NewMexicoMatters.com

Sending the Troops into a Trap

The idea of putting 127,000 troops into Bagdahd to "retake" the city would seem to be a sign of just how bad things are going in Iraq. Without getting into the reasons for the current conditions on the ground, I think we need to seriously question the strategy being employed in Iraq, or lack thereof.

We're putting our troops right in the middle of a civil war in Iraq that being flamed by broader ethnic tensions in the middle east; Israel just finished pounding the Shia in the southern part of Lebanon (which was perceived as having the blessing of the U.S.) in a failed effort to wipe our Hezbollah. Hezbollah is backed by the Sunni majority state of Syria and the Shia majority state of Iran, both of which boarder Iraq and have the ability to affect the flow of weapons, insurgents, rhetoric and cash into Baghdad.

By sending all our troops into Baghdad, aren't we just making for a bigger and easier target for our enemies to strike?

Iranian Shells Land in Kurdish Villages in Northern Iraq, Killing 2 - New York Times:
American officials have accused Iran of supporting Hezbollah in its recent battle against Israel. This month, the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said Iran had been pushing small Shiite militias to step up attacks against the American-led forces in retaliation for Israel’s assault on Lebanon.

An American military spokesman said some Shiite militias had been training in Iran and had received weapons from individuals or groups in that country.

We are going back to Baghdad not because of any failure of our troops, but because of the failures of our politicians. The irony is that politicians only loose their jobs.

Technorati Tags: Baghdad, Blogs, corruption, Democrats, Elections, Energy, Gas, George W. Bush, Iraq, New Mexico, oil, Politics, Iraq, reform, War

The Plan

The following post is by Ched MacQuigg.

Given the current parameters, including government unresponsive to the expressed interests of the people, there appears to be only one way to directly affect change; large groups of people in the street.

The mainstream media has the capacity to generate those large groups; but apparently chooses not to do so in opposition to the interests that control government.

The blogosphere has the capacity to generate those large groups, but heretofore has not. Neophyte that I am, it has just occurred to me, why. Like individual coral, each has the power to contribute to a substantial coral reef, but share no common vision for the form or function of the reef.

I came to the blogosphere in hope that I could rally pretty much everyone to my cause, help me generate the large crowds I needed, and the rest would be history.

As I naively implored bloggers to climb on my bandwagon, and then finding myself piloting an empty wagon; I was gently reminded by my mentor that each already has an agenda of their own. Duh.

As that reality soaked in, it occurred to me that all bloggers are up against the same obstacle as I. Apparently no one of them commands enough followers to actually make a difference. It simply requires too many individually powerless people to successfully oppose even one powerful person, much less the powerful status quo.

What ever our own personal agenda, we all have a common enemy; unresponsive government. If government were more responsive, then we could enable change with far fewer followers.

I believe that it is possible to make government more responsive by raising the standards under which government functions. For example, if the standard of governance included absolute transparency, maybe even deliberate and conscientious illumination, wouldn’t that make governance more responsive?

As I have previously argued, (http://ched-macquigg.blogspot.com) public servants are accountable only to the law; a standard inadequate to require responsive governance. If public servants were honestly accountable to a code of ethics, they would be accountable to a standard that requires (by definition) responsive governance.

If (every) blogger adopted an adjunct agenda, a higher standard for public service, and were successful, then fewer followers of their agenda are needed and the viability of that agenda increases exponentially.

At the risk of appearing manipulative, I must disclose that my personal agenda happens to be raising the standard of conduct for public servants, in particular elected public servants.

Again, as I have previously argued, public servants are disinclined to raise the standards against which their conduct is measured. I submit as proof; they have yet to raise the bar higher than accountability to the law, the lowest standard of acceptable conduct. In fact, they have yet to provide for themselves, honest accountability even to the law. Is there an example anywhere in government where there is honest accountability to a code of ethics? I am unaware of even one.

There is a chink in their armor; a local elected public school board (again, in the interests of honesty, my own agenda). There is an opportunity to hold them honestly accountable to a widely recognized, accepted and respected code of ethics. Their current position is categorically indefensible and is on the record. Their position prevails only because they are so powerful that they cannot be placed in a position where they have to defend it.

There is a singular opportunity to establish the possibility that public servants can find themselves accountable, even against their will, to a code of ethics. Once a precedent has been established, the possibility of sweeping change becomes real.

