Disqus - Latest Comments for PaulSilver

Re: Court Rules Texas Congressional Map Discriminates

PaulSilver — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:52:52 -0000

Partisan gerrymandering is also getting the stink eye from the courts now that there are reliable methods to prove bias. Justice Kennedy is a likely ally.

Re: No Smoking, Austin: 10 Years Later

PaulSilver — Sat, 05 Sep 2015 00:55:55 -0000

I lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the ban. I was past the point of cancelling construction on a Warehouse district bar when the Ban became serious. After the ban my best clientele moved to bars with outdoor patios. I lost any meaningful competitive advantage and growth stalled. Reduced smoking was happening anyhow because of public preferences. To accelerate it threw me under the bus.

Re: Engage with the livestream

PaulSilver — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:48:17 -0000

Pursue that gerrymandering is unconstitutional . the founders intended competitive districts

Re: Intel's WiDi 2 Technology: A Hands-On

PaulSilver — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:20:11 -0000

You mention that the first generation of the pushtoTV receiver will not work with WIDI v2. But will the the WIDI feature on the laptop I bought two weeks ago work with the next generation of the receiver? Will there be a software or firmware upgrade?
Thanks

Re: Video: The Brian Brawdy Show Promo

PaulSilver — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:06:39 -0000

Brian, I understand your concerns. My thinking is that both major parties are agents for special interests from Unions to predatory industries. Pandering to these groups is what bloats our government. The remedy that most attracts me is finding ways to neutralize these special interests such as citizen owned elections to allow candidates to run for office without need or fear of wealthy interests.

Re: Politics of Incitement Damaging Institutions of Our Democracy

PaulSilver — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:45:00 -0000

Hi Solomon. How is this new group different from the Coffee Party?

Re: Fix Congress First: Digital Strategic Plan

PaulSilver — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:33:38 -0000

This proposal makes me sad. I have been involved with most of the national good government groups for years. But instead of these groups coming together into a more cost efficient and effective group this proposal just continues the fragmentation. And each groups fits me up for money. Instead of a few focused and targeted organizations we have redundant staff, overhead, internet presence and fundraising. If I were a wealthy donor, or Democracy Alliance, I would approach the top 5 good government groups and offer a large endowment if they merged. A professional marketing plan could place educational ads in print, TV and new media to argue for better solutions to corruption through citizen owned campaigns, Disclosure, Non-partisan redistricting. The special interests are much more professional at marketing by lying and confusing the issues so that voters don't know whom to support to make government work better.
The best use of Mr Lessig's time is to put him in front of a dozen wealthy progressive donors each month.
Thanks for listening

Re: A Closer Look at Herbal Supplements

PaulSilver — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:34:30 -0000

Thanks for this report. Now I need to track down the reliable services that verify the content of supplements.

Re: Cell Towers For the Home Work Best in Worst Sites

PaulSilver — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:04:44 -0000

I live in a pocket of poor att service in Austin. The local att office gave me a microcell to keep my business. I then had to upgrade two phone to ones with 3G capability and found a few that were also free through att. Conversation quality is much improved, but occasionally my phone has trouble connecting to the microcell and I have to turn it on and off a few times.

Re: Systemic Denial | Fix Congress First

PaulSilver — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:48:25 -0000

Then FENA is essential and justifies heroic effort. Can you and the FENA coalition organize 50 activists like me to visit DC and camp out in the Congressional Offices of Reps likely to support the bill.
Can the FENA coalition pull together all possible celebrities and mount a centralized petition drive so that we can visit the Congressional offices with long lists of constituents who want these reforms?

Re: “A Dose of Realism”? How About This for “Realism”: We Need Leadership | Fix Congress First

PaulSilver — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:23:45 -0000

Leadership is needed at various levels of this battle for democracy. The leaders of the various reform groups need to do a better job consolidating resources into a more effective operation. Lessig should be on the Sunday talk shows with Bill Bradley, Warren Rudman, Al Simpson, Bob Kerrey, Ron Paul, and other influential heavy weights. These leaders need to recruit other compelling leaders who can recruit other leaders... We need a show of force to win the hearts and minds of our apathetic countrymen.

Re: My Nomination for Most Interesting Speech of Dem Convention’s First Night

PaulSilver — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:59:18 -0000

I agree. It is the speech I replayed several times and wonderfully captures a moderate progressive point of view. Here is the text:

As a Republican, I stand before you with deep respect for the history and traditions of my political party. But it is clear to all Americans that something is out of kilter in our great republic. In less than a decade America’s political and economic standing in the world has been diminished. Our nation’s extraordinary leadership in so many areas is simply not reflected in the partisan bickering and ideological politics of Washington. Seldom has the case for an inspiring new political ethic been more compelling. And seldom has an emerging leader so matched the needs of the moment.

