Friday, December 15, 2006

Open Forum

The White House is saying that a visit to Syria by Sen. Dodd and Sen. Ben Nelson, Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. John Kerry is "inappropriate" and gives Syria a "public relations victory." Could help a Dodd presidential bid, however, if progress is made.

There's trouble at Yale-New Haven Hospital involving the possible organizing of a union there. The union organizers are accusing the hospital of threatening employees, and are delaying the vote. [Update by Gabe] The article points out that an agreed-upon arbitrator found that the hospital had "serious violations" of federal labor law and that the President of Yale University, historically a position that is no friend to organized labor (JSTOR), is "dismayed by the recent actions of the hospital that violated the letter and spirit" of the agreement the hospital and the union signed last spring. "I have consistently urged hospital management to abide by its terms," he said in a statement.

In Massachusetts news, Mitt Romney will be announcing his run for president on January 8th. Maybe.

What else is happening?

31 comments:

Tim White said...

although it seemed to have gone largely unnoticed yesterday, this group of people announced their intentions to implement this this report over the next 25 years.

Their goal is to end our dependence on foreign oil thru: conservation, alternative fuels & increased US exploration/production.

I found the report extremely interesting.

Unfortunately, I think this report is getting inadvertently buried by the ISG... which in my opinion should've mentioned that oil is "kind of related" to why we're in Iraq.

Don Pesci said...

Not too many people – outside the White House – will mind Dodd’s visit with Syrian president and terrorist supporter Assad, who is, I should mention here, the very picture of a pencil-necked geek. There are, however, problems with the visit. This is not the first time Dodd has visited foreign leaders actively engaged in subverting the foreign policy goals of a president: He was a frequent visitor to the Ortega brothers during the Nicaraguan hostilities, and twice he has blocked ambassadorial choices that did not sit well with him. Both Bolton and Otto Reich were pretty fierce anti-Castroites. The problem with his visit to Syria is that there will be no permanent record of it, just as there were no permanent records of his visits to communist Nicaragua. That problem can be settled by taking along some objective reporters – if and can be found – so that, at the appropriate time, the American public will know the substance of those attempts at private foreign policy making. History wants to know.

Anonymous said...

well Tim, we have much more hope of reducing domestic oil cinsumption and incresing production than James Baker's mantra of fixing the Israel-Palestinian problem after it being broke for 60 years

Dodd is such a tool. Maybe on the road to Damascus he realised he has much chance of being President as he does of being Pope

On one other note, whatever happened to Tom Scott? Is he still alive? Did he move to a state more aligned with his ideology?

Anonymous said...

Bush doesn't 'grasp' diplomacy. He isn't diplomatic, but rather poses as some fast gunned cowboy from New Haven. He will always oppose any attempts at diplomacy. Perhaps, diplomacy takes a certain verbal skill level that the simpleton lacks.

BrassBoy said...

Hmmm... yes, diplomacy... the kind of diplomacy where you prop up abs support dictators such as Fidel Castro... the kind of diplomacy that Senator Dodd utilizes...

So let's see... we have a man who traded on his father's name and success in order to secure his own success.. early on along the way he didn't do much except drink to excess... before finally getting serious, starting a family and settling down a bit... wait, are we talking about the "simpleton" Bush or Dodd?

I am so proud of Senator Dodd. 20+ years of do-nothing Senatorial leadership and counting!

Anonymous said...

Must be a real slow news day if we are back -- already -- to speculating on a Dodd run for the Presidency.

Anonymous said...

"James Baker's mantra of fixing the Israel-Palestinian problem after it being broke for 60 years"

typo? 60 or 6000?

Iraq is about oil.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>Bush doesn't 'grasp' diplomacy. He isn't diplomatic, but rather poses as some fast gunned cowboy from New Haven. He will always oppose any attempts at diplomacy. Perhaps, diplomacy takes a certain verbal skill level that the simpleton lacks.


