. The clearest example is Kent Conrad: who says he opposes the Public Option linked to Medicare because his state is rural (fair enough, though the issue could be addressed ) but when we turn to WPO his argument becomes much squishier and more annoying.
"Weak Public Option is like the British system because it's government run, we need a private sector solution like the French (paraphrased)."
And I'm not making that up.

Conrad is the Author of the Co-ops, which CBO says won't work, and he's pushing hard for them and won't compromise. There are two other compromises on the table; one which appears to have the support of the white house but is a massive cop-out and one which has split the progressives:

1) After Olympia Snowe's stellar performance today at Committee the Snowe Trigger has seen new light. Problem is it's designed to never kick in. In effect what it says is if the private sector fails to make it affordable, on a state by state basis the public option can come into effect. But if the Federal Government keep giving subsidiaries to the populace the PO would never come into effect. But if Snowe votes for it the bill would become "Bipartisan" And Obama really wants that whiff of Bipartisanship a lot. The games afoot.

2) The Opt-out: this has split the progressives but if it is the WPO-Opt-out it would possibly make it two weak to function effectively. However RPO-Opt-out? Now that's an interesting idea which is well worth looking at. Proposed by Schumer it would say "every state has access to the Public Option, but if the legislatures wish it they can opt-out. It combines States Rights and a strong argument that PO is not a "government takeover".

The question over what's more important to the Dems has not being addressed: a good bill or a bipartisan bill?

The Senate's also having the same argument as the House about how to pay for it and again the issue is the best political option: surtax on the wealthy Vs. the best economical option: taxing healthcare benefits. Also on the table though are things like at what bracket do people get what help paying insurance. Then there's the Individual Mandate and how high the penalties are and the Employer Mandate and who are exempt.

But there are a few other problems. For a starters who gets the option to go on the exchange and who gets to have the option to go on the Public Option. Only the Wyden Amendment would allow everyone to go on the Public Option and break the Employer based Healthcare which makes business in America uncompetitive. If the PO is too narrow in who can go on it expect massive disappointment from the left.

The current hope is to get 60 votes for closure but the Conservative Democrats are playing Hardball. Nelson (NE), Landreui, Lincoln and Conrad in particular could throw a spanner in the works. The hope is they'll vote for closure on a WPO which the House would compromise down to. But Snowe's Trigger is a big problem.

[Editorial] Connections, More Stuff About Us

2009-10-20T02:28:00.000-04:00

Wow! Does word spread fast?! Well, today I am handling a bit of housekeeping and giving our readers an update to our happenings. This past afternoon, I had the absolute pleasure to have lunch with the former Governor of Vermont, Dr. Howard Dean, amongst others. The discussion hit on a few topics, like how Barack Obama is fairing as president, about Robert A. Caro (a particularly interesting topic for me as he wrote a book about Robert Moses), and even the Free State Project. I figured to ask him of his opinion regarding that group and he had a good chuckle, especially when he heard that they have a strong presence in Keene, and then stated that they “chose the wrong town to deal with.” After the lunch, I decided to sit down and really think about what he said and saw that it was true. Why of any city in the state would Free Staters choose one of the most Democratic cities in the state? The general population has views that are on the opposite side of the political spectrum and have a pretty solid history of maintaining those views. If anything, shouldn’t the Free Staters have based themselves in a far more Republican part of the state, like Bedford or Amherst? Or even up north more, like Ed & Elaine Brown territory? Interesting.

