ترول ایرانی

گالری عکس

Archive for March, 2011

“Mad Men” Deal Struck, Still Won’t Air Until 2012">Mad Men” Deal Struck, Still Won’t Air Until 2012

Because of the cam­paign, I missed the last part of Sea­son 4.  All I know from what I saw of the sea­son is that Sally Draper is going to be one messed up lit­tle girl for a long, long time.

I sup­pose we should rejoice.  (Though in my opin­ion, “Break­ing Bad” is prob­a­bly both the best show on AMC and all of television.)

Don Draper might make it to the 1970s after all. After a pro­tracted stand­off, AMC, Lion­s­gate and Mad Men cre­ator Matthew Weiner have reached an agree­ment for sea­sons five and six of the Emmy-winning drama.

Weiner, who will return as showrun­ner, has also signed a new long-term deal with Lion­s­gate. As a result of the nego­ti­a­tions, how­ever, sea­son five isn’t expected to air until next year.

I want to thank all of our won­der­ful fans for their sup­port,” Weiner said in a state­ment. “I also want to thank AMC and Lion­s­gate for agree­ing to sup­port the artis­tic free­dom of myself, the cast and the crew so that we can con­tinue to make the show exactly as we have from the begin­ning.  I’m excited to get started on the next chap­ter of our story.”

AMC’s orig­i­nal pro­gram­ming began with a mis­sion to cre­ate bold sto­ry­telling of the high­est qual­ity, and Mad Men was the per­fect expres­sion of that com­mit­ment,” Char­lie Col­lier, pres­i­dent of AMC, said in a state­ment. “We’ve been proud to sup­port this show from the day we read Matt’s ground-breaking pilot script and have loved build­ing it with Matt and Lion­s­gate into the cul­tural phe­nom­e­non it has become. For every­one involved in the show and its pas­sion­ate fans, we are thrilled to announce that the series will con­tinue on AMC under the excep­tional vision of Matt Weiner.”

The rea­son for the post­pone­ment is sim­ple; there are no scripts.  With­out a con­crete con­tract, Weiner and his team of writ­ers had no oblig­a­tion to write one word.  So, they could have all the ideas they need for “Mad Men’s” Sea­son Five, the actors have no words to say in front of the cameras.

(Though, given the pace of some episodes, who would have noticed the difference?)

Leave a Comment

& Others Seek Senate Democratic Emails">MacIver & Others Seek Senate Democratic Emails

Hey, if Walker’s emails have been anally-probed six ways to Sun­day by the Asso­ci­ated Press, Bill Lueder’s Isth­mus crew, and the rest of cre­ation, why can’t the same be said of the Democ­rats who fled the State?

At least two polit­i­cally minded groups have made exten­sive open records requests for emails sent and received by state leg­is­la­tors, two of the groups con­firmed Thursday.

A third group has made at least one such request.

A spokesman for the John K. MacIver Insti­tute for Pub­lic Pol­icy said the Wisconsin-based think tank had asked for emails from six Demo­c­ra­tic leg­is­la­tors dat­ing from the begin­ning of the year until now. The spokesman, Brian Fra­ley, said the group was seek­ing cor­re­spon­dence related to Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill.

Orville Seymer of the group Cit­i­zens for Respon­si­ble Gov­ern­ment said Thurs­day that his group asked for emails from five Demo­c­ra­tic sen­a­tors dat­ing from Feb. 17 to March 28.

He said the five were Sens. Chris Lar­son of Mil­wau­kee; Robert Wirch of Pleas­ant Prairie; Dave Hansen of Green Bay; James Holperin of Eagle River; and Mark Miller of Monona.

Seymer said the group wanted to see the cor­re­spon­dence cit­i­zens wrote to the leg­is­la­tors in con­nec­tion with Walker’s bill that would elim­i­nate most col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing for most pub­lic employee unions.

Mike Browne, a spokesman for Miller, con­firmed that three groups — the MacIver Insti­tute, Cit­i­zens for Respon­si­ble Gov­ern­ment and a third group, Wis­con­sin Fam­ily Action, had made open records requests for emails from Miller’s office. Browne said the groups wanted to see emails over an exten­sive period of time.

But, will we get it?