Forgotten all about the Chinese fighter plane incident have we?

That could easily have blown up were it not for Bush's deft handling of the whole affair.

bluecoat said...

Wow, Bush is a diplomat because of one show of appropriate restraint. And as for the visit to Syria that includes Arlen Spector, has anyone else noticed that somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million Iraqis have fled Iraq for syria since Bush "shocked and awed" them?

Grumpy said...

What, an "open forum" and no one is commenting on John Rowland being back on the front page of the Courant? Above the fold no less. And with such a touching picture of him "overcome by emotion."

As my little old Texan Grandmother would've said; never trust a man who says he found God and charges you for the privilege of hearing all about it.

bluecoat said...

make that three quarters of a million Iraqis fleeing Iraq for Syria - obviuosly Shiites. And has anybody noticed that the JCS are talking about "changing the mission" in Iraq along the lines of the ISG recommendations without increasing troop strenght.? And has anybody noticed that Turkey and Saudi arabia have been getting just a little bit antsy about Kurdisha and Sunni refugeses?

Max said...

Now that we've talked about Syria, (which we all know is a terrorist supporting state, but we dont all agree on how to treat it), I want to bring up this union. They have certainly caused some trouble recently.

- They delayed the cancer center for a year with the help of JDS in order to extract concessions.

- They got the city to strip the powers of the hospital police.

- They themselves have been accused of intimidation, and in fact lobbied for a non-anonymous card-check system which will allow them identify who hasn't yet supported the union.

I don't have any prescibed policies, I'm interested to hear what others have to say.

Anonymous said...

bluecoat:

I suspect that most of your 250,000 Iraqis are fleeing not from American forces but from Iraqi militias and death squads. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other since before the discovery of North America. It is a bit naive to think that their problems exist due entirely to American policies in the last four years.

bluecoat said...

Huh,11:05??? The United States destabilized Iraq and the region with its incompetent policies.

Gabe said...

Hey Max, I said it above in the update, but my position is that when an arbitrator that you agreed to says that you have serious violations of federal law and when the President of Yale, who sits on your board and has had a history of labor difficulties at his school, chastises you for your actions - something is very, very wrong.

bluecoat said...

Max, the President of Yale who is also Chair of the Yale New Haven Hospital Corp. is upset about the way the corp/mgt. treated the union in the case cited. The other stuff you list is interesting but..I don't get your point.

bluecoat said...

And did I forget to mention that the Taliban had only retreated to Pakistan rather than disappear and they are now reconstituting in Afghanistan?

bluecoat said...

Brass Boy: Dodd's a liberal for sure but to suggest he has done nothing is just GOP spin. Just in recent years he brokered tort reform legislation thet stopped the proceess of jury shopping around the states on certain types class action suits that now go to federal courts. He also led the charge to get $1 billion approved for research on autism and similar dosorders - this is a major public health policy issue that also impacts the education system with lots of hype along with lots of real concern: the research will hopefully get to the bottom of what's going on. And since he's not from Waterbury, I guess he's not allowed to have partied along the way!!!!

Max said...

The president of Yale needs to say this, otherwise the unions are going to start going after him, as they have in the past.

My point is that this is a game played by two sides. Both are using intimidation, and in this case, the I think the unions have just been better at hiding it from the arbitrator and the media.

I say we need a secret ballot at an agreed-upon date. The union's extension is clearly to increase their political chances. Can you imagine if a politician could extend the election whenever their opponent has been accused (not proven) of a campain violation?

Gabe said...

These are not allegations - both sides went before an arbitrator, provided evidence, and the arbitrator determined that the hospital management had engaged in "serious violations" of federal law.

Do you have any evidence of this: "Both are using intimidation, and in this case, the I think the unions have just been better at hiding it from the arbitrator and the media."?

Or is that just an unproved accusation?

