If you were paying attention to politics at all last night or today or happened to even glance at the news then you would have noticed that Iowa’s Caucus had a rather ambiguous outcome. Iowa in the past has propelled presidential candidates through the primary season unto a party’s nomination. Barrack Obama is an excellent example. However, unlike most Iowa Caucus’ in history, no clear victor really emerged. Romney managed to beat Rick Santorum by a mere seven votes. Such a slight victory will not create a huge “buzz” around Romney; rather it highlights the fact that most Republicans do not want him as their party’s nominee. Romney’s victory in Iowa clearly will not skyrocket him to victory in the upcoming primary races. This does however provide an opportunity for another Republican presidential candidate in New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman.
Jon Huntsman, a more moderate Republican, has staked his entire presidential candidacy in New Hampshire. Until recently, Huntsman consistently polled last in New Hampshire even though he gave more face time to New Hampshire than any other candidate in the race. Fortunately for Huntsman his numbers have reached the teens. The last poll showed him at 13 percent, just behind Ron Paul. Huntsman just might be able to use Romney’s weakness with the Republican Party to his advantage. If Romney has even a moderately bad showing in New Hampshire this could really be a benefit to Huntsman giving him potential votes. His huge face time with New Hampshire voters and his more moderate views make him a viable candidate in New Hampshire.
Huntsman does not have to win. All he has to do is out perform what is expected of him in New Hampshire in order to continue with his presidential campaign. By doing this, he will create momentum around his candidacy to go forward in other primary states like South Carolina.
Prediction: (New Hampshire)
Romney : 43
Paul: 19
Huntsman: 16
Santorum: 9
Gingrich: 8
Perry: 5
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Occupy Movement - What Track to Take?
The Occupy Movement, which began in the United States, has spread throughout the world. Demonstrations large and small have cropped up, with people coming together to protest a variety of issues that they see as problems in our nation and world. This article is going to look at what the Occupy movement has managed to accomplish, and to try and make suggestions that, if followed, might actually help them accomplish their goals.
I. The Occupy Movement Needs Goals.
The Occupy Movement has been fairly leaderless. Each city seems to have a grand assembly, where everything is voted upon in a beautiful example of pure democracy. Unfortunately, what the Occupy Movement has not done is come up with a list of specific goals that they hope to accomplish. The things they are protesting against seem to be almost everything. The lists include corporate greed, the death penalty, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Space Exploration, (or conversely, the lack of space exploration), the climate, the environment, poverty, homelessness, foreclosures, and almost every other social and political problem facing the world today. However, to put it succinctly, "The Lady doth protest too much, me thinks" (Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2) While many if not all of the social and political evils protested by the Occupy Movement are important, by failing to focus on a few at a time, and work for meaningful change, the Occupy Movement limits its effectiveness. Thus, the Occupy Movememt should establish a clear set of goals and agree that they will work towards those goals. They can use their built-in democratic process to determine which goals they will pursue, and in what order, but do this they must or they will continue to be like a gnat: they will get a lot of attention, but have little to no effect on American politics or the practices of corporate America.
The goals must be reasonable goals. This means, that the goals must not call for the demise of large corporations, for socializing America, or any other extreme position that will give their enemies ammunition to be used against them. Reasonable goals, however, which are not extreme, will resonate with the reasonableness inherent in most Americans, and further fortify the movement. This means, for instance, that while eliminating corporate greed is an interesting idea, how does one do this? 'Tis a rhetorical question only. The Occupy Movement will have to determine for itself what goals are reasonable, but I have faith that this can be accomplished given the resources in intelligence available to the movement.
II. Act Upon The Goals PEACEFULLY.
The Occupy Movement, if it establishes clear, reasonable goals, which can be agreed upon by the majority of its members, can have a positive impact upon our nation and the world. This means that the Occupy Movement will have to become a force for political change. Through our political system will be the only methods of changing the vast majority of the problems. The protesters need also to listen to the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom counseled against violence as a means of political protest. To their credit, the protestors have largely been very peaceful, and most of the violence that has happened has been on the part of the police. The police departments of several cities have proven their brutality several times, but that can backfire upon civil authorities if not closely checked.