(H/T Berry Laker) Appar­ently, the Wis­con­sin leg­is­la­ture works a lot more like Wash­ing­ton, DC than we’ve ever thought.  In case you weren’t aware, Con­gress is exempt from the Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act or FOIA.  The over­all think­ing from inside Capi­tol Hill is that by deal­ing with con­stituent mail and other work, they get to shield them­selves from inquiries.

The Lake­land Times dis­cov­ered Wis­con­sin leg­is­la­tors have a more sim­pler loop­hole — and one of the flee­bag­gers has prac­tice using it — the “Delete Button.”

The office of the state attor­ney gen­eral told The Lake­land Times this week it has no statu­tory juris­dic­tion to offer a legal opin­ion about a pol­icy adopted by state Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Conover) of rou­tinely delet­ing emails his office receives.

But assis­tant attor­ney gen­eral Lewis Beilin nonethe­less said law­mak­ers should pro­mote the cause of trans­parency, even when laws do not oblig­ate them to per­form cer­tain functions.

Beilin was respond­ing to a request by Lake­land Times pub­lisher Gregg Walker, who asked attor­ney gen­eral J.B. Van Hollen for an opin­ion after Holperin informed the news­pa­per that he and his staff had begun to delete emails they didn’t con­sider substantive.

Holperin did not deny that emails sent to his office were pub­lic records, but said he was not required to retain them for any length of time.

Walker ques­tioned whether Holperin’s pol­icy was legal under state law.

If I ask for an email and he hasn’t yet deleted it, he says he must turn it over,” Walker wrote in his let­ter to Van Hollen. “On the other hand, if he gets an email, he says he can delete it five min­utes later, and, if we then ask for it, we are out of luck.”

[…]

After being pub­licly stung ear­lier this year by the pub­li­ca­tion of some of his emails to con­stituents — in one email Holperin wrote that “the Governor’s got enough lit­tle tax and fee hikes in that bud­get of his to sink a good sized bat­tle­ship” — the sen­a­tor began exploit­ing a nearly 50-year-old statute exempt­ing the records and cor­re­spon­dence of law­mak­ers from the per­ma­nent use col­lec­tion of the state’s pub­lic records board.

That statute, sep­a­rate from the open records law, gov­erns reten­tion times for var­i­ous pub­lic records.

In other words, emails his office receives are indeed pub­lic records so long as they are retained — and thus sub­ject to release if an open records request is made for them — but law­mak­ers are under no oblig­a­tion to retain their records for any length of time.

So…here’s hop­ing they are all still there.

Leave a Comment

WTO Gives U.S. & Boeing the “Airbus Treatment”">WTO Gives U.S. & Boeing the “Airbus Treatment”

Wrote a lit­tle about Boe­ing win­ning its case in 2009, you can read that here.

Given the mil­lions spent in lob­by­ing, the polit­i­cal games­man­ship, and God knows what else Boe­ing and their advo­cates have been ask­ing for, I’m not all that sur­prised to see this come down from the World Trade Organization.

Plane­maker Boe­ing received at least $5.3 bil­lion of dol­lars of banned U.S. sub­si­dies, the World Trade Orga­ni­za­tion said on Thursday.

The sub­si­dies included banned sup­port in the form of research and devel­op­ment pay­ments from the NASA space agency.

The rul­ing by a panel of trade judges is the lat­est round in a six-year bat­tle between the industry’s two giants that has spi­ralled into the world’s largest and costli­est trade dispute.

A sep­a­rate WTO trade panel con­demned Euro­pean sup­port for Boe­ing rival Air­bus in a par­al­lel case last year.

Both sides imme­di­ately claimed the upper hand in the row, which now extends to 2,000 pages of rul­ings in the most com­plex and bit­ter bat­tle ever brought before the Geneva trade court.

Air­bus, part of Euro­pean aero­space group EADS, said it had lost $45 bil­lion in air­craft sales because of the subsidies.

It’s time for Boe­ing to stop deny­ing or min­i­miz­ing the mas­sive ille­gal sub­si­dies it gets,” said Rainer Ohler, head of pub­lic affairs and com­mu­ni­ca­tions at Toulouse-based Airbus.

Boe­ing acknowl­edged receiv­ing $2.7 bil­lion of ille­gal U.S. fund­ing on top of a dis­pute that has already been aired, but said this was dwarfed by more than $20 bil­lion of Euro­pean aid which it said the WTO had ear­lier iden­ti­fied at Airbus.

