Thursday, May 14, 2009
Trendy Politics and the GOP
As for now, the Democratic Party holds a numerical dominance in Congress, plus the Presidency. With the failure of the McCain campaign, the tarnished legacy of Bush, and the Democratic take over of Congress in 2006, we can conclude old the Republican Party of Reagan is now over. With a two party system, it is utterly impossible for the Democrats to stay in complete power for very long, even with the GOP completely vanquished. This early into Obama's Presidency, the Republican Party has not shown many signs of reformation that will lead to it's return. However, Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois' 18th district may be a clue as to what the Republican Party will look like in a few years. Schock is the youngest member of Congress at age 27, having taken office last January. He is a fiscal conservative, having voted against Obama's stimulus package in February, and a moderate social conservative to generalize his policies. He has also been known to reach out to groups which are not typically Republican. More importantly, Schock has a growing celebrity status based on his youth, having been caught in paparazzi clips on TMZ as if he were a hollywood actor. This is similar to the celebrity status surrounding Obama as well. Policy aside, the importance of image in American politics cannot be denied. While Obama's policies were generally favorable to voters, it cannot be denied that his charismatic image and bridging of popular culture and politics gave him a great advantage. What the emergence of Aaron Schock could strangely mean is that one of the forms the GOP may return in is the "hip" domain pioneered and occupied by Democrats only. The charisma of the Republican politically incorrect grandfather figure like Reagan and McCain has clearly lost much of it's appeal. The age old hardliner old man image of the GOP that goes back even beyond Theodore Roosevelt, may finally be over, or atleast heavily augmented. While Schock will not even be old enough to challenge Obama in four years, nor has he shown a strong desire to be a lifelong politician, he could stur up enough dust to change the face of the GOP. If more celebrity like Republicans enter the public eye, there could be a Republican Obama figure in the future who would change the face of the party forever, and lead to it's return.
Rush, Tea, and the Republican Party
I suppose I'm not trying very hard by starting with a shot at Rush Limbaugh, but sometimes it's a little too tempting. After viewing his website's transcripts from the previous week's broadcasts, I noticed some painfully predictable similarities in them. As one can imagine, nearly every transcript is a criticism of every breath Obama has taken since January. Some factual, most not. The end all goal here is simple...convince enough people over the next 3 1/2 years not to reelect him. It is hard to be swade by someone who's primary objective has been to discredit a president since before he had come to office, and it unlikely that this trend in conservative commentators will effect undecided voters in the next election. What Limbaugh and many other commentators do not realize is that the American voters loves a victim. Obama was by far the most passive candidate throughout the entire presidential race, as was McCain during the Republican primaries, which changed immediately after. Even Bush's 2004 election can be attributed to being on the defensive from Kerry most of the time, despite a tarnished reputation and public approval ratings. The fact of the matter is, the American voter hates a bully, loves a victim, and gets annoyed very easily. The "tea parties" have done more for Obama in 2012 than anything else thus far I'm sure. Perhaps it's part of Vietnam's legacy that public demonstrations of any kind do nothing but counter their cause, especially in this case when its a lightly veiled way of saying "we want a reason to hate the president". Most simply do not want to associate themselves with such people, and will not side with a candidate who is backed by them. If the Republican Party wants to return to the fabled glory of Reaghan, they will need to rethink their party line and voter base entirely. For now it is nothing more than futile attempts at descrediting Obama at every corner, rather than finding counter philosophies different from Bush's failed trickle down approach. It is entirely understandable that Republicans are confused as to where to turn, as the party is now lacking a large enough support base for another presidential election, but another major realignment of voters the way it happened last time does not just happen without reason. The last realignment came as a result of the catastrophic failures of the Bush administration, which was based on a legitimate reality, not democratic propaganda.
Links Used: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042909/content/01125108.guest.html
Links Used: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042909/content/01125108.guest.html
Soda Tax
The Senate has recently taken into consideration a tax on sodas and other sugary soft drinks to pay for health care costs. I believe this is a great idea, and hopefully the it is the beginning in a line of similar taxes aimed at unhealthy food and eventually make America lose the weight gained in the past ten years, and lower health care costs. The tax will begin at a mere 3 cents, any is only predicted to lower consumption by 1 percent. However, cigarette taxes began low as well, and gradually worked their way up to the constructively ridiculous levels they are at today. Taxes on cigarettes have been more constructive than any of the propaganda used to prevent smoking. Of course, there will probably not ever be an anti-soda propaganda industry anyhow. Americans love their soda, and the best, and possibly only way this can be changed is through excessive taxation. This of course hits two birds with one stone, granting more funds to health care, and making the country healthier, thus needing less health care.
Link Used: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml
Link Used: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml
Thursday, May 7, 2009
US Radio Host Michael Savage Included on UK's "Least Wanted" List
Currently the United Kingdom has posted its "least wanted" list. This is a group of individuals the UK belives pose a threat to its' national security and democratic interests. Among these individuals is an American radio host, Michael Savage. Cnn.com states that reason for Savage being on the list is due to him "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence." However, Savage is striking back and possibly may even present a legal case against the UK.
Savage cites partiotism as his main reason for the things he has previously said, and believes England has no right to attempt to silence him. However, the UK contends that Savage is an extremist and posts and immediate danger. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is adament on keeping Savage on the list and explains, "Coming to the UK is a privilege, and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life," Smith said. "Therefore, I do not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views, as I want them to know that they are not welcome here."
Attourneys in England are salivating over the opportunity to represent Savage and other list memebers in order to "set the record straight and win quite a large settlement." Other members of the list as reported by cnn.com include:
The Rev. Fred Phelps and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, for "engaging in unacceptable behavior and fostering hatred." Phelps and his followers at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, oppose homosexuality. They picket the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying their deaths are God's way of punishing the United States for supporting homosexuals. They have expressed similar views about the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks and Hurricane Katrina.
Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Don Black, who established the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. The Home Office called it one of the oldest and largest hate group sites.
Erich Gliebe, chairman of the National Alliance, one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in the U.S. The Home Office accused Gliebe of "justifying terrorist violence, provoking others to commit serious crime and fostering racial hatred."
Samir al Quntar, a Lebanese man who spent three decades in prison for killing four Israeli soldiers and a 4-year-old girl in 1979. The Home Office lists al Quntar for "engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence" to provoke terrorist acts.
Nasr Javed, a leader of the Kashmiri militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Islamic clerics Abdul Ali Musa, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Amir Siddique, Yunis Al Astal and Safwat Hijazi.
Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, whom the Home Office describes as a prolific writer and speaker. The Home Office said he has sought "to foment, justify or glory terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to commit terrorist acts."
Although it is clear that some of the list members do deserve to be on such a list, it is still unique for the UK to publically name such intentions. Herein lies the problem. Where does national security go to far? Should all nations have such lists or do they only provoke more anger and bigger threats from those who are on them? Only the furture can tell that story. However, regardless of the outcome, Michael Savage contends he will not be silenced. "I'm a patriotic American, and if that's a crime in England, God help us all."
Savage cites partiotism as his main reason for the things he has previously said, and believes England has no right to attempt to silence him. However, the UK contends that Savage is an extremist and posts and immediate danger. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is adament on keeping Savage on the list and explains, "Coming to the UK is a privilege, and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life," Smith said. "Therefore, I do not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views, as I want them to know that they are not welcome here."
Attourneys in England are salivating over the opportunity to represent Savage and other list memebers in order to "set the record straight and win quite a large settlement." Other members of the list as reported by cnn.com include:
The Rev. Fred Phelps and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, for "engaging in unacceptable behavior and fostering hatred." Phelps and his followers at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, oppose homosexuality. They picket the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying their deaths are God's way of punishing the United States for supporting homosexuals. They have expressed similar views about the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks and Hurricane Katrina.
Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Don Black, who established the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. The Home Office called it one of the oldest and largest hate group sites.
Erich Gliebe, chairman of the National Alliance, one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in the U.S. The Home Office accused Gliebe of "justifying terrorist violence, provoking others to commit serious crime and fostering racial hatred."
Samir al Quntar, a Lebanese man who spent three decades in prison for killing four Israeli soldiers and a 4-year-old girl in 1979. The Home Office lists al Quntar for "engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence" to provoke terrorist acts.
Nasr Javed, a leader of the Kashmiri militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Islamic clerics Abdul Ali Musa, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Amir Siddique, Yunis Al Astal and Safwat Hijazi.
Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, whom the Home Office describes as a prolific writer and speaker. The Home Office said he has sought "to foment, justify or glory terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to commit terrorist acts."
Although it is clear that some of the list members do deserve to be on such a list, it is still unique for the UK to publically name such intentions. Herein lies the problem. Where does national security go to far? Should all nations have such lists or do they only provoke more anger and bigger threats from those who are on them? Only the furture can tell that story. However, regardless of the outcome, Michael Savage contends he will not be silenced. "I'm a patriotic American, and if that's a crime in England, God help us all."
The Future of the Republican party
Since the beginning of time political parties in America have clashed on wide ranging views in order to appeal to the masses and gather as much support as possible. Some of these issues are abortion, gun control, wars, immigration, and more recently rights for same sex couples. The battle over the issue of gay rights has waged on for the better part of the last 10 years and I don't see an end in sight. The problem here, lies within the Republican Party. The party of Reagan and Lincoln, a party that once stood for equality is now a party in ruin following the biggest political collapse in the history of the United States. If the Republican Party wishes to regain its strength they'll need to appeal more towards the "middle" if they have any shot of challenging the Democrats, who now have an edge both in seats in Congress as well as a psychological edge over the Republicans.
Historically the Republicans have had more people elected President than the Democrats (18-13). That number was only made possible by the "dynasty" the Republicans achieved when Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 (took office in 1969) starting a long run of Republican Presidents. Including Nixon's election in 1968, the Republicans won 4 of 7 Presidential elections. These Presidents were Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. (they had 5 of 7 Presidents but Gerald Ford took over for Nixon following his resignation in 1974).
The above paragraph clearly shows that the Republican dynasty was really thriving, 5 out of 7 Presidents really says something about what their party was all about. The key word being was. As we all know in 2000 George W. Bush was narrowly elected President (500,000 votes) over former Vice President Al Gore (thanks Florida). During the Bush Presidency things really took a downward turn for the Republican Party. Through a series of events (PATRIOT Act, war crimes, Geneva Convention violations, torture, etc) George Bush really tarnished the image of the Republican Party. This was evident in the congressional elections beginning in 2006. Prior to these elections the Republicans held leads in the House and Senate 232-202 and 55-45 respectively. After the 2006 elections, not only did the Republicans lose their leads in both houses, they were no longer in the majority. The seats were allotted 232-202 and 51-49 for the Democrats. After their huge turnaround in 2006, the Democrats steamrolled into 2008 with hopes of gaining a stranglehold in government with the election of a Democratic President as well as increasing their leads in Congress. In the congressional and senatorial elections the Democrats increased their leads in the House and Senate 257-178 and 58-41(the senatorial race in Minnesota is still ongoing) respectively. The goals of the Democrats were completed when Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain in the third largest landslide elections in US history (365-173), 3rd only to Bill Clinton's victories in 1996 (379-159) and again in 1992 (370-168).
If the Republican Party wishes to regain its "mojo" they're going to have move more towards the center of the political spectrum. Their base is to the right, which doesn't appeal to very many people in the United States. It's a time of desperation for the Republicans. This was clear with john McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his VP. She doesn't appeal to very many people, let alone women which is the underlying cause for her being selected. McCain was hoping to scoop up the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters following her loss to eventual President elect Barack Obama. This plan failed miserably and was doomed from the start. If the Republicans continue to grasp for any sign of hope instead of focusing on how to restructure their party they will continue to struggle against the Democrats in the upcoming elections.
Historically the Republicans have had more people elected President than the Democrats (18-13). That number was only made possible by the "dynasty" the Republicans achieved when Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 (took office in 1969) starting a long run of Republican Presidents. Including Nixon's election in 1968, the Republicans won 4 of 7 Presidential elections. These Presidents were Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. (they had 5 of 7 Presidents but Gerald Ford took over for Nixon following his resignation in 1974).
The above paragraph clearly shows that the Republican dynasty was really thriving, 5 out of 7 Presidents really says something about what their party was all about. The key word being was. As we all know in 2000 George W. Bush was narrowly elected President (500,000 votes) over former Vice President Al Gore (thanks Florida). During the Bush Presidency things really took a downward turn for the Republican Party. Through a series of events (PATRIOT Act, war crimes, Geneva Convention violations, torture, etc) George Bush really tarnished the image of the Republican Party. This was evident in the congressional elections beginning in 2006. Prior to these elections the Republicans held leads in the House and Senate 232-202 and 55-45 respectively. After the 2006 elections, not only did the Republicans lose their leads in both houses, they were no longer in the majority. The seats were allotted 232-202 and 51-49 for the Democrats. After their huge turnaround in 2006, the Democrats steamrolled into 2008 with hopes of gaining a stranglehold in government with the election of a Democratic President as well as increasing their leads in Congress. In the congressional and senatorial elections the Democrats increased their leads in the House and Senate 257-178 and 58-41(the senatorial race in Minnesota is still ongoing) respectively. The goals of the Democrats were completed when Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain in the third largest landslide elections in US history (365-173), 3rd only to Bill Clinton's victories in 1996 (379-159) and again in 1992 (370-168).
If the Republican Party wishes to regain its "mojo" they're going to have move more towards the center of the political spectrum. Their base is to the right, which doesn't appeal to very many people in the United States. It's a time of desperation for the Republicans. This was clear with john McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his VP. She doesn't appeal to very many people, let alone women which is the underlying cause for her being selected. McCain was hoping to scoop up the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters following her loss to eventual President elect Barack Obama. This plan failed miserably and was doomed from the start. If the Republicans continue to grasp for any sign of hope instead of focusing on how to restructure their party they will continue to struggle against the Democrats in the upcoming elections.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Link to Economic Crisis Is Vital to Obama Agenda
The Obama administration has been accused of exploiting the economic crisis. While Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is saying that the link to the economic crisis is vital to the Obama agenda. Conservatives are saying that the administration is using the crisis as an opportunity for action that does not normally exist.
Even though Obama currently “holds the upper hand” in the polls opposed to the republicans who are appearing chaotic and desperate. He is still moving fast for good reason, political history shows that time is not on his side. President Obama wants action in 2009 on both fronts. He has seen his predecessors’ political capital decline after their first years in office and knows he has to act fast.
As team Obama starts in on his initiatives on health care, energy, education, the auto and financial industries as responses to the crisis. Republicans are saying the recession is just an excuse for big-government ambitions that liberals have failed to achieve for decades. Accusing the Obama administration with using the 800 billion dollar economic stimulus plan to pursue what Wall Street Journal editorialists called a “40-year wish list” for liberals.
Last week a survey showed that 52 percent believed that President Obama had taken on “too many other issues” besides the economy. This is exactly the reason why he found himself defending government investments in banks and auto companies. “I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector,” he said.
However some democrats are unhappy with Mr. Emanuel’s “crisis” statements believing that he has just given the republicans “a cudgel for battering their motives.” Mr. Emanuel voiced no regrets, saying “it is plain that national crises create opportunities for action that do not normally exist.”
As Mr. Emanuel said about President Obama’s goal long before his first 100 days, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” is exactly what the Bush administration did with the crisis to invade Iraq. They are not letting their window of opportunity go to waste. In policy making you have to wait for your window of opportunity to open and that is exactly what is happening.