Finally, it doesn’t seem that many readers are compelled to comment on blog postings. This is my first attempt to articulate this plan and I really would appreciate critical input.

Grateful for your time and attention.

Ched MacQuigg

Technorati Tags: Bill Richardson, Blogs, Congress, corruption, Democrats, education, Elections, lobbying, New Mexico, Politics, reform, Republicans

Ched MacQuigg: Keeping the bar low means letting corruption and incompetence pass

Corruption and incompetence are the two greatest stumbling blocks in efficient and effective government. Were public servants held to a higher standard of conduct in the discharge of their duties, corruption and incompetence would be minimized to proportion to the height of the bar.

The bar is currently set at its default height of compliance with the law, the lowest standard of acceptable conduct. The height of the bar is set by elected officials; in complete disregard of the expressed wishes of those whom they represent.

The School Board of the Albuquerque Public Schools has been asked to raise the bar; and they have refused. Although they compel students to hold themselves accountable to a higher standard, a widely recognized, accepted and respected code of ethics; they refuse to hold themselves accountable to the same standard.

Forgetting for the moment that the standard is rightly set not by the board but by their constituents; they do owe us some manner of explanation as to why they are setting such a low standard for themselves. After all, they are the senior role models for six thousand teachers and other employees, and for 98,000 of our sons and daughters. And within the next few months, they will ask voters to trust them with a half a billion tax dollars.

They have an obligation to defend their decision to reject accountability to a higher standard of conduct.

They have not so far, defended their decision. They can not and will not because their position is indefensible. They have fallen back on the defense of powerful people defending indefensible positions; they simply ignore the question.

The media in general and newspapers in particular, have an (unenforceable and often ignored) obligation to keep voters informed on issues germane to their informed participation in democracy.

If you agree that some kind of explanation is appropriate and that the media have some obligation to investigate and report it; please make your feelings known to;

The Albuquerque Journal http://www.abqjournal.com/contact.htm

The Albuquerque Tribune http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/sv_contact_us/

Channel 13 http://www.krqe.com/contact/

Channel 7 http://www.koat.com/contact/index.html

Channel 4 http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?cat=CONTACT

Grateful for your time and attention,

Ched MacQuigg

Diogenes’six http://ched-macquigg.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Bill Richardson, Blogs, Congress, corruption, Democrats, education, Elections, enforcement officer, lobbying, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Politics, reform

It's what the money buys that counts Governor to dump cash from billionaire

Steve Terrell reports this morning in a story titled, Governor to dump cash from billionaire, that the Richardson for... Governor campaign will donate over $100,000 grand from billionaire Jeffrey Espstein, who Terrell reports owns the biggest homes in New Mexico ( 26,700 square foot hilltop home in stanley--has it's own landing strip and town for people that work on the property), to nonprofits throughout the state.

The Governor's campaign did the same with contributions from Guy Riordan after it was reported that Riordan had been intimately involved with Former State Treasurer Michael Vigil.

But the motive for giving back the cash doesn't have anything to do with Epstein buying favors from the Governor, but rather hookers--supposedly as many as 5 at one time while he was at his home in Florida. To tell you the truth, while I don't condone Epstein's behavior, I'd rather have Billionaires spend money on corporal pleasures than on politics.

But besides Epstein, who seems to fart thousand dollar bills, why do you think a company or an executive of a company, or a lobbyist would decide to give $50,000 a candidate or offer to fly him from one end of the country to the other?

INFLUENCE the Governor.

And why is the Governor seeking those contributions, what's his campaign going to do with that money?

INFLUENCE Voters.

The campaign will use that cash to produce television and radio spots, buy media time to play their ads, pay for campaign materials: pens, pencil's, buttons, posters, bumper stickers etc... (staff, unless they can avoid it) all to INFLUENCE us.

And this is why I'm not so impressed by the Governor's move to contribute the money to nonprofits in the state. 

The presumption is that the money will be given to the most needy nonprofits with the worthiest of causes, for which there will be many people who will thank the Governor and his campaign for their charity, allowing that money to still be used by the campaign for it's intended purpose--to gain favor amongst voters. Shit, you could give me the money and I'd be grateful too, but I don't think it would sound as good in the press.

So if the Governor is going to use the money, then I suggest he not contribute to  nonprofits in New Mexico, but rather Florida. That's a state with more delegate votes. And if the Governor wants to make a big impression, he could give the money to a shelter for young women trying to escape from prostitution.