This WTO rul­ing shat­ters the con­ve­nient myth that Euro­pean gov­ern­ments must ille­gally sub­si­dize Air­bus to counter U.S. gov­ern­ment assis­tance to Boe­ing,” said Michael Lut­tig, exec­u­tive vice-president and gen­eral coun­sel at Boeing.

Some­one once told me dur­ing my Her­itage days that plane mak­ers have got­ten so big, and the air­line indus­try so picky about its fleets that the only way these com­pa­nies are mak­ing any money at all is through gov­ern­ment subsidies.

I had hoped that per­son was just being fac­tious with that state­ment, but they were prob­a­bly more cor­rect than I assumed at the time.

Leave a Comment

Madison Unions Drop Suit Consolidation Attempt

Appar­ently, what changed their mind was the real­iza­tion such a move would allow the state’s attor­neys to seek a new judge in the case. [A rather com­mon prac­tice mind you.]

The cur­rent judge assigned to the case; why Maryann Sumi of course!

Two city of Madi­son labor unions and Dane County dropped their request to con­sol­i­date their com­plaints over the guv’s col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing law after being told doing so would allow the state to seek a new judge.

Dane County and two city of Madi­son labor unions, AFL-CIO Local 236 and Fire­fight­ers Local 311, sought to con­sol­i­date their sep­a­rate com­plaints over the act.

Attor­neys for the plain­tiffs asked the state to agree not to seek a sub­sti­tu­tion of judges before mov­ing for­ward. But Judge Maryann Sumi said the defen­dants did not have to bind them­selves to that com­mit­ment. The motion was then withdrawn.

Sumi also agreed with state attor­neys that the motion to com­bine the cases was likely pre­ma­ture and cau­tioned attor­neys in all cases related to the bud­get repair bill about their pub­lic com­ments when emo­tions are run­ning high.

Empha­sis added.

Comments (1)

Press Release of the Day

Goes to the Dane Co. GOP, who fight the per­pet­ual uphill fight in the “Land of the Mad,” and the “Home of the In-Dane.”

(Oh, that’s clever…I should trade­mark that line.)

The Repub­li­can Party of Dane County sent out a press release on March 29th crit­i­ciz­ing Judge Maryann Sumi for hold­ing up the pub­li­ca­tion of Gov­er­nor Scott Walker’s col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing reform bill. Upon fur­ther reflec­tion we’d like to apol­o­gize for not under­stand­ing her point of view.

Sure, Gov­er­nor Walker’s bill is unques­tion­ably con­sti­tu­tional, increases worker’s rights and helps local gov­ern­ment bal­ance bud­gets with­out hav­ing to fire pub­lic work­ers. The Wis­con­sin state leg­is­la­ture con­sulted with their non-partisan par­lia­men­tar­ian to make sure that the pas­sage of the bill fol­lowed the rules of the Sen­ate and Assem­bly. But this isn’t about the law, is it?

The Repub­li­can Party of Dane County rec­og­nizes that Judge Sumi is a left­ist liv­ing in Dane County. Her friends are left­ists liv­ing in Dane County. Her son is a left wing activist in Dane County. She goes to cock­tail par­ties held by left­ists in Dane County. She shops at organic gourmet food shops run by left­ists liv­ing in Dane County. If she were to enforce the law of Wis­con­sin and do what was in the best inter­est of the peo­ple of Wis­con­sin, she’d be exiled from her lifestyle. She’d lose her friends!

The lead­er­ship of the Repub­li­can Party of Dane County have all made the choice to stand against the Dane County elite. We accept that Left feels right­eous van­dal­iz­ing our homes and key­ing our cars. It’s only fair. We dis­agree based upon logic and prin­ci­ple. That is intol­er­a­ble! We pri­or­i­tize the Con­sti­tu­tion and the well being of the peo­ple of Wis­con­sin over foie gras at cock­tail par­ties. That’s the choice we made. We respect Judge Sumi’s deci­sion to live her life with the rich diver­sity that lib­er­als cherish.

My one issue with it is the “foie gras” men­tion.  Was pretty sure the ani­mal rights folks like PeTA got it taken off most left-wing menus.