How can the Occupy Movement act upon its goals? By organizing and getting involved in the political process. In doing so, the Occupy Movement should not take aim at specific companies, for instance, but should instead look at the all companies, or an entire industry. Boycotts, writing campaigns and other forms of social process are also effective when aimed at companies who are in business to make a profit.
Influencing politicians is a different process altogether. However, making sure that protesters who are eligible register to vote, and then vote, is an important first step. While many in the US today are rather cynical about the power of the individual voter, the power of many voters, all of whom are irate over the action of any particular politician, is something that no politician wants to confront. Add the publicity that the Occupy Movement seems to generate, and the Occupy Movement could become a force for political change.
III. Do Not Give Up.
The Occupy Movement started as a group of people who were fed up with the status quo. Change in our system doesn't come overnight. True change, of the type that is wanted by the Occupy Movement, is worth working for, until it comes about. However, it will take long, hard work, by everyone involved, and involve sacrifice and courage to forge a better America and a better world.
I. The Occupy Movement Needs Goals.
The Occupy Movement has been fairly leaderless. Each city seems to have a grand assembly, where everything is voted upon in a beautiful example of pure democracy. Unfortunately, what the Occupy Movement has not done is come up with a list of specific goals that they hope to accomplish. The things they are protesting against seem to be almost everything. The lists include corporate greed, the death penalty, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Space Exploration, (or conversely, the lack of space exploration), the climate, the environment, poverty, homelessness, foreclosures, and almost every other social and political problem facing the world today. However, to put it succinctly, "The Lady doth protest too much, me thinks" (Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2) While many if not all of the social and political evils protested by the Occupy Movement are important, by failing to focus on a few at a time, and work for meaningful change, the Occupy Movement limits its effectiveness. Thus, the Occupy Movememt should establish a clear set of goals and agree that they will work towards those goals. They can use their built-in democratic process to determine which goals they will pursue, and in what order, but do this they must or they will continue to be like a gnat: they will get a lot of attention, but have little to no effect on American politics or the practices of corporate America.
The goals must be reasonable goals. This means, that the goals must not call for the demise of large corporations, for socializing America, or any other extreme position that will give their enemies ammunition to be used against them. Reasonable goals, however, which are not extreme, will resonate with the reasonableness inherent in most Americans, and further fortify the movement. This means, for instance, that while eliminating corporate greed is an interesting idea, how does one do this? 'Tis a rhetorical question only. The Occupy Movement will have to determine for itself what goals are reasonable, but I have faith that this can be accomplished given the resources in intelligence available to the movement.
II. Act Upon The Goals PEACEFULLY.
The Occupy Movement, if it establishes clear, reasonable goals, which can be agreed upon by the majority of its members, can have a positive impact upon our nation and the world. This means that the Occupy Movement will have to become a force for political change. Through our political system will be the only methods of changing the vast majority of the problems. The protesters need also to listen to the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom counseled against violence as a means of political protest. To their credit, the protestors have largely been very peaceful, and most of the violence that has happened has been on the part of the police. The police departments of several cities have proven their brutality several times, but that can backfire upon civil authorities if not closely checked.
How can the Occupy Movement act upon its goals? By organizing and getting involved in the political process. In doing so, the Occupy Movement should not take aim at specific companies, for instance, but should instead look at the all companies, or an entire industry. Boycotts, writing campaigns and other forms of social process are also effective when aimed at companies who are in business to make a profit.
Influencing politicians is a different process altogether. However, making sure that protesters who are eligible register to vote, and then vote, is an important first step. While many in the US today are rather cynical about the power of the individual voter, the power of many voters, all of whom are irate over the action of any particular politician, is something that no politician wants to confront. Add the publicity that the Occupy Movement seems to generate, and the Occupy Movement could become a force for political change.