The link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04causus.html?ref=us
Even though Obama currently “holds the upper hand” in the polls opposed to the republicans who are appearing chaotic and desperate. He is still moving fast for good reason, political history shows that time is not on his side. President Obama wants action in 2009 on both fronts. He has seen his predecessors’ political capital decline after their first years in office and knows he has to act fast.
As team Obama starts in on his initiatives on health care, energy, education, the auto and financial industries as responses to the crisis. Republicans are saying the recession is just an excuse for big-government ambitions that liberals have failed to achieve for decades. Accusing the Obama administration with using the 800 billion dollar economic stimulus plan to pursue what Wall Street Journal editorialists called a “40-year wish list” for liberals.
Last week a survey showed that 52 percent believed that President Obama had taken on “too many other issues” besides the economy. This is exactly the reason why he found himself defending government investments in banks and auto companies. “I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector,” he said.
However some democrats are unhappy with Mr. Emanuel’s “crisis” statements believing that he has just given the republicans “a cudgel for battering their motives.” Mr. Emanuel voiced no regrets, saying “it is plain that national crises create opportunities for action that do not normally exist.”
As Mr. Emanuel said about President Obama’s goal long before his first 100 days, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” is exactly what the Bush administration did with the crisis to invade Iraq. They are not letting their window of opportunity go to waste. In policy making you have to wait for your window of opportunity to open and that is exactly what is happening.
The link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04causus.html?ref=us
Thursday, April 30, 2009
CIA memos
I am writing about Obama’s decision to declassify previously classified memos entailing the Bush administrations interrogation techniques. Obama said that his reason for putting an end to the interrogation techniques outlined in the memos, “I believe our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values, including the rules of law.” However many others are saying that Obama released the CIA memos as payback to Cheney. Reporting that Obama told reporters at the Oval office that the memos demonstrate that the nation lost its “moral bearing” during Bush’s administration.
That does not seem to be the case for a couple of reasons.
First off the Bush Administration needs no help losing support they were all set on their own. Why would Obama ever declassify memos simply to discredit an administration that already did a good job discrediting them? Especially at the expense of the country’s national security!
Reading some of the blogging being done a lot of people seem to think that Obama has compromised the nation’s security, saying that the enemy now knows how far an American soldier would go to get information. However do you really think they didn’t already know? I was not surprised to hear that Obama released these documents and as far as the interrogating tactics go I thought they were already public knowledge.
I don’t think that this was an attack on Cheney; however I do believe that it was an attack on Obama. Saying that “President Obama and his Administration themselves have politicized the most critical of issues, U.S. national security.” But how can you say that when Obama made it clear on the campaign trial that he wanted to put an end to the Bush administrations interrogation techniques?
Links used: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/at-cia-hq-obama.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/27/obama-released-cia-memos-as-cheney-payback/
That does not seem to be the case for a couple of reasons.
First off the Bush Administration needs no help losing support they were all set on their own. Why would Obama ever declassify memos simply to discredit an administration that already did a good job discrediting them? Especially at the expense of the country’s national security!
Reading some of the blogging being done a lot of people seem to think that Obama has compromised the nation’s security, saying that the enemy now knows how far an American soldier would go to get information. However do you really think they didn’t already know? I was not surprised to hear that Obama released these documents and as far as the interrogating tactics go I thought they were already public knowledge.
I don’t think that this was an attack on Cheney; however I do believe that it was an attack on Obama. Saying that “President Obama and his Administration themselves have politicized the most critical of issues, U.S. national security.” But how can you say that when Obama made it clear on the campaign trial that he wanted to put an end to the Bush administrations interrogation techniques?
Links used: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/at-cia-hq-obama.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/27/obama-released-cia-memos-as-cheney-payback/
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Speculation of Specter
There is a new member of the White House's caucus entering today, Arlen Specter. There has been a lot of speculation and talking, having to do with Specter because one sole reason, his recently Republican turned Democrat decision. A lot of people have been asking, is he really a Democrat or how can you just turn into a Democrat after being Republican for so long? Questions have ran through my head as well, but how has the members of the White House responded?
According to published reports Specter got nothing less than a warm welcome when he arrived at the White House this morning. President Obama and V.P Biden were there to greet him "in a high-level show of unity for the newest member of their caucus" the New York Times posted. Specter just so happened to be arriving on President Obama's 100th day of administration. There were other topics talked about this day as well, like when the three of these men worked together before in the Senate, which was not very long ago. It is said that V.P Biden and Specter have been acquaintances for quite some time and have embraced in many talks.
Now back to the question of Specter changing parties. He has been speaking about his reasoning for changing parties especially now that he is running for re-election in his home state. He was quoted saying "“I was unwilling to subject my 29-year-record in the United States Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican electorate.” In this state, because of the last election, many people who were moderate Republicans ended switching over to the Democratic Party. This left the senator in a tough position and it led him to the choice of changing parties. Although this has happened he has said that it does not matter if he is Republican or Democrat, he has always represented Pennsylvania and that is what he is going to continue to do.
According to published reports Specter got nothing less than a warm welcome when he arrived at the White House this morning. President Obama and V.P Biden were there to greet him "in a high-level show of unity for the newest member of their caucus" the New York Times posted. Specter just so happened to be arriving on President Obama's 100th day of administration. There were other topics talked about this day as well, like when the three of these men worked together before in the Senate, which was not very long ago. It is said that V.P Biden and Specter have been acquaintances for quite some time and have embraced in many talks.
Now back to the question of Specter changing parties. He has been speaking about his reasoning for changing parties especially now that he is running for re-election in his home state. He was quoted saying "“I was unwilling to subject my 29-year-record in the United States Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican electorate.” In this state, because of the last election, many people who were moderate Republicans ended switching over to the Democratic Party. This left the senator in a tough position and it led him to the choice of changing parties. Although this has happened he has said that it does not matter if he is Republican or Democrat, he has always represented Pennsylvania and that is what he is going to continue to do.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Free Speach has been lost to Lobbyists
So apparently the voice of Lobbyists from various organizations are being silenced at the time. It seems that they are barred from making any comments or suggestions about the Stimulus Plan. The reason? President Obama has tried to forgo this by hoping that the people would come to rely more on the government rather than lobbyissts, "The administration’s goal was to dispel any suspicions that special interests were working behind the scenes to influence the $700 billion spending plan."
A in meeting on Friday, representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, the American League of Lobbyists and the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told the ethics chief, Norman Eisen that the rules have unfairly singled out those who happen to be registered to lobby. The rules do nothing to prevent self-interested car salesmen, bankers, electric utilities or labor unions from meeting with administration officials. Instead, the rules shut out only the professionals whose job is representing others in public policy debates. Dave Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists stated that Lobbyists “must legally report every contact they make with government officials while those not registered as lobbyists can do as they please. “You are banning the one group that is required to be transparent.” Whats even more surprising is that since this occured last Friday even representatives of non-profit and human-rights organizations have been withheld from speaking out. The interesting this these non-profit groups are being targeted as a means to exclude coporate interests.
So the question now is, do they still have a right to speak out?
Or is it because of these large corperations that they feel they ahve the privilage to speak out againts policies that were created to prevent the high industries from making any more drastic mistakes that help hurt their companies?
Link:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/lobbyists-march-on-the-white-house/
A in meeting on Friday, representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, the American League of Lobbyists and the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told the ethics chief, Norman Eisen that the rules have unfairly singled out those who happen to be registered to lobby. The rules do nothing to prevent self-interested car salesmen, bankers, electric utilities or labor unions from meeting with administration officials. Instead, the rules shut out only the professionals whose job is representing others in public policy debates. Dave Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists stated that Lobbyists “must legally report every contact they make with government officials while those not registered as lobbyists can do as they please. “You are banning the one group that is required to be transparent.” Whats even more surprising is that since this occured last Friday even representatives of non-profit and human-rights organizations have been withheld from speaking out. The interesting this these non-profit groups are being targeted as a means to exclude coporate interests.