Leave a Comment

State Employee Unions Circulating Boycott Letters

“Nice busi­ness you have there.  True pity if any­thing were to hap­pen to it.”

Mem­bers of Wis­con­sin State Employ­ees Union, AFSCME Coun­cil 24, have begun cir­cu­lat­ing let­ters to busi­nesses in south­east Wis­con­sin, ask­ing them to sup­port work­ers’ rights by putting up a sign in their windows.

If busi­nesses fail to com­ply, the let­ter says, “Fail­ure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a pub­lic boy­cott of your busi­ness. And sorry, neu­tral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

Jim Par­rett, a field rep­re­sen­ta­tive of Coun­cil 24 for South­east Wis­con­sin, con­firmed the con­tents of the let­ter, which car­ries his sig­na­ture. But he added that the union was also cir­cu­lat­ing let­ters to busi­nesses thank­ing them for sup­port­ing work­ers’ rights.

[…]

Par­rett referred ques­tions to Marty Beil, the head of the Wis­con­sin State Employ­ees Union. Beil was not imme­di­ately avail­able for comment.

In the let­ter from Par­rett to some busi­nesses, he says that, “It is unfor­tu­nate that you have cho­sen ‘not’ to sup­port pub­lic work­ers rights in Wis­con­sin. In recent past weeks you have been offered a sign by a pub­lic employee who works in one of the state facil­i­ties in the Union Grove area. These signs sim­ply said, ‘This Busi­ness Sup­ports Work­ers Rights,’ a sim­ple, sub­tle and we feel non-controversial state­ment gives the facts at this time.”

[…]

Terri Gray, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Union Grove Cham­ber of Com­merce, said she had received many calls from mem­ber busi­nesses about the union-led effort. She said most of the calls came from busi­ness­men and women who pre­ferred to remain neu­tral in the dis­pute between Gov. Scott Walker and orga­nized labor.

They don’t want to pick a side,” she said. “I told them, ‘I believe you can choose to not choose.’”

Gray said the cam­paign appeared to have started a day or two ago. She said she didn’t know whether the sign cam­paign was hav­ing an impact.

Asked Wednes­day about the boy­cott effort, the Rev. Jesse Jack­son said “that any non­vi­o­lent tac­tic used to get atten­tion to the steam­roller tac­tics it seems to me are rea­son­able. I encour­age peo­ple to remain non­vi­o­lent and dis­ci­plined in their protests.”

Asked if he sup­ported boy­cott efforts in Wis­con­sin, Jack­son did not directly endorse them.

He said: The best way to resolve con­flict is when every­body is at the tabel and they can nego­ti­ate through some ratio­nal insti­tu­tional process.”

Thanks Jesse, seriously.

I had heard from some friends in and around Madi­son that signs like this had become the “in-fashion” on State Street; so of course, some idiot lib­eral thought “Hey, it works in Madi­son.  Let’s take this thing statewide!”

Once again a reminder: What works in Madi­son, sans a Bad­gers sport­ing event, rarely, if ever works statewide.

For weeks now, the Left has been say­ing that the tac­tics of Walker, the Fitzger­alds, and other con­ser­v­a­tives have been “stok­ing the fires” against the State GOP, Jus­tice David Prosser, and the State Sen­ate Recalls.  What’s to say that this lit­tle stunt from AFSCME doesn’t have the reverse effect and stokes the fires of Wis­con­sin conservatives?

No one’s ever said Marty Beil had a brain attached when he’s froth­ing with rage…

Comments (1)

Wisconsin Soldier in Afghanistan: “‘Wisconsin 14′ Should Resign”

From a let­ter to the edi­tor in my home­town weekly news­pa­per, The Tri-County News. (H/T One of my sib­lings via Facebook)

To the editor,

I am a sol­dier serv­ing in the U.S. Army cur­rently serv­ing in Afghanistan.

I am writ­ing as a result of recent actions, or lack of actions, in the state Sen­ate. I am fully aware of the sit­u­a­tion and the terms brought to the table con­cern­ing the bud­get and the leg­is­la­tion to fix it. What con­cerns me are not the issues at all.

Regard­less of party or polit­i­cal view, the actions of the Demo­c­ra­tic sen­a­tors were appalling! Run­ning away from a vote because of the fear of fail­ure is wrong on many levels.