III. Do Not Give Up.
The Occupy Movement started as a group of people who were fed up with the status quo. Change in our system doesn't come overnight. True change, of the type that is wanted by the Occupy Movement, is worth working for, until it comes about. However, it will take long, hard work, by everyone involved, and involve sacrifice and courage to forge a better America and a better world.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Occupy Movement - Christ would approve
“And the young man saith unto him, ‘All these things I have observed, what lacketh I yet?’ Jesus said unto him, ‘If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions. And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. “ Matthew 19: 21-24.
The moral of this story is astonishingly simple, yet it is a subject which is seemingly beyond the grasp of many Republicans. Christ, in this story, was warning us against worship of a false god, money, and with the greed and averice that comes with that worship. The conditions of Christ’s day were in many ways, analogous to today’s. Let’s examine the political, social and economic conditions in Roman Palestine during the time of Christ.
Roman Palestine had no middle class. There were the very poor, (about 99% of the people) and there were the very wealthy (1%). This is similar to what is happening in the United States today. 1% of the United States has a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and the middle class is steadily shrinking. This is the impetus of the Occupy movement.
Recently, the head of the Family Research Council, a far right-wing religious group, stated that Christ would not have approved of the Occupy movement, and he was “pro business”. This is misreading the Gospel, at best, but more likely, it is an attempt to pander to the religious right, who are more like the Pharisees that Christ regularly called out for their hipocracy.
The problems that the Occupy movement has been calling to our attention are not imaginary. They are real problems, that require solution. Its true that the Occupy movement is short on solutions. However, the lesson in the Parable of the Talents, (Luke 19: 11-28), is not that we are to support corporate greed, but that God does not expect us to be indifferent. To see the sins that corporate America, and our politicians inflict upon the people of the US and do nothing is in itself a sin, and Christ would have spoken out against it.
Indeed, in the Gospel according to Matthew, quoted above, He did just that. He pointed out that those who worship wealth, and who are wealthy simply for the sake of money, will find it difficult if not impossible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who oppose the Occupy movement in their non-violent opposition to corporate greed, corruption, and the unholy marriage of corporate America to our politicians are opposing the will of the people for change. Let them look carefully to their souls as they contemplate how much profit they will make this Christmas.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Censorship in High School - Political Correctness Gone Mad
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback apparently has a thin skin. He can't apparently stand the idea that a high school senior in Kansas thinks that "he sucked".
On November 21, 2011, during a field trip to the Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan, age 18, tweeted to a friend "just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot". This tweet was apparently picked up by Gov. Brownback's staff, who then tracked it (how?) to Ms. Sullivan, and notified her principal. The principal has demanded that she write a note to Gov. Brownback apologizing.
The more immediate question is, what for? For saying she thinks he sucks? It might surprise His Excellency, but not all Kansans think he is the second coming. Governor Brownback's policies have led to a decline in Kansas schools, less opportunity for Kansas youth, all that the expense of making sure that his corporate buddies don't have their taxes raised. His religious ideologies are somewhere out of the 15th century, and he has consistently tried to force his beliefs down the throats of the Kansas people.
Now, apparently his staffers think they need to protect him from what a high school student thinks. Governor Brownback has shown his true colors as a fascist, who is not interested in freedom of speech unless he approves of the speech, and is interested only in what is good for Brownback, not for the people of Kansas.
Emma Sullivan should be given a medal, not punished.
UPDATE: Shortly after noon on Monday, November 28, Governor Brownback's office released a statement indicating that his staff had "over-reacted" to the tweet. Apparently, Fuhrer Brownback has decided to back off given all the negative publicity this incident has given to him and to Kansas. He should also think long and hard about educating his staff on the basics of civil liberties, including the right to disagree publically with a public official, and including the right to say that a public official "sucks".