I'm obviously not privy to the language of any agreements made, but the fact that an arbitrator determined tha there were violations of federal law is probably all the "proven" that there ever can be. Arbitration agreements are often made so that recourse to the courts is not possible.

Max said...

Well, its not an unfounded accusation, I've spoken to people who have had first hand experience. However, that's kind of hard for me to prove on this message board.

Look at the history here. Do you really believe that the unions have been playing by the rules?

If you're point is that we should hate the evil hospital administration and blindly give into all the union demands, then we're headed for trouble.

Gabe said...

My point isn't to "hate the evil hospital administration." My point is that they are in violation of federal law and need to stop being so - then we can have an election and go on with our lives...

Don Pesci said...

Can we assume that Syria is an enemy of the United States? It does not seem a far fetched assumption. Even Bush’s opponents in Congress, Dodd among them, will agree that we are at war in the Middle East. They will further stipulate that Syria has played a mischievous part in that war: It has trained and armed terrorists who blow up things, including American soldiers, in Iraq. Having agreed on these points, one must ask what Sen. Dodd expects Assad to agree to when he sits down to talk with him, other than the shape of the bargaining table? What should we call these congressional negotiations? We are at war and it is proposed that the United States agree to negotiate with those who appear to be, according to some Democrats, the victors. If we are losing the war, it follows that they are winning it. Under these circumstances, what can be negotiated except the terms of surrender? I am putting the question out there not because I have an answer to it, but because a suitable answer may help to clarify the discussion.

Connecticut Man 1 said...

tim said:"Unfortunately, I think this report is getting inadvertently buried by the ISG... which in my opinion should've mentioned that oil is "kind of related" to why we're in Iraq."

But they did. They made it very clear:

It's still about oil in Iraq - Los Angeles Times:

A centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's report is its advocacy for securing foreign companies' long-term access to Iraqi oil fields.

WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.

It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies." This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms."


The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group, meeting between December 2002 and April 2003, also said that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." Its preferred method of privatization was a form of oil contract called a production-sharing agreement. These agreements are preferred by the oil industry but rejected by all the top oil producers in the Middle East because they grant greater control and more profits to the companies than the governments. The Heritage Foundation also released a report in March 2003 calling for the full privatization of Iraq's oil sector. One representative of the foundation, Edwin Meese III, is a member of the Iraq Study Group. Another, James J. Carafano, assisted in the study group's work.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

This is a crucial issue, with trillions of dollars at stake, because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed. Recommendation No. 26 of the Iraq Study Group calls for a review of the constitution to be "pursued on an urgent basis." Recommendation No. 28 calls for putting control of Iraq's oil revenues in the hands of the central government. Recommendation No. 63 also calls on the U.S. government to "provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law."



Go read the entire article and then be sick to your stomachs...

Anonymous said...

Democracy for America will be folding up its tent soon in Connecticut because they cant find enough Liberals to support it and the 1st Chapter to close will be Litchfield County DFA.

LitchfieldAngelina said...

Maybe Dodd can get some concessions from the President of Syria by promising that the Senate will impeach Bush ... would Dodd be willing to go that far? Would the libs be happy if Dodd tried to make such a negociation?

Anonymous said...

Don't forget Dodd is also behind the blocking of one of the best individuals we have had at the UN for some time- John Bolton.

Anonymous said...

Chris"do nothing" Dodd has no chance to be President of the USA.

I think Joe Lieberman has a better chance than Dodd Does.

bluecoat said...

Having agreed on these points, one must ask what Sen. Dodd expects Assad to agree to when he sits down to talk with him, other than the shape of the bargaining table? What should we call these congressional negotiations?,
Senators don't negotiate. They do fact finding and meet with heads of state all the time. Maybe reagan never should have met with Brehnev and Gorby, too!!!

Anonymous said...

CT Man 1... thanks.

They also mentioned oil on page 83 of the ISG report.

Tim White

Anonymous said...

Anyone hear anything about that avalanche in Colorado?

<3 sagepowder