First of all, as a politi­cian it is an oblig­a­tion to vote on mat­ters regard­ing the state and the wel­fare of the peo­ple of the state. An Amer­i­can cit­i­zen has a right to vote, which means they may choose to vote how they see fit or not to vote at all. As a sen­a­tor the right to vote is now not only a right but an obligation.

Also I see a very large dou­ble stan­dard in a sen­a­tor cam­paign­ing and ask­ing for votes to run away from a vote them­selves. The job of a sen­a­tor in this sit­u­a­tion is to vote “yay” or “nay” and let the votes fall as they may. This is how democ­racy works, not to act like cow­ards and run. Run­ning aban­dons Democ­racy and all of the Amer­i­can peo­ple they swore to represent.

Regard­less of any views on this war we are fight­ing right now, my com­rades and I are Amer­i­can sol­diers. As sol­diers we fight to defend democ­racy. Democ­racy is based very largely on the right-and as a sen­a­tor the obligation-to vote. By “run­ning away” the 14 Wis­con­sin sen­a­tors slap democ­racy in the face, there­fore slap­ping all who defend it in the face! Being from Wis­con­sin I am heart­bro­ken and extremely let down by the appalling actions of these sen­a­tors on a pub­lic, national stage.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will sup­port and defend the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States against all ene­mies, for­eign and domes­tic; that I will bear true faith and alle­giance to the same; that I take this oblig­a­tion freely, with­out any men­tal reser­va­tion or pur­pose of eva­sion, and that I will well and faith­fully dis­charge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

The above is the oath of office which each Wis­con­sin sen­a­tor swears to when enter­ing office. The end of that oath states, “I will well and faith­fully dis­charge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; So help me God.” This state­ment does not state, “I will vote when I feel like it and aban­don my office which I have sworn to uphold when the result may be other than I would like to see.” I know for a fact, hav­ing worked in the won­der­ful state of Wis­con­sin, that if any com­pany employee bla­tantly decided to walk out on their job and to pub­licly dis­grace the com­pany they worked for they would be ter­mi­nated immediately.

This may sound as a bold request to some but I am call­ing for the res­ig­na­tion of all 14 of the sen­a­tors who aban­doned their job, the peo­ple of the state of Wis­con­sin, and their duty as polit­i­cal offi­cers, and pub­licly dis­graced the entire state.

I fear what our state and fur­ther­more our coun­try will become if this type of action is allowed to con­tinue with­out con­se­quence.
A very con­cerned and insulted Amer­i­can soldier,

Justin Cook

If there is such a thing as a “silent major­ity” out there; you get the feel­ing this is what it’s been feel­ing for the past month and a half, and this is what is sounds like.

Leave a Comment

Louisiana Becomes 9th State to Seek Full Waiver from ObamaCare

From Investor’s Busi­ness Daily.

IBD has just got­ten word that Louisiana will become the ninth state to request a waiver from ObamaCare’s medical-loss-ratio regulations.

An MLR is the share of health pre­mi­ums spent on med­ical costs. Under Oba­maCare, insur­ers in the indi­vid­ual and small group mar­ket must have an 80% MLR, which means that 80% of pre­mi­ums are spent on med­ical care, leav­ing 20% for things like salaries, adver­tis­ing, fraud pre­ven­tion and profits.

Vio­late that min­i­mum and an insurer must rebate the dif­fer­ence to policyholders.

Many insur­ers have MLRs con­sid­er­ably lower than 80%, which means that they will have to rebate the dif­fer­ence. Of course, if they can’t afford to do that they will sim­ply drop out of the mar­ket. Since states would rather not let that hap­pen given that peo­ple los­ing their poli­cies can turn into angry vot­ers, they have begun request­ing a reprieve from ObamaCare’s MLR regulations.

Louisiana makes sim­i­lar argu­ments in its offi­cial waiver request:

A review of the lan­guage of the Afford­able Care Act has raised con­cerns that there may be unin­tended yet harm­ful pro­vi­sions included.  These pro­vi­sions will, if imple­mented as writ­ten, be dis­rup­tive and detri­men­tal to Louisiana’s mar­ket.  As cur­rently pro­posed, imple­ment­ing the 80% loss ratio in the indi­vid­ual mar­ket will act to decrease con­sumer choice, make cov­er­age more expen­sive and less read­ily avail­able, and work to drive valu­able trained pro­duc­ers out of the mar­ket just when they are needed most.