So the question now is, do they still have a right to speak out?
Or is it because of these large corperations that they feel they ahve the privilage to speak out againts policies that were created to prevent the high industries from making any more drastic mistakes that help hurt their companies?
Link:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/lobbyists-march-on-the-white-house/
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Who's to Blame?
Having spent some class this week discussing the true roots of politics, I am still extremely interested as to where political belief is structured. Family lives as well as education were considered the primary sources of belief, yet should there be a greater effort put forth in hopes of creating a more educated voter and participant in the political system. Are those new registered voters just as worse as a radical or an idealist who have tunnel vision to other outlooks of the spectrum?
The newly registered voters are much defined as being undeclared and especially under educated with respect to government and its role. As I had stated in class, I was completely unaware as to what foreign aid and policy was as of two years ago being nineteen and twenty years old as a registered voter. I am somewhat upset with the lack of involvement I have been accessible to throughout my adolescence years. Having taken only a general civics course as well as a few American history classes, it was never clearly spelled out just how exactly our system of government plays out with the rest of this world; something that was under minded throughout my youth. Having a special interest in the market and its position, I would have never been able to see most of the connections with U.S. government and the rise and fall of the stock market on a daily basis if it weren’t for three years of college education.
Being that schooling, especially at the college level, is becoming extremely expensive, how are those who don’t move on to additional schooling going to become involved with our political system? From what we have learned up to the University level on average is subpar to those who live and breathe politics each and every day. Although the system somewhat wants only an “elite” group involved in the political spectrum, all others have a right and duty to become involved with the free market, capitalist system we have created here in the United States.
Those who feel confused, misinformed, or left out in politics; don’t take it personally. Our schooling must be changed in a way that gets people prepared for at least a minimum involvement in politics. A general understanding of the right and left wings of the spectrum would create a stronger, more educated voter turnout that would strengthen expectation and demand the best of the best for our Chief Executive and Opinion leader. Our future here in the United States as a dominate country lays in the youth that will carry our country on for generations to come. We must consider revising our education program to create a better rounded citizen of the United States of America.
The newly registered voters are much defined as being undeclared and especially under educated with respect to government and its role. As I had stated in class, I was completely unaware as to what foreign aid and policy was as of two years ago being nineteen and twenty years old as a registered voter. I am somewhat upset with the lack of involvement I have been accessible to throughout my adolescence years. Having taken only a general civics course as well as a few American history classes, it was never clearly spelled out just how exactly our system of government plays out with the rest of this world; something that was under minded throughout my youth. Having a special interest in the market and its position, I would have never been able to see most of the connections with U.S. government and the rise and fall of the stock market on a daily basis if it weren’t for three years of college education.
Being that schooling, especially at the college level, is becoming extremely expensive, how are those who don’t move on to additional schooling going to become involved with our political system? From what we have learned up to the University level on average is subpar to those who live and breathe politics each and every day. Although the system somewhat wants only an “elite” group involved in the political spectrum, all others have a right and duty to become involved with the free market, capitalist system we have created here in the United States.
Those who feel confused, misinformed, or left out in politics; don’t take it personally. Our schooling must be changed in a way that gets people prepared for at least a minimum involvement in politics. A general understanding of the right and left wings of the spectrum would create a stronger, more educated voter turnout that would strengthen expectation and demand the best of the best for our Chief Executive and Opinion leader. Our future here in the United States as a dominate country lays in the youth that will carry our country on for generations to come. We must consider revising our education program to create a better rounded citizen of the United States of America.
Political Parties
Political parties through time have been primarily Republican or Democrat. Even through eras such as the progressive and federalist times, two major parties have gained the respect of those being involved in the system. The two party system creates a left as well as a right of beliefs for how the system should work and function. If one party feels strongly towards one part of politics, for example government spending, the other party takes the opposing view for the majority of things. With that said, why can’t a third party, possible a mixture of ideologies, prevail? Especially during a time we are living in now, where no one truly understands where our future will be heading.
Some say a third party would never gain the voter respect, never receive enough campaign finance or publication like the red and blue. Having the largest number of voters being in an undeclared state, it is evident that there are those out there in large figures looking for alternatives in our system of politics. This two party system we have structured our beliefs around creates bad media, miss representation, and especially propaganda opposing its one and only rival. It is sometimes difficult to listen to republican or even democrats smash and rag on the opposing party’s opinions on a variety of issues just to make their side sound more appealing. If only there were the strength of a third party that took the best of both worlds and made another that was more organized and presentable to those who are truly fed up with the two parties we have now.
At times I feel these two parties we have created limit the expansion of a growing United States. I feel as if opinions, on both sides of the spectrum, prohibit any possible growth of becoming a more outstanding country. If a good idea was spelled out by the Republican side, the Democrats would rag on it so bad that it would hinder its possible growth, and vice versa. This type of restriction has been going on since the beginning of politics, I know, but what if the majority was up for a change?
Although my ideologies of a third party that would better represent the general good of the United States is somewhat farfetched, I feel as if there are many out there who are looking for different answers. At a personal level, I am fed up with listening to who is “T-Bagging” who, or who got the U.S. in the deficit it is today. I want somewhat of a realist who can live up to what he set for himself and his country. Not saying that Obama isn’t dealing with the situations to the best of his abilities, I feel as if it could be done with the United States as a whole. A more educated body of voters will hold the success for the future to come of the United States.
Some say a third party would never gain the voter respect, never receive enough campaign finance or publication like the red and blue. Having the largest number of voters being in an undeclared state, it is evident that there are those out there in large figures looking for alternatives in our system of politics. This two party system we have structured our beliefs around creates bad media, miss representation, and especially propaganda opposing its one and only rival. It is sometimes difficult to listen to republican or even democrats smash and rag on the opposing party’s opinions on a variety of issues just to make their side sound more appealing. If only there were the strength of a third party that took the best of both worlds and made another that was more organized and presentable to those who are truly fed up with the two parties we have now.
At times I feel these two parties we have created limit the expansion of a growing United States. I feel as if opinions, on both sides of the spectrum, prohibit any possible growth of becoming a more outstanding country. If a good idea was spelled out by the Republican side, the Democrats would rag on it so bad that it would hinder its possible growth, and vice versa. This type of restriction has been going on since the beginning of politics, I know, but what if the majority was up for a change?
Although my ideologies of a third party that would better represent the general good of the United States is somewhat farfetched, I feel as if there are many out there who are looking for different answers. At a personal level, I am fed up with listening to who is “T-Bagging” who, or who got the U.S. in the deficit it is today. I want somewhat of a realist who can live up to what he set for himself and his country. Not saying that Obama isn’t dealing with the situations to the best of his abilities, I feel as if it could be done with the United States as a whole. A more educated body of voters will hold the success for the future to come of the United States.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
"Green" Stimulus plan
The stimulus plan has many different parts to it; to help boost the economy. The government is on the right track, not only are they adding more jobs and increasing the economy but there going green. In this day and age global warming and climate change are very serious. Many believe in global warming and some don’t, but everyone recognizes the need for renewable energy (so does the government).
Obama has spoken on this green part of the stimulus package. Two and half million jobs (+/-) are the unexpected outcome from just the green projects of the stimulus plan. The government is allocating a large sum of money (billions) to weatherize homes throughout
Green investments through the stimulus package will amount somewhere near 15 billion dollars, but another big part of the green plan is tax cuts. Homes that use solar energy, wind energy or other renewable energies will be allocated tax cuts. This is a great thing; many people will probably start using renewable energy on there homes, and that will majorly cut costs of energy bills for them and give them money on tax returns. (Businesses will also be entitled to this)
Grants are another part of the green stimulus plan. Grants will be given to companies or groups that are creating renewable energy (or green) projects. I believe this is a great thing, and that this will work. Many government members are skeptical as to if this will be effect. It should and most likely will be; making homes, business etc... more energy efficient is the future. More and more companies, groups, homes are going green; people are noticing the advantages of green and also the environmental aspects of it. Glacier national park had 150 glaciers, now there’s only 50; this says a lot and going green will help out with global warming problems (especially since America is a large contributor to co2 emissions).