On November 21, 2011, during a field trip to the Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan, age 18, tweeted to a friend "just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot". This tweet was apparently picked up by Gov. Brownback's staff, who then tracked it (how?) to Ms. Sullivan, and notified her principal. The principal has demanded that she write a note to Gov. Brownback apologizing.
The more immediate question is, what for? For saying she thinks he sucks? It might surprise His Excellency, but not all Kansans think he is the second coming. Governor Brownback's policies have led to a decline in Kansas schools, less opportunity for Kansas youth, all that the expense of making sure that his corporate buddies don't have their taxes raised. His religious ideologies are somewhere out of the 15th century, and he has consistently tried to force his beliefs down the throats of the Kansas people.
Now, apparently his staffers think they need to protect him from what a high school student thinks. Governor Brownback has shown his true colors as a fascist, who is not interested in freedom of speech unless he approves of the speech, and is interested only in what is good for Brownback, not for the people of Kansas.
Emma Sullivan should be given a medal, not punished.
UPDATE: Shortly after noon on Monday, November 28, Governor Brownback's office released a statement indicating that his staff had "over-reacted" to the tweet. Apparently, Fuhrer Brownback has decided to back off given all the negative publicity this incident has given to him and to Kansas. He should also think long and hard about educating his staff on the basics of civil liberties, including the right to disagree publically with a public official, and including the right to say that a public official "sucks".
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Unintended Consequences
This past week, a Republican led attempt to change the US Constitution with the Balanced Budget Amendment failed when it received only 261 votes, well short of the 290 needed to send the amendment to the Senate. Senate approval of the amendment was virtually a non-starter, and the entire Balanced Budget Amendment was largely a political gesture, intended to attempt to embarrass President Obama and congressional Democrats. However, neither Republicans nor Democrats should be interested in an amendment such as this; Republicans should consider it especially anathema.
A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process. In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling. Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes. Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes. This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.
If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional. Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget. This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.
If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve: they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.
A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process. In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling. Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes. Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes. This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.
If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional. Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget. This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.
If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve: they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama Bin Laden - Good Riddance
On Sunday, May 1, 2011, US Navy Seals presented the world with a wonderful May Day present. Traditionally an old holiday celebrating spring and new life, this time they presented the world with the death of the most wanted terrorist on the planet, Osama bin Laden. Although all the facts have not yet been reported, and some probably never will be, its now known that Osama bin Laden lived in luxury in a $1 million compound, just a few miles from a Pakistani military academy. This raises interesting questions, which the Obama administration must make a point to have answered, credibly, in the coming days. How much did the Pakastani government know about Bin Laden? How could it be credibly possible for the Pakistani government NOT to have known about his present, apparently for years, just outside their capital?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't credibly possible. No reasonable person can believe that the Pakistani intelligence service, reputed to be competent, albeit brutal and infested with sympathizers to militant Islamist causes, did not know about Osama bin Laden's presence on their soil. This unfortunately bodes ill for the US-Pakistani relationship, and we call upon President Obama to demand answers to these questions in the days to come. If the US does not get adequate answers to its questions about Pakistani involvement, then it is time that the US reassess our commitment to continue to send billions of dollars to the Pakistani government. While Pakistan may have acquiesced in US forces going into Pakistani airspace to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, Pakistan's assistance in the war on terror at best has been grudging, and at times, outright hostile.
I will admit, this is a bit of a surprise operation, considering that I feel that President Obama has largely abdicated any pretense of leadership ability both in our foreign policy and domestically. Indeed, many of the Democratic party's problems in the 2010 elections were self-inflicted. A party which has no unity, which allows its members to ignore the wishes of party leadership, and to cooperate so openly with the republicans that some can be called republicans in all but name, deserved the trouncing they received at the polls. One of the reasons for this is the absence of party leadership by Mr. Obama.