Get the background on Qwest

from: QWEST'S RISE AND FALL NACCHIO EXERCISED UNCANNY TIMING IN SELLING STOCK by Lou Kilzer, David Milstead and Jeff Smith; ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
source: Denver Rocky Mountain News, August 3, 2002.
via: HighBeam™ Research

Technorati Tags: Blogs, Congress, corruption, Democrats, Elections, enforcement officer, Jeff Bingaman, lobbying, Mike Stratton, New Mexico, Politics, Republicans

Ched MacQuigg: They Won't Answer the Question

You have two candidates standing before you. One is willing to be held accountable only to the law, the lowest acceptable standard of conduct. The other is willing to be held accountable, honestly accountable, to a widely recognized, accepted and respected code of ethics. The difference is significant. Power spent ethically is spent in the public interest. Power spend “legally” is spend according to special interests and self interest. The first ethical use of power is to ensure that it cannot be abused; ever. The first ethical use of power is to provide honest accountability to an unequivocal standard.

Why is it unreasonable to ask the question which will distinguish the one candidate from the other? To what unequivocal standard and by what inescapable mechanism will you be held accountable?

The idea of holding powerful people accountable for their conduct is not new. It has been thought of, and the people to whom we entrusted our power, decided not to provide it. They decided not to provide for honest accountability; even to the law. Or does anyone still believe that really powerful people can be held accountable, even against their will?

There are men and women who will accept the public trust, but who will not answer the question. By their own choice, powerful people are not asked inconvenient questions. One of the immediate accouterments of power is that you don’t have to answer inconvenient questions. There is only one reason not to answer the question, and that is that the truth is worse than the lie.

This isn’t about what unequivocal standards are. We all know what that means. Human beings choose for themselves the standard to which they will hold themselves accountable. If that standard does not meet the needs of voters, voters have a right to know.

This isn’t about the meaning of inescapable accountability, which will be defined by stakeholders, and will meet their needs. It will be the best effort of dedicated and capable individuals whose work is not only transparent; it will be illuminated. It isn’t about can it be done? It is about will it be done?

If the people to whom we entrust our power were inclined to protect us from its abuse, we would not need that protection now. Corruption is exists only because it can exist. If there were a conscientious and deliberate and transparent effort to make corruption and incompetence impossible to hide, there would be an end to (almost every conceivable) corruption.

Accountability is fatal to the abuse of power. The first intelligent abuse of power is to eliminate accountability for abusing power.

Is it so unreasonable to demand than every candidate for public trust tells voters about the standard to which they will be held accountable? It is only because the question is asked by the powerless that it will not be answered, ever.

There is only one way to compel a powerful person to stand and deliver; overwhelming public pressure.

If the newspapers asked the question, and asked it, and asked it; it would get answered. But they won’t. They won’t even ask once. And they write editorials about how important it is that voters demand higher ethical standards for public servants.

There is a head on this pimple. The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education has refused to be held accountable to the same ethical standard of conduct as they impose upon students. They sat in silence rather than answer the question. As role models, their position is categorically indefensible. As stewards of a half a billion tax dollars, their position is categorically indefensible. Clearly they have an obligation to hold themselves accountable to a higher standard; their position is indefensible. Yet powerful people are able to defend indefensible positions simply by ensuring that they never actually have to defend them.

The board ignores me when I ask the question. They ignore me even in diametric opposition to their ethical expectation for children. The can ignore me because they are powerful and I am not.

Certainly I am not powerful by myself. The only hope seems to lie in the last refuge of stakeholders betrayed; large crowds on street corners. I don’t know where the tipping point is, but I do know that if enough people show up a public forum, sooner or later they will have to answer the question. Sooner or later the people who enjoy our trust will respond by holding themselves accountable to a higher standard of conduct; at least the same standard of conduct that applies to children.

Large crowds on street corners are hard to come by; especially if the newspapers won’t tell the story. And they won’t. It is up to the internet.

Someone else first observed that, there is no stopping an idea whose time has come. If honest accountability to an unequivocal standard seems to you like an idea whose time has come, I would very much appreciate it if you shared this letter with as many people as you can. I would appreciate it if you would attend how ever many public forums it takes to make our position clear. It is the voters who will determine the acceptable standard of conduct for school board members and senior administrators. And we will not allow that decision to be made without our appropriate involvement.

Thank you for your time and attention.