The platform of this transformative figure is a call for change. The change Barack Obama is advocating is far more than a break with today’s politics. It is a clarion call for renewal rooted in time-tested American values that tap Republican, as well as Democratic traditions.

Perspective is difficult to bring to events of the day, but in sweeping terms, there have been four great debates in our history to which both parties have contributed. The first debate, led by Thomas Jefferson, the first Democrat to be elected president, centered on the question of whether a country could be established, based on The Rights of Man.

The second debate, led by Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican to be elected president, was about definitions—whether The Rights of Man applied to individuals who were neither pale nor male. It took almost two centuries of struggle, hallmarked by a civil war, the suffrage and abolitionist movements, the Harlem renaissance and a courageous civil rights leadership to bring meaning to the values embedded in the Declaration of Independence.

The third debate, symbolized by the new deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the emphasis on individual initiative of Ronald Reagan, involves the question of opportunity, whether rights are fully meaningful if all citizens are not given a chance to succeed and provide for their families.

The fourth debate, which acquired grim relevance with the dawn of the nuclear age, is the question of whether any rights are possible without peace and environmental security.

The American progressive tradition reflected in these debates spans Democratic standard bearers from the prairie populist William Jennings Bryan to the Camelot statesman, John F. Kennedy. It includes Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, who built up the National Parks system and broke down corporate monopolies, and Dwight David Eisenhower, who ran on a pledge to end a war in Korea, brought a stop to European colonial intervention in the Middle East, quietly integrated the Washington, D.C., school system and not so quietly sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to squash segregation in public schools throughout the country.

In models of international statecraft, progressive leadership includes Al Gore, who helped galvanize worldwide understanding of the most challenging environmental threat currently facing the planet, and our current president’s father, who led an internationally sanctioned coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

In Congress, Democratic senators like Pat Moynihan and Mike Mansfield served in Republican administrations. On the Republican side, Arthur Vandenberg helped President Truman launch the Marshall Plan, and Everett Dirksen backed Lyndon Johnson’s landmark civil rights legislation.

In troubled times, it was understood that country comes before party, that in perilous moments mutual concern for the national interest must be the only factor in political judgments. This does not mean that debate within and between the political parties should not be vibrant. Yet what frustrates so many citizens is the lack of bipartisanship in Washington and the way today’s Republican Party has broken with its conservative heritage.

The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years toward regulating values. The party of military responsibility has taken us to war with a country that did not attack us. The party that formerly led the world in arms control has moved to undercut treaties crucial to the defense of the earth. The party that prides itself on conservation has abdicated its responsibilities in the face of global warming. And the party historically anchored in fiscal restraint has nearly doubled the national debt, squandering our precious resources in an undisciplined and unprecedented effort to finance a war with tax cuts.

America has seldom faced more critical choices: whether we should maintain an occupational force for decades in a country and region that resents western intervention or elect a leader who, in a carefully structured way, will bring our troops home from Iraq as the heroes they are. Whether it is wise to continue to project power largely alone with flickering support around the world or elect a leader who will follow the model of General Eisenhower and this president’s father and lead in concert with allies.

Whether it is prudent to borrow from future generations to pay for today’s reckless fiscal policies or elect a leader who will shore up our budgets and return to a strong dollar. Whether it is preferable to continue the policies that have weakened our position in the world, deepened our debt and widened social divisions or elect a leader who will emulate John F. Kennedy and relight a lamp of fairness at home and reassert an energizing mix of realism and idealism abroad.

The portfolio of challenges passed on to the next president will be as daunting as any since the Great Depression and World War II. This is not a time for politics as usual or for run-of-the-mill politicians. Little is riskier to the national interest than more of the same. America needs new ideas, new energy and a new generation of leadership.

Hence, I stand before you proud of my party’s contributions to American history but, as a citizen, proud as well of the good judgment of good people in this good party, in nominating a transcending candidate, an individual whom I am convinced will recapture the American dream and be a truly great president: the senator from Abraham Lincoln’s state—Barack Obama. Thank you.

Re: Bloomberg Wants Independents To Organize To Increase Power

PaulSilver — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:15:28 -0000

It seems to me that what most independents have in common is a skepticism and distrust of the parties and the special interests to which they are beholden. I believe that these voters represent the largest concentration of folks in favor of political reform such as publicly financed elections, non partisan redistricting, and other steps to enfranchise as many voters as possible at the expense of narrow special interests. This could be the binding theme of an independent movement. To support those candidates who champion reform.

Re: Are Moderates And The Political Center Myths?