This will also help the auto-industry out. Grants will be given for creating green cars or more energy efficient cars. Smart grids are also anther part of this green chunk. Smart grids will be placed on homes around
Monday, April 13, 2009
“Hate is Preached and even the Family is Not a refuge!”
You would think that homophobia would be neutralized here in the US to some extent, although in the past this was common: brutal assaults, negligence, with-holding the right to work etc. The biggest issue I have to this day is the mistreatment of homosexuals-thinking they are a disease that needs to be cured, and the only way to accomplish this is the killing of innocent people. Now these ideas and the mistreatment of homosexuals have stopped here in the US, but what about outside the US? Do people still hold these warped, misguided and savaged principles? Apparently so!
Young boys and men are brutally murdered and condemned by the church and more importantly the church. A subculture of gay society has been allowed to flourish in Baghdad because Iraq has become Democratic, but this newly found culture has been dealt a blow which as of right now seems that they cannot recover from. Sadri City has been the focal point of these attacks, for within the past 2 months there have been about twenty-five deaths, and attached to the bodies was a note with the word “pervert” written in Arabic. There was one man named Basim who recalls, “Three of my closest friends have been killed during the past two weeks alone. They had been planning to go to a café away from Sadri City because we don’t feel safe here, but they killed them on the way. I had planned to go with them but fortunately I didn’t go.” I feel that the chaos, the destruction of life and families has moved across the Atlantic and into the Middle East, but the odd thing is nowhere is safe-families won’t protect their own sons because of hatred.
However, because of this new subculture that’s risen the streets of Sadri City are changing drastically. There are some like Basim who wear their hair long, ears pierced which is uncommon for Iraqi males, and some wear white makeup to make their skin look lighter, which is apparently a popular look for gay men in Sadri. Since two years have passed now women walk the streets unveiled-wearing dresses above their knees and more people have started to actually go out at night. In light of this there is animosity, hatred and religious persecutions not only by the community but their own families, thus the state has created a death squad to—handle the situation. The recent spate of violence has seemed aimed at more openly gay men rather than homosexuals in general. Yet the Clerics of Sadri City have begun to bring about the wrath of god on gay men. “Homosexuality is against the law and it’s disgusting”, said Lt. Muthana Shaad who for the past four months has taken the role to “campaign to clean up the streets and get the beggars and homosexuals off of them.” To ensure they do their job the young gay men are constantly harassed and badgered by in the police to ensure they “can’t get together in a coffee shop or walk together in the street.” This whole idea of cleaning up the streets of homosexual filth is so frustrating. Why must we create laws to subjugate others-hatred, discrimination, racism, homophobia and Murder! Why do we create these laws, why?!
Here's the Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middleeast/08gay.html?_r=2&ref=world
Young boys and men are brutally murdered and condemned by the church and more importantly the church. A subculture of gay society has been allowed to flourish in Baghdad because Iraq has become Democratic, but this newly found culture has been dealt a blow which as of right now seems that they cannot recover from. Sadri City has been the focal point of these attacks, for within the past 2 months there have been about twenty-five deaths, and attached to the bodies was a note with the word “pervert” written in Arabic. There was one man named Basim who recalls, “Three of my closest friends have been killed during the past two weeks alone. They had been planning to go to a café away from Sadri City because we don’t feel safe here, but they killed them on the way. I had planned to go with them but fortunately I didn’t go.” I feel that the chaos, the destruction of life and families has moved across the Atlantic and into the Middle East, but the odd thing is nowhere is safe-families won’t protect their own sons because of hatred.
However, because of this new subculture that’s risen the streets of Sadri City are changing drastically. There are some like Basim who wear their hair long, ears pierced which is uncommon for Iraqi males, and some wear white makeup to make their skin look lighter, which is apparently a popular look for gay men in Sadri. Since two years have passed now women walk the streets unveiled-wearing dresses above their knees and more people have started to actually go out at night. In light of this there is animosity, hatred and religious persecutions not only by the community but their own families, thus the state has created a death squad to—handle the situation. The recent spate of violence has seemed aimed at more openly gay men rather than homosexuals in general. Yet the Clerics of Sadri City have begun to bring about the wrath of god on gay men. “Homosexuality is against the law and it’s disgusting”, said Lt. Muthana Shaad who for the past four months has taken the role to “campaign to clean up the streets and get the beggars and homosexuals off of them.” To ensure they do their job the young gay men are constantly harassed and badgered by in the police to ensure they “can’t get together in a coffee shop or walk together in the street.” This whole idea of cleaning up the streets of homosexual filth is so frustrating. Why must we create laws to subjugate others-hatred, discrimination, racism, homophobia and Murder! Why do we create these laws, why?!
Here's the Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middleeast/08gay.html?_r=2&ref=world
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama and Immigration policies--good or bad?
President Obama has recognized the need to deal with illegal immigration. He has plans on helping illegal immigrants become legal; he also has plans to place more federal agents on the border, and to increase technology to help prevente illegall immigration; but he and his director of intergovernmental affairs (Cecilia Muñoz) don't beleive in the continued consutruction of a 670 mile fence along the mexican border.
Rasmussen Reports national survery, has reported that the majority of american citizens want the fence up. This fence I beleive is esstional in a number of things, not just preventing illegall immigration. Having this 670 mile fence along the mexican border would help crack down on drug trafficking. Many drugs are smugglled across the mexican border and brought into the US. Placing this fence up will either prevent or delay these drug cartels. They would need to cut through the fence, thus the US border patrol can gain an idea on where they will be border jumping and enforce there.
This fence is also essential to illegal immigrants crossing the border. Right now the US is in a recession and the last thing we need is illegal immigrants coming over and taking american jobs. Times are also tuff in mexico, and a reported increase of illegal immigrants are trying to get into America. I believe Obama and his administration should continue the building of the fence, and re-take a look at border patrol.
Rasmussen Reports national survery, has reported that the majority of american citizens want the fence up. This fence I beleive is esstional in a number of things, not just preventing illegall immigration. Having this 670 mile fence along the mexican border would help crack down on drug trafficking. Many drugs are smugglled across the mexican border and brought into the US. Placing this fence up will either prevent or delay these drug cartels. They would need to cut through the fence, thus the US border patrol can gain an idea on where they will be border jumping and enforce there.
This fence is also essential to illegal immigrants crossing the border. Right now the US is in a recession and the last thing we need is illegal immigrants coming over and taking american jobs. Times are also tuff in mexico, and a reported increase of illegal immigrants are trying to get into America. I believe Obama and his administration should continue the building of the fence, and re-take a look at border patrol.
Human Rights Activists: Dying Trying
In October of 2006, Human Rights groups in Russia were shut down under a new public policy, a NGO law came into effect, but why?
Amnesty International reports that a Human Rights Activist was killed 1 April, 2009. In the report it goes as far to say that this is not an odd occurrence to happen in Russia, that in fact most of the time, killings go unreported, 'The silence here it says is equivalence to condoning them,' (Amnesty International). When Lev Ponomarev, a Human Rights activist, spoke out against these killings in 2008, a group of young adults, seemingly working for the Russian Parliament, attacked him.
The Committee to Protect Journalists writes, however, the killings and beatings do not stop. Not only are Human rights Groups being shut down for promoting the safety and welfare of citizens globally, those involved in these groups are trying to be shut up. Lev Ponomarev has been beaten again, and not just beaten, brutally attacked. International Human Rights Groups have been contacted including Amnesty International, Freedom House, Frontline Defenders, as well as others, bring President Obama, and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to meet in London.