Now comes some of the nitty-gritty that most readers come here to see (ahem, Free Staters). It has come to my attention that a few alarms went off when people saw my connection with a couple of Free Keeners. Well, let’s name the people I know: Nick Ryder, Toby Iselin, Brenna Iselin, the Manning Brothers, and Nick Michelewicz. So, how do I know these people? I have to assume that no one wants to mention this, but I helped produce Free Minds TV in the spring and summer of 2007. That’s fine. I wouldn’t admit that I knew someone that had differing views than I did and decided to create a blog that would create a medium to share the other views that Keene residents have on politics and would seem to be a threat on my political ideologies. What embarrasses the entire Free Keene crowd is that I sat in the control room listening to their discussions (never did they have two opposing sides, though), their ideas, and questioned them to myself as everyone else was all “Liberty!!” and “Anti-Establishment!!” I slipped in so well that I was providing content to Dale and Toby to talk about on their shows. It’s nice seeing utter confusion when people don’t want to tell the truth about their connections and who they ask to help them in the control room.

I also wanted to mention something I find extremely peculiar. I have known Nick Ryder for a good amount of time and I have noticed that he is running for city council. It made me think a little bit and it came to me that this was an odd arrangement: a libertarian who does not agree with government running is for a governmental office? That’s odd. It’s like saying a veterinarian enjoys hunting. How could any member of the Free Keene bunch support someone like that who goes against the values of the organization? Or better yet, is connected to me, a New York moderate?! Who, as a Libertarian in their right mind, would vote for someone who has talked to someone that is writing about how crude their organization is and would try not to speak up and say “Yes, I know Dennis Foley. We worked on a few things together at Cheshire TV” to keep any of this from becoming a large issue? Not very smart politics… It’s also not any secret that I had political interests outside of what FMTV people thought were Free Keene. I was helping produce Keene: No Spin, a program hosted by two former city councilmen, I produced video for what many consider a liberal group, and I publically supported Mike Bloomberg for NYC Mayor. Hello?! I even interviewed Mike Gravel, one of the more liberal Democrats!

So, I know about the Free Keene people, so what? Well, I’m not ignorant to the efforts of groups that are outside of my political spectrum. I decided to read up on some Free Keene news when I noticed them mentioning something about some Grafton blog thing (I happen to have a friend from Grafton) and some Citizen Keene thing and this blog and that blog and the blog from some odd guy down the street. There is a huge difference between this blog and those blogs. I run this blog. My name is on it. And no one, NO ONE, will ever make me close shop. Why’s that? I guess it’s the New Yorker in me, especially since I’m back on the Island for school. I have made my strides in meeting people from all different political backgrounds, getting to know them and befriending them. I have friends who are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Moderates, moderate Libertarians, and even radical Libertarians. I am also building The Observer for the future, not just for now. As we speak, I am creating a foundation for this medium here in New York that will expand the content to become relevant for the entire nation. The Observer is here to stay, not matter how much you whine, complain, mock, or rant. It is astonishing how much of an alliance there is here at The Observer. The only political group not in favor of this group is the radical Libertarians. We have the stoners, the academics, the athletes, the doctors, the teachers, pretty much everyone. That means that we can thank Free Keene for one thing: creating a non-partisan grouping to oppose them that is willing to work together on issues, no matter how different we are politically, socially, and demographically. I guess that’s what America needs, more groups to alienate people to force them to come together to oppose them. Thanks Free Keene.

It concerns me that the Free Keene people really think that this site is being run by high schoolers. Sorry, wrong answer. We are currently looking to add a high schooler that I know very well to the staff, so that may change. But, it is extremely disgusting how the Free Keene people think it is okay to walk into our Facebook groups and try to sell something that everyone knows that we aren’t going to buy. Basic marketing and politics… if you know you are not going to be able to sell something to someone, then don’t try!! Why do you think Democratic Presidential hopefuls avoid campaigning in states like Utah? Because they know they will lose!!! So why haven’t Free Keene people noticed that? Because they aren’t studying politics, they are studying Libertarianism. They don’t care about how the world is now; they only care about how the world will be if they had their way.