Of the eight other states who sought a waiver, only Maine has seen it granted.

Leave a Comment

Back to the Shores of Tripoli

Stay safe Marines.

Stay safe.

Twenty-two hun­dred Marines and sailors from Camp Leje­une are prepar­ing to deploy off the coast of Libya in north­ern Africa. They said good­bye to their fam­i­lies Mon­day after­noon, and they’ll be leav­ing in the days ahead.

There’s always in the back of your mind what if, what could hap­pen,” Marine wife Car­rie Cochran said.

Cochran, like the other wives, is con­fi­dent her Marine is pre­pared for the mission.

As long as he knows how to do his job and he keeps his con­cen­tra­tion going, he can take care of his Marines then he can bring every­body home,” Cochran said.

The 22nd Marine Expe­di­tionary Unit was set to deploy to the Mediter­ranean later this year but that got bumped up once NATO forces launched an air assault on Libya.

The unit is reliev­ing the 26th MEU, which took part in some of the ini­tial assaults. The 22nd is a Marine, air and ground task force. Some are trained for avi­a­tion com­bat, oth­ers for ground com­bat. They can han­dle evac­u­a­tions and human­i­tar­ian mis­sions too.

As the news report says, this was an expected mil­i­tary move.  This par­tic­u­lar group of Marines was set to go to some­where in the Mid­dle East; I just don’t think any­one planned it was to be Libya.

Leave a Comment

Get Ready for an Earlier Primary

Frankly, in my opin­ion, it’s about time.  (From Wis­con­sin Reporter)

Wis­con­sin vot­ers prepar­ing for a polit­i­cally loaded 2012 elec­tion period should be ready to adjust their calendars.

Law­mak­ers are try­ing to sched­ule all even-year statewide pri­mary elec­tions, held in the sec­ond Tues­day of Sep­tem­ber, at least a month earlier.

The change stems from a fed­eral law approved in Octo­ber 2009 that requires states to give mil­i­tary and over­seas vot­ers more time to receive, con­sider and sub­mit their absen­tee ballots.

Under the Mil­i­tary and Over­seas Empow­er­ment Act, known as the MOVE Act, local elec­tion offi­cials would have to send bal­lots over­seas no closer than 45 days before a fed­eral elec­tion upon request.

Dur­ing the 2010 elec­tion, Wis­con­sin elec­tion admin­is­tra­tors were con­strained by the Sept. 14 state pri­mary elec­tion and could not dis­trib­ute offi­cial bal­lots over­seas within that 45-day time frame.

The fed­eral gov­ern­ment and the Wis­con­sin Gov­ern­ment Account­abil­ity Board, the state agency that admin­is­ters elec­tions, set­tled in court on pro­vi­sions for that elec­tion period that would allow addi­tional time for both elec­tion admin­is­tra­tors and over­seas voters.

But with 2012 com­ing up, the Wis­con­sin GAB has rec­om­mended law­mak­ers per­ma­nently change the state pri­mary elec­tion date for even-numbered years, when fed­eral elec­tions are held, to com­ply with the MOVE Act provisions.

The changes “will get done this year,” accord­ing to state Sen. Mary Lazich, R-New Berlin, the chair of the Sen­ate Trans­porta­tion and Elec­tions Committee.

I for one have never been a fan of Wisconsin’s late pri­mary.  Let’s just get that out of the way.  I’ve felt an early Sep­tem­ber pri­mary has been a “wink-wink agree­ment” between the two state par­ties for decades and is noth­ing more than a giant incum­bent pro­tec­tion.  Most incum­bents hate it because they have to (horr0r) actu­ally cam­paign for more than two months (double-horr0r) and can no longer go into a money hord­ing, then spend­ing it all while their newly minted gen­eral elec­tion oppo­nent is flat broke.

Sec­ondly, this is about the MOVE Act and ensur­ing those who are fight­ing wars or serv­ing over­seas get their bal­lot on time and are able to par­tic­i­pate in the very democ­racy they are defend­ing.  If you don’t like that, and pre­fer the sta­tus quo, there is some­thing seri­ously wrong with you.

Leave a Comment