News from that will hopefully bring a beginning to an end of such a horrible world-wide phenomenon.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Obama on Afhganistan & Pakistan
Since Friday when President Obama announced his strategy to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan it seems everyone has a comment about it. Breifly, Obama speaks about many of the issues going on here, the most obvious and important, the safety of the people in the United States.
According to CNN the sums of Obamas strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan is "more troops, new legislation, improved training and added civilian expertise." I feel we do need more time there to create stability because if we left right now, in the near future there would be another attack on the U.S. As President Obama exspressed we did not start this war, the attacks in New York did. We lost way to many people to not continue to stop this war completly now.
Proving that there are attacks being planned as speak, Obama said there are "Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan." Targeting these "safe havens" is what the United States needs to do and is currently planning to do.
One of the things that Obama pointed out and expressed is that he says it is key Americans understand that Pakistan needs "our help" against Al-Queda. This is another key reason on why we need our troops there. If Al-Queda gets the means they want and are not stopped, it will be complete chaos and non-stop killing. I hope things work out as planned because i am hopeful for the troops, our country and our new President.
According to CNN the sums of Obamas strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan is "more troops, new legislation, improved training and added civilian expertise." I feel we do need more time there to create stability because if we left right now, in the near future there would be another attack on the U.S. As President Obama exspressed we did not start this war, the attacks in New York did. We lost way to many people to not continue to stop this war completly now.
Proving that there are attacks being planned as speak, Obama said there are "Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan." Targeting these "safe havens" is what the United States needs to do and is currently planning to do.
One of the things that Obama pointed out and expressed is that he says it is key Americans understand that Pakistan needs "our help" against Al-Queda. This is another key reason on why we need our troops there. If Al-Queda gets the means they want and are not stopped, it will be complete chaos and non-stop killing. I hope things work out as planned because i am hopeful for the troops, our country and our new President.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Minor Parties and Election Laws
When Hillary Clinton left the US Senate to assume her role as Secretary of State, Gov. David Paterson of NY appointed Representative Kristen Gillibrand to be Clinton's replacement in the Senate. In order to fill Gillibrand's empty House seat, a special election was called for New Yorks 20th congressional district.
The Democrat and Republican parties quickly found candidates and began their campaigns, while Libertarian hopeful Eric Sundwall sent out scores of volunteers to collect the 3500 signatures needed to appear on the ballot; a daunting task even during a normal election cycle. In 2006 Sundwall collected 5200 signatures in 6 weeks for the same seat only to have almost half of them thrown out bringing him 690 short of the 3500 needed to be on the ballot. In 2006, three people filed objections to his signatures and were represented by Tom Spargo.
This year, Sundwall was able to collect over 6700 signatures in ten days, nearly twice the number required to be on the ballot. And yet again, there were challenges to his signatures. Donald J. Neddo, and Laurie Kelly Sickles represented by John Ciampoli filed general challenges with the board of elections almost as soon as Sundwall filed them. A week later, specific challenges were filed, including those from Patricia Killian.
Things like signers claiming affiliation with a party they aren't registered as, putting their mailing address instead of their physical address, that the witnesses didn't actually see the person sign the petition or that dates and names were either wrong or unreadable.
Even the members of the board of elections noted that the overly technical requirements are unfair but that they couldn't do anything about it.
In all, Sundwall found himself over 500 signatures short of being allowed on the ballot. But, being that the election is less than a week away, the Board of Elections recommendation to take him off the ballot is probably too late. Sundwall's name is already on many absentee ballots that have been sent to New Yorkers overseas, in the military and elsewhere. In fact, even if they vote for Sundwall on these ballots, their votes will be considered void.
It seems a little extreme to void a vote simply because the person they voted for came up short, just barely, of the requirements for a third party petition, but still had enough valid signatures for if he were a member of one of the two major parties. Why can't the Board of Elections just take votes for him as what they are or even write-ins? Why can't a well informed voter who happens to be away from home have to have his constitutional right to vote thrown to the wayside because the ballot was sent out with one too many names.
The other concern I have with this whole thing is that the lawyers who represented the challengers in both cases have been high profile Republican lawyers. In this years case, Mr. Ciampoli is a legal consul to the state Senate Republican Campaign Committee. One of the challengers to Sundwall's petitions, Patricia Killian is the Dutchess County Conservative Party Chairwoman. In 2006 it was Sweeny's long embattled attorney Tom Spargo who represented challengers to Sundwall's signatures.
Although Jim Tedisco, the Republican candidate for the seat, has said he is was not involved with the challenges, it seems that the Republican party itself is afraid of any third-party candidate who may "steal" votes away their camp. Although Libertarian candidates travel a path closer towards a mix between Democrats and Republicans, their message of smaller government and deregulation speaks clearly to conservatives who would typically join the ranks of the Republicans.
A bill written 11 years ago, which would have the number of signatures needed to run for congress dropped from 3500 to 1200 and extending the time to obtain them has been sitting around collecting dust. Had this bill passed, people like Sundwall could be spending more time and money on campaigning rather than on expensive legal battles just to get their names on ballots. The last action on the bill was in January, where it was "referred to election law" for the umpteenth time.
Not only does this stalling keep minor party candidates off of ballots, but it is a slap in the face to the principles that this country has been founded on. The major parties keep trying to stop competition in order to save votes for themselves, but in reality they are only stifling new ideas.
The Democrat and Republican parties quickly found candidates and began their campaigns, while Libertarian hopeful Eric Sundwall sent out scores of volunteers to collect the 3500 signatures needed to appear on the ballot; a daunting task even during a normal election cycle. In 2006 Sundwall collected 5200 signatures in 6 weeks for the same seat only to have almost half of them thrown out bringing him 690 short of the 3500 needed to be on the ballot. In 2006, three people filed objections to his signatures and were represented by Tom Spargo.
This year, Sundwall was able to collect over 6700 signatures in ten days, nearly twice the number required to be on the ballot. And yet again, there were challenges to his signatures. Donald J. Neddo, and Laurie Kelly Sickles represented by John Ciampoli filed general challenges with the board of elections almost as soon as Sundwall filed them. A week later, specific challenges were filed, including those from Patricia Killian.
Things like signers claiming affiliation with a party they aren't registered as, putting their mailing address instead of their physical address, that the witnesses didn't actually see the person sign the petition or that dates and names were either wrong or unreadable.
Even the members of the board of elections noted that the overly technical requirements are unfair but that they couldn't do anything about it.
In all, Sundwall found himself over 500 signatures short of being allowed on the ballot. But, being that the election is less than a week away, the Board of Elections recommendation to take him off the ballot is probably too late. Sundwall's name is already on many absentee ballots that have been sent to New Yorkers overseas, in the military and elsewhere. In fact, even if they vote for Sundwall on these ballots, their votes will be considered void.
It seems a little extreme to void a vote simply because the person they voted for came up short, just barely, of the requirements for a third party petition, but still had enough valid signatures for if he were a member of one of the two major parties. Why can't the Board of Elections just take votes for him as what they are or even write-ins? Why can't a well informed voter who happens to be away from home have to have his constitutional right to vote thrown to the wayside because the ballot was sent out with one too many names.
The other concern I have with this whole thing is that the lawyers who represented the challengers in both cases have been high profile Republican lawyers. In this years case, Mr. Ciampoli is a legal consul to the state Senate Republican Campaign Committee. One of the challengers to Sundwall's petitions, Patricia Killian is the Dutchess County Conservative Party Chairwoman. In 2006 it was Sweeny's long embattled attorney Tom Spargo who represented challengers to Sundwall's signatures.