My name is Ched MacQuigg

You can contact me at [email protected]

Technorati Tags: Blogs, budget, corruption, Democrats, Education, Elections, New Mexico, Politics, reform, Republicans

Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics: There's no proof of widespread voter fraud, but the system does allow for potential misdeeds

Something you ought to read. I've

Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics: There's no proof of widespread voter fraud, but the system does allow for potential misdeeds:

With all the uproar about alleged voter fraud, I thought it might be interesting to look back at the 2004 election, which is often the springboard for such allegations.   

Kate Nelson of the Albuquerque Tribune summed up the political climate at the time of the 2004 election well in a Jan. 29, 2005 article:    “(It was alleged that) apolitical slackers in search of the $7-a-voter bounty some groups were paying simply opened phone books to borrow the fill-in-the-blanks necessities,” she wrote. “County clerks were deluged with good forms and bad. The election was looming. An unsuccessful lawsuit demanded that at least some voters show some form of identification.”   

State Sen. Rod Adair, a Roswell Republican, predicted that thousands of fraudulent voters would flood the polls,” Nelson wrote. “U.S. Attorney David Iglesias trumpeted his formation of a nonpartisan election fraud task force a steely-eyed squad of enforcers to root out every electoral miscreant.”

--Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics

Lead prosecutor leaving Qwest case

Lead prosecutor leaving Qwest case:

The lead prosecutor is withdrawing from the insider-trading case against former Qwest Communications International Inc. Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio.

Bill Leone, the acting U.S. attorney for Colorado, said Thursday he is returning to private practice. He said he wants to step down as soon as possible but will help with the transition to a new prosecuto

ABQjournal: Only Phone Company Can Fix Busy Signal

ABQjournal: Only Phone Company Can Fix Busy Signal:

Qwest rolled out a new investment plan this month that promises to advance the state of telecommunications in New Mexico. The company and the state executive branch officials who negotiated the plan would like to see the Public Regulation Commission expedite its consideration.
 
But— somebody get a hold of the telephone company— there's an interminable busy signal.
 
The new proposal is supposed to follow through on Qwest's 2001 agreement with the PRC to invest $788 million in infrastructure. When it became apparent more than a year ago that Qwest would fall short of that obligation by about $220 million, the commission ordered the company to get back on track or make up the shortfall with rebates to ratepayers.
 
Qwest challenged the PRC's authority to make such an order right up to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which essentially ruled that regulators have the authority to regulate.
 
Case closed? Not quite, because Qwest has asked the court to rehear the case, a procedural tactic which, though it is unlikely to change the outcome, ties the PRC's hands on the new proposal, according to commissioners.
 
"If Qwest is serious about moving forward, ... I would ask that Qwest ask the Supreme Court to drop its motion," Commission Chairman Ben Lujan said Thursday— a reasonable request.
 
Unless Qwest's new investment plan is just a second-choice alternative, it should hang up on the blatant delaying tactic in the Supreme Court.

Eyes Wide Shut On New Mexico

If you've ever stayed tuned to KOBTV after Meet the Press, then no doubt you've caught that station's version of a news roundtable called "Eye on New Mexico."

Co-hosted by Monica Armenta Nicole Brady and the dependably disheveled Dennis Domrzalski, the show may be more appropriately called "Dennis just got out of bed New Mexico," or "hey I saw these headlines in the news but I didn't really read the articles nor really know what's going on, New Mexico."

Seriously, "Eye on New Mexico" doesn't seem to be get many eyes in the way of viewers as evidenced by their relatively uninterrupted broadcast, which reminds you just how long 30 minutes really is.

Yesterday's show was a particularly good example; The show featured special guest, PRC Commissioner Jason Marks, one of the most straight forward and upright advocates for the public's interest in New Mexico. Disheveled Dennis and Morning Monica seemed at a complete loss as to what to questions they had for Marks.

Dennis meandered his way into questions using broad swipes like "so the PRC has gotten a lot of negative publicity lately. Eric Serna, Con Alma, and now did you fire this other guy, or what?"

The same with the issue of Qwest, which was why I actually listened to the entirety of the program. But considering the importance of the story, the issue got little time.

If it weren't for Marks, the show would have been literally 3 or 4 poorly constructed questions.

There's no shortage of important issues to discuss in New Mexico unless you have your eyes wide shut.

Technorati Tags: budget, Coal, corruption, Education, Elections, New Mexico, Politics, reform