Let us hope that this incident will show us a renewed leadership ability by Mr. Obama as he demands explanations from Pakistani officials, and the intestinal fortitude to follow it up with tough actions, including the suspension or restriction of US aid to Pakistan, if we do not receive the answers and guarantees that are needed.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Amend our Constitution
Either the People of the United States, acting through their state legislatures, or Congress itself have the power to amend the Constitution of the United States. The process is complex, but not impossible. There are two ways to propose an amendment: two thirds of both houses must concur on the proposed amendment, and then three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment, or, in the alternative, two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states may call for a Constitutional Convention, which will then propose amendments to the Constitution. Three fourths of the states would then be required to enact those amendments into law. For the purposes of this article, we will have to assume that these proposed amendments would have to be made by Constitutional Convention. Its clear that Congress itself would never agree to these amendments to limit their own power and terms.
Amendment:
Section A. (To the provisions for the House of Representatives)
1) Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every 4 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the House of Representatives.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-half of the members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within two years of the passage of this amendment.
Section B. (To the provisions for the Senate of the United States)
1) Members of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every 6 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the Senate of the United States.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-third of the member of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within 2 years of the passage of this amendment.
Section C. (To the Recall of Members of Congress)
1) A member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of that state that at least ten percent of the persons who voted in the past general election have signed a petition to that effect. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held which shall ask the question "Shall _______ be retained as a member of the appropriate house?". If the answer of a simple majority of the voters of the district or state shall be no, then the member of the House of Representatives or of the United States Senate shall be removed from office, and shall not be eligible to again serve as a member of the Congress of the United States.
2) The complete membership of Congress, both House and Senate, may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of the United States that a petition has been presented signed by at least fifteen percent of the persons who voted in the last general election for congress. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held throughout the United States asking "Shall the Congress of the United States be recalled from office?" If the answer of a simple majority of the votes cast is in the affirmative, then all members of Congress, both House and Senate, shall be removed from office, and shall never again be eligible to serve in the United States Congress.
Section D. Compensation and Pension.
1) Congress shall not have the authority to grant to itself or its members any privileges not specifically granted in this Constitution, and specifically, shall not have the authority to grant to themselves a pension for service in the Congress of the United States.
These are somewhat drastic. However, given that neither party is interested in the welfare of the people of the United States any more, isn't it time that we throw them all out, make sure that the people in Washington are people like you and me, and that we are truly a representative democracy rather than a nation governed by business interests?
Amendment:
Section A. (To the provisions for the House of Representatives)
1) Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every 4 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the House of Representatives.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-half of the members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within two years of the passage of this amendment.
Section B. (To the provisions for the Senate of the United States)
1) Members of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every 6 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the Senate of the United States.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-third of the member of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within 2 years of the passage of this amendment.
Section C. (To the Recall of Members of Congress)
1) A member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of that state that at least ten percent of the persons who voted in the past general election have signed a petition to that effect. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held which shall ask the question "Shall _______ be retained as a member of the appropriate house?". If the answer of a simple majority of the voters of the district or state shall be no, then the member of the House of Representatives or of the United States Senate shall be removed from office, and shall not be eligible to again serve as a member of the Congress of the United States.
2) The complete membership of Congress, both House and Senate, may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of the United States that a petition has been presented signed by at least fifteen percent of the persons who voted in the last general election for congress. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held throughout the United States asking "Shall the Congress of the United States be recalled from office?" If the answer of a simple majority of the votes cast is in the affirmative, then all members of Congress, both House and Senate, shall be removed from office, and shall never again be eligible to serve in the United States Congress.
Section D. Compensation and Pension.
1) Congress shall not have the authority to grant to itself or its members any privileges not specifically granted in this Constitution, and specifically, shall not have the authority to grant to themselves a pension for service in the Congress of the United States.
These are somewhat drastic. However, given that neither party is interested in the welfare of the people of the United States any more, isn't it time that we throw them all out, make sure that the people in Washington are people like you and me, and that we are truly a representative democracy rather than a nation governed by business interests?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)