Although Jim Tedisco, the Republican candidate for the seat, has said he is was not involved with the challenges, it seems that the Republican party itself is afraid of any third-party candidate who may "steal" votes away their camp. Although Libertarian candidates travel a path closer towards a mix between Democrats and Republicans, their message of smaller government and deregulation speaks clearly to conservatives who would typically join the ranks of the Republicans.
A bill written 11 years ago, which would have the number of signatures needed to run for congress dropped from 3500 to 1200 and extending the time to obtain them has been sitting around collecting dust. Had this bill passed, people like Sundwall could be spending more time and money on campaigning rather than on expensive legal battles just to get their names on ballots. The last action on the bill was in January, where it was "referred to election law" for the umpteenth time.
Not only does this stalling keep minor party candidates off of ballots, but it is a slap in the face to the principles that this country has been founded on. The major parties keep trying to stop competition in order to save votes for themselves, but in reality they are only stifling new ideas.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Current Spending Bill
Recently the United State congress passed a $410 Billion spending bill to cover the remainder of the budget for the fiscal year. The current plan has a lot built into it but I'm not here to talk about the bills "meat." I wish to center my talks around the $8 billion worth of earmarks as well as earmarks in general.
Earmarks, also called pork barrel legislation, are provisions within a bill that give $$ to certain states or organizations to fund side projects. This is where most of the money each state receives and spends to rebuild roads as well as bridges. This money also goes to rebuild and fund schools. Having read the article I quickly realized that former Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has not fizzled away, in fact he hasn't gone anywhere. He made a remark something to the effect of "If the President wants to deliver on his message of change, he'll veto this bill. But he won't." John McCain, a prominent figure in the Republican Party (despite his middle of the road values), has always been against earmarks as long as I can remember and he is calling for President Obama to veto this bill because of the $8 billion slotted for earmarks. John McCain is not alone in his stand against earmarks as I've heard opposition from many Republicans notable former Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin, former MA governor Mitt Romney, current Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal just to name a few.
I have become fed up with the "say everything do nothing" Republican party. A party that claims to look out for everyone but who leave the little guy in the dust. This is eveident again with the Republican outcry against earmark lesgislation, yet without it states who rely on that $$ for infrastructure would not be able to fund their schools for a better educated group of young people nor would they be able to properly rebuild their roads to make travel and traffic less of a hassel.
I have the utmost respect for John McCain. He served our nation with honor and should be commended for it. But I can't stand behind him in his aliance with the outdated ideals of the Republican Party and his call for a permenant stop on all earmarks. I wish sometime a spending bill will come forward and there is an earmark in there giving Arizona money to help rebuild some roads and help with schools. I want John McCain to know that bill has the $$ in it and see if he'll still call for it to be removed. I guarentee you John McCain would not ask for it's removal simply because he's getting the money. Earmarks are not always bad (granted some things are not necessary) but to call for a permenant end to all earmarks is rediculous.
Earmarks, also called pork barrel legislation, are provisions within a bill that give $$ to certain states or organizations to fund side projects. This is where most of the money each state receives and spends to rebuild roads as well as bridges. This money also goes to rebuild and fund schools. Having read the article I quickly realized that former Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has not fizzled away, in fact he hasn't gone anywhere. He made a remark something to the effect of "If the President wants to deliver on his message of change, he'll veto this bill. But he won't." John McCain, a prominent figure in the Republican Party (despite his middle of the road values), has always been against earmarks as long as I can remember and he is calling for President Obama to veto this bill because of the $8 billion slotted for earmarks. John McCain is not alone in his stand against earmarks as I've heard opposition from many Republicans notable former Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin, former MA governor Mitt Romney, current Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal just to name a few.
I have become fed up with the "say everything do nothing" Republican party. A party that claims to look out for everyone but who leave the little guy in the dust. This is eveident again with the Republican outcry against earmark lesgislation, yet without it states who rely on that $$ for infrastructure would not be able to fund their schools for a better educated group of young people nor would they be able to properly rebuild their roads to make travel and traffic less of a hassel.
I have the utmost respect for John McCain. He served our nation with honor and should be commended for it. But I can't stand behind him in his aliance with the outdated ideals of the Republican Party and his call for a permenant stop on all earmarks. I wish sometime a spending bill will come forward and there is an earmark in there giving Arizona money to help rebuild some roads and help with schools. I want John McCain to know that bill has the $$ in it and see if he'll still call for it to be removed. I guarentee you John McCain would not ask for it's removal simply because he's getting the money. Earmarks are not always bad (granted some things are not necessary) but to call for a permenant end to all earmarks is rediculous.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Politics, Sports, and the Economy
I am writing this blog regarding a story that broke in the media around February 27 of this year. Jim Calhoun, the men's basketball coach at the University of Conneticut was recently asked if he felt that due to the size of the state budget, if he should consider a pay cut or giving some of his salary back to the state. It should be noted that Calhoun is the highest paid state employee. David Zirin believes, " this is a time where the belts need to be tighten across the board." He states that the Conn. Governer is taking furlows to save a few cents on the margins of the state budget, Calhoun should also do his part. Fox news analysis, Juan Williams, feels that Calhoun should keep his money due to the level of success and income brought into Uconn by Calhoun's consistently national champion contending team. A debate between Williams and Zirin can be seen here, http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=3940603 . Lets look at the numbers.
Calhoun makes $1.6 million per season coaching the UConn Huskies men's basketball team. Last year the team brought in $12 million dollars "to the University", Cahoun says goes back to the college. However, Zirin is quick to point out that although Calhoun's team does generate that income, that money stays solely within the athletic dept. and does not help to aid with proffessor salaries, financial aid to students, or other collegiate necessities. The question then remains, does the outcome of winning a few basketball games justify paying a state employee $1.6 million per year?
Another aspect of this controversie is the arrogance Calhoun exhibited during the press conference in which his rant took place. He is heard telling the reporter, "the best thing you can do right now is shut up." He also states, "not a dime back", when asked about his salary and the impending state debt and mortgage crisis. the entire thing can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xokthY5zuPU.
Do our athletes and coaches make too much money? The question is all over the media and the internet, yet policy makers and government seem to do little if anything about it. In addition, although some athletic franchises are seeing dips in attendance, top teams still are selling out stadiums nationwide. Is it hypocritical that we complain about their salaries, yet spend big money at the box office to aid and abet in the paying of their wages? I think it all comes down to values within American culture. When our President takes time out of his schedule to discuss the situation within Collegiate football and a tournament system, or to address the nation during a superbowl pregame show, it is obvious where our cultural interest lie. We are a nation, like it or not, obessed with athletics and entertainment. And until the turnstiles stop spinning and the tickets stop selling, i expect to see no changes in the salaries made and the contracts signed.
Calhoun makes $1.6 million per season coaching the UConn Huskies men's basketball team. Last year the team brought in $12 million dollars "to the University", Cahoun says goes back to the college. However, Zirin is quick to point out that although Calhoun's team does generate that income, that money stays solely within the athletic dept. and does not help to aid with proffessor salaries, financial aid to students, or other collegiate necessities. The question then remains, does the outcome of winning a few basketball games justify paying a state employee $1.6 million per year?
Another aspect of this controversie is the arrogance Calhoun exhibited during the press conference in which his rant took place. He is heard telling the reporter, "the best thing you can do right now is shut up." He also states, "not a dime back", when asked about his salary and the impending state debt and mortgage crisis. the entire thing can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xokthY5zuPU.
Do our athletes and coaches make too much money? The question is all over the media and the internet, yet policy makers and government seem to do little if anything about it. In addition, although some athletic franchises are seeing dips in attendance, top teams still are selling out stadiums nationwide. Is it hypocritical that we complain about their salaries, yet spend big money at the box office to aid and abet in the paying of their wages? I think it all comes down to values within American culture. When our President takes time out of his schedule to discuss the situation within Collegiate football and a tournament system, or to address the nation during a superbowl pregame show, it is obvious where our cultural interest lie. We are a nation, like it or not, obessed with athletics and entertainment. And until the turnstiles stop spinning and the tickets stop selling, i expect to see no changes in the salaries made and the contracts signed.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
President Barack Obama's Speech to Congress
I put this blog off until now so that I could write about Barack Obama's speech to congress. Our President showed us one of the most important reasons he was elected; his brilliant ability to connect to his audience. He followed up his delivery with context that tackled the largest issue currently facing our nation; the weak economy.