PaulSilver — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:48:17 -0000

I agree with Silhouette.
I think of myself as a moderate because I support the process of reconciling competing ideas. I am Pro-choice and would like to see policies to reduce abortions. I am pro renewable energy but would like to see a strategy that includes nuclear, oil, coal, sequestration...I am for creating a path of citizenship for illegal immigrants but with chastening fees.

I am attracted to candidates who can talk to these kinds of moderate and independent minded compromises.

Re: Harold Ford and the Fine Art of the Excellent Answer

PaulSilver — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:20:14 -0000

I understand why politicians are so wiggly. Seeking simple labels are a deceptive trap that serve mainly to end discussion rather than promote and understanding of nuance and subtlety. For example, What does it say about Obama that he supports some faith based initiatives? Does it mean he will promote religion and abandon Secularism? Or does it mean that he is pragmatically open to the optimal combination of methods for reaching those in need. If the media and its audience were in pursuit of truth then such distinctions are possible. But if the purpose is simplistic categorization then politicians will blow smoke.

Re: The Obamacans and McCainocrats And The Pitch To Centrists

PaulSilver — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:30:07 -0000

While I lean towards Obama because I believe he is likely to be more pragmatic, I am delighted to have two relatively open minded candidates competing for our vote.
Meanwhile the focus of my attention and money is on the Senate where a single vote can determine what kind of reform we get in health care, energy, immigration, environment... In particular I am paying attention to the close Senate races in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Minnesota, Oregon, New Hampshire...

Re: Clark, Day, and a ‘Licence to Loathe’

PaulSilver — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:03:17 -0000

We all have a tendency towards good and bad behavior. What a community can do is to find ways to encourage the good and discourage the bad. In politics one remedy is to neutralize the influence of money and of political operatives who make a living by exacerbating differences. Give public funds directly to candidates and dis empower donors and cynical pols.

Re: Obama, McCain, Two Hangmen, and Camus

PaulSilver — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:48:34 -0000

I don't think it is realistic to expect a leader who will radically change the course of the country. I am content to support the candidate who leans the most towards my values and point of view. And while I think that McCain may be the Republican with whom I resonate and respect most, Obama reflects me on more issues.
I support Obama but I am not a zealot.

Re: One way ticket to the other side!

PaulSilver — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:29:42 -0000

I am all for a punishment that yields the highest deterrent. And it seems to me that life in solitary without parole is as extreme as it gets.

Re: Tim Russert Dead of a Heart Attack, His Family Says

PaulSilver — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:33:21 -0000

Boy will he be missed!
He was one of the few for whom I would not hit the mute button when he came on.
I recorded and looked forward to his Saturday interview show with sustained discussion of issues.
I hope his replacement builds on the standards he tried to set.

Re: Report from the Texas Democratic Party Convention

PaulSilver — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:20:02 -0000

One of the arguments that was made in our debate was that even though Obama won the big cities, Clinton won in more counties and thus her delegates will still hold more party positions state wide. One group has deep support and the other wide support.
Nevertheless when we chose to not announcement candidate affiliation before elections to the various committees it still turned out relatively balanced between the two camps.
As the flames of competition wane the activists will come together to promote what we have in common.

Re: Candidates of the future

PaulSilver — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:27:49 -0000

I thought the Professor raised a relevant point. If districts are configured to be more competitive then we may encounter the unintended consequence that some minority interests are under represented in the legislative bodies. If Hispanics are 40% in each of a dozen districts they could end up with relatively low representation.

I still would prefer a more competitive mix in each district so that the debate about interests of various groups can take place at a more local and intimate forum eg. farmers and urbanites debating the allocation of scarce water resources.

Re: Obama Donors Now Include Former Bush Donors: Moderate Republicans And Independents

PaulSilver — Sat, 31 May 2008 09:02:14 -0000

While Pres. Bush is the lightning rod, it is the GOP legislators who are the lightning.
They are the enablers who allowed the administration's failures and revealed the real intentions of the conservatives to handicap the government while plundering the treasury.
I am putting more money into close House and Senate races than I am giving to Obama.

Re: In Defense of Obama passing on Public Campaign Funds

PaulSilver — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:33:08 -0000

This is a tricky issue for me. I would like to see support for publicly funded finance but not if the result is an unequal playing field. If the candidates have the same amount of money but their supporters do not then it is not a fair contest. I feel that viable campaign finance policy needs to deal with third parties.

Re: Media Symbiosis: When the Host Dies

PaulSilver — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:38:48 -0000

I can't keep up with the the high quality reporting and commentary on PBS, C-Span, NYT, WSJ, RealClearPolitics, etc.