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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)