One final note and I do consider this a personal one. I legally reside in Keene, NH and I have been living there for about 3 years or so. To think that this group has some sort of political machine behind it (other than my own [lol]) it very tasteless. I have no clue what any of these past blogs are, nor am I interested in learning about them. I am here to fix the problem. I have given everyone a chance to make their cases and what you see here in the blog is how I’ve decided to do that. The Free Keene people are considered insane for a reason. The issue that made me turn 100% against the Free Keene activists is that they think that cops are robots, who lack emotion and only do what they are told. It pains me to see people write that and to know that my own father had spent 20 hours straight outside of the house today working in New York City to protect and serve. He does it because he enjoys knowing that he is doing something to help those in need. For the past 18 years or so, I have seen my father come home most mornings, and as I have gotten older, I have heard stories about things he has done as a cop that make him and myself proud. I remember when I was in 5^th grade when 9/11 happened, I was the one who had to see my dad all covered in dirt, dust, and debris, not the Free Keene people. My dad smelled horrible; he, in a way, smelled like death. I’m pretty sure none of the Free Keene people had homes that smelled like the World Trade Center, despite the fact I lived 60 miles away. 9/11 took him away from spending time home with my little brother who was four at the time and required him to work the bucket brigade, search for bodies, and fingerprint fingers who had no bodies. I don’t think any Free Keene people needed to worry about that. So, the next time you stare at a cop in the face and call him or her a “pig” and to tell him or her to “go back to the farm,” look in their face and imagine that they were your parent, the person you could go to and know that they would always be there for you. Because for some, that is the face that they share birthdays with, the face that they open Christmas gifts with, and the face that responds to knowing that you got into college. I think it’s time to think about who are really the heartless ones now.

Until Next Time,

djf

EiC

The Keene Observer gets high honor.

2009-10-19T19:57:00.000-04:00

Yes thats right The Keene Observer (well the whole anti-free state movement) has been given the maybe the highest honor that one can get. The honor of which I speak isn't an award, no, we've been mocked on www.FreeLunchProject.com. The Free Lunch Project is a mock site run by Free Staters as a cartoon anti-Free Staters movement. The Free Lunch Project jokingly calls for Progressives and "Communists" to move to Massachusetts or California (maybe even Venezuela or Cuba) and make a "government [that] exists to ...... punish those who interfere[s] with the redistribution of wealth". The Free Lunch Project take their name from the fact that in the USA every kid going to Public school can get free lunches (and breakfasts) if their parents can't pay. That is who we're up against, people that think not letting kids go hungry in school is Communism. So their mockery is the highest honor I've every gotten in my life. In a life-time for fighting for the poor and social justice I hope that'll always be hated by such people.

Obama Justice Dept. to Stop Pursuit of Medical Marijuana Use

2009-10-19T17:14:00.000-04:00

Just a quick note, since the Free Staters in Keene have of late used Marijuana legalization to gain support for their "movement", I thought I'd let our readers know that the Government is allowing Medical Marijuana

you can check out the full story at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/us/20cannabis.html?_r=1&8au&emc=au

2009-10-18T00:15:00.000-04:00

Welcome to The Keene Observer

2009-10-17T21:27:00.000-04:00

Hello Everyone!!

Welcome to the brand-new Keene Observer, the source for localized information regarding your community. I felt that this site was necessary because the residents of Keene are being bombarded with Libertarian media that has disenfranchised many of the residents. With the focus on the community, The Keene Observer shall put a focus on issues that affect the community from the perspective of the community. It is important to note that The Observer is not meant to replace the mainstream media in Keene already. It is a pro-community media outlet that will hopefully work together with the established media to deliver accurate and interesting news to the Keene area.

This site will be the center of all things relating to The Keene Observer. At the top, you will see a menu that will continue to expand as The Observer continues to expand. The important thing that is up there right now is the Forum. Feel free to stop in there and discuss anything that you may have questions about or topics that you would like to get feedback on because this is your place to talk. Also, if you have an op-ed piece that you feel is important enough to be see publicly, email us with it and we'll put it up in a soon to come op-ed section.

So, stop by whenever you have the need to look at the issues going on in Keene and to take a role in the community around us.

Until next time,

Dennis J. Foley

Editor-in-Chief