He began by defending the financial stability plan saying that he would hold "the banks accountable for the assistance they receive". He also reassured that this is something that he would not like to do but if nothing was done the problem would have become worse and continued over a longer period of time. To address the problem the President called for massive reforms on our regulatory systems of the banking industry, reforms that "rewards drive and innovation and punish shortcuts and abuse”. But he conceded that the recovery plan financial stability plan were only short term solutions to our problems.
The president’s speech also looked at securing our nations long-term future, focusing on four main idea's; improving education, eliminating our current debt, reducing health care cost and producing our own renewable energy.
Our president asked that "every American commit to at least one year or more of higher education". The basic idea is that we need to better our education and its structure because other country's that out-teach our country today, will out-perform us tomorrow. This struck me as a breath of fresh air. It feels good to see our President focusing on issues that WILL help our country's future. He acknowledged the high price of tuition and announced that if you were willing to volunteer in your community or for your country that education will be available for you.
The President also said that he planned on reducing our nation’s debt by ending no bid contracts in Iraq, reforming tax codes to remove "breaks that reward corporations that ship our jobs overseas" all while giving tax breaks to 95% of 'working America'. He said that he has already found ways to reduce spending by 2 trillion dollars over the next decade by going through the nation’s budget “line by line”. He also announced that he is going to announce a plan to "leave Iraq to its people and responsibly end the war " and that under his administration he will not hide the cost of the war.
Health care was clearly an important issue in his speech. He made it clear that our current system is bogging down our business and hurting our economy. He announced he wanted to reform health care, to make moving jobs and industry out of our country less appealing.
He announced that within his stimulus plan there was a focus on developing renewable energy, which would end our dependence on foreign oil and create American jobs. This is an issue which I feel is very important. I believe that if Americans could find an alternative renewable energy source, it would not only cut our energy costs but we could even create a technology in which we could make money off of. (Exporting the energy and teaching others how to use/create it) We could save along with make money off of finding new energy source.
I believe the president’s speech was straight to the point and reassuring. He expressed his ideas clearly and effectively. One strong message he made is that our current problems are not democratic or republican issues but American issues. I believe that this is where his speech can connect to our own class but maybe not in the traditional way of differences. I believe that it his speech showed the parties similarities. Even though the two parties may disagree on specific issues, both parties are still looking to create a better America. Members of both parties may have slightly different methods but both are trying to protect and shape the country they love. I believe he did a great of uniting the parties while trying to create a larger vision of a stronger and more dynamic America.
Monday, February 23, 2009
75 billion dollar housing plan
"While still voluntary, the program contains a mix of carrots and sticks for mortgage servicers and investors, both of whom have been seen as resistant to modifying loans. The program would not only give servicers $1,000 for each modification, but would give them another $1,000 a year for three years if the borrower stays current. It will also give $500 to servicers and $1,500 to mortgage holders if they modify at-risk loans before the borrower falls behind." ( "Obama: Aid 9 million homeowners", Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer)
An interesting cash incentive to loan providers to help out the average hard working American home-owner. I found this artical to be an easy to understand lay out of a very intriguing plan. It also laid out a part of the plan that included changing the bankruptcy law to include allowing judges to change and adjust mortgage loans. I think Obama is providing step by step, however small they may be, beneficial changes to the country to allow the government to help save us in our weak economic state, rather than smother us into personal financial failure.
An interesting cash incentive to loan providers to help out the average hard working American home-owner. I found this artical to be an easy to understand lay out of a very intriguing plan. It also laid out a part of the plan that included changing the bankruptcy law to include allowing judges to change and adjust mortgage loans. I think Obama is providing step by step, however small they may be, beneficial changes to the country to allow the government to help save us in our weak economic state, rather than smother us into personal financial failure.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Blog Schedule
Your post should be up by Thursday of the week you are scheduled for.
2/16-------------------3/30
Malachy--------------Kaitlyn
Chuck----------------Chuck
Tracie---------------Kerry
2/23 –-----------------4/6
Jackie----------------Ben O
Daniel C--------------Chris B
Ben O-----------------Tracie
3/2 -------------------4/13
Whitney---------------Kaitlyn
Ben D-----------------Ben D
Dan M-----------------Chris B
3/9 -------------------4/20
Jackie-----------------Dan M
Jane-------------------Jane
Chris S----------------Chris S
3/23 -------------------4/27
Whitney ----------------Kerry
Daniel C----------------Tracie
Malachy
2/16-------------------3/30
Malachy--------------Kaitlyn
Chuck----------------Chuck
Tracie---------------Kerry
2/23 –-----------------4/6
Jackie----------------Ben O
Daniel C--------------Chris B
Ben O-----------------Tracie
3/2 -------------------4/13
Whitney---------------Kaitlyn
Ben D-----------------Ben D
Dan M-----------------Chris B
3/9 -------------------4/20
Jackie-----------------Dan M
Jane-------------------Jane
Chris S----------------Chris S
3/23 -------------------4/27
Whitney ----------------Kerry
Daniel C----------------Tracie
Malachy
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Political Parties and their role in government regarding specifically the E.U. in comparison with the U.S.
The greatest part of political parties is their role in government. Every political party has many strengths and weaknesses that make them strong or weak; recognized or ignored. The United States shows that political parties all have their place in government. Whether in the majority party where there is a shared power between the Republicans and the Democrats where power is cycled through both or part of the minority parties including the Green Party or the Libertarian Party every seems to have their own role.
The same can be said about European politics. Although there's some stigma with European politics in regards to the European Union as there is with every new rising power, but there are also great attributes that make the E.U. strong. For example, although the E.U. is undergoing some kinks in the machine there are those who are trying to make an effort to help new States easily transition into the Union. Interest groups and political parties across borders are trying to help each other economically, environmentally, and socially. With a wide variety of Interest groups and political party, the E.U. is able to cover a lot of ground. The great part is there are a lot of issues to be discussed and a lot of variety of techniques from cross cultural borders to help deal with these issues. The downside is that with so many issues being bombarded at the same time, there might be an overload of information and most of the issues might not get accomplished or even discussed. For more information about the different interest groups in the European Union visit the link below.
Comparatively speaking there are several different groups in the U.S. who are also making an effort to help groups and States transition successfully into the Union. There was a great piece out together in 2001 put together by the American Institute that discusses this precise transition. By explaining the development of the E.U., as well as the policies, and the technological aspects behind the E.U. One the most important parts for new political experiments to be a success, is by receiving criticism and comments from other democracies to help. Also, they devolve into how political parties within these democracies can help by publishing work that can be used as a guide, as well as creating relationships based on diplomacy. For more information, visit the link below.
Finally, when discussing the E.U. on top of relying on diplomacy of other interest groups, political parties internationally; understanding the mechanics behind the roles of interest groups, political parties; as well as understanding that the interest groups, political parties are trying to make a real difference this detaches some of the original stigma behind the E.U. From 2000-2003 interest groups among the E.U. set several goals involving security, economic resolutions, and rural development. It's in these way that political parties and interest groups are able to make their mark in policy. People want change; Interest groups push for change and through their implementations legislature can be passed and that is how stigma turns from passive to positive in development.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Welcome Spring 2009 Class!
Welcome to our blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting!
A few rules to follow:
1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!
2. No jerks.
3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.
4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.
Now--get blogging!
A few rules to follow:
1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!
2. No jerks.
3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.
4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.
Now--get blogging!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)