Sentinel in Iran

The Iranian Government claimed to have shot down an incredibly sophisticated RQ-170 Sentinel drone, apparently without little to no damage.  The drone a top secret piece of military hardware and is credited with conducting surveillance of the infamous bin Laden compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan in the weeks leading up to the Seal Team Six raid of the house.  While little is known of the actual capabilities of the drone, military experts believe the drone has real-time streaming video and advanced stealth technology.  It is obviously of great importance to American surveillance missions across the globe, and the loss of the drone could prove problematic, especially if there is a successful effort to reverse-engineer components of the drone.  I'll speak more to that later.

A reasonable person would expect significant damage of a drone shot down if it was flying at 50,000 feet.  If you are suspicious of the apparently mint condition of the Sentinel, good for you.  You should be.  The Department of Defense acknowledges they "lost" a drone in the area on December 4, but the spokesman claims it was not shot down.  One could imagine an Iranian hacking scheme where they possibly took control of the craft and landed it themselves.  Of course, a hacking scheme would likely rely on the premise the Iranians knew the craft was there in the first place.  A drone of that size flying at 50,000 feet at approximately 500 miles per hour, equipped with stealth technology would presumably be nearly impossible to detect.  Which leads me to my point.  I think the American Government intentionally "lost" this craft.

The Iranians are obviously engaged in efforts to dull the edge of the American military, and one of the best ways they can accomplish that goal is to improve their own military technology.  And voila, they receive a RQ-170 Sentinel drone, and flaunt it to the world.  The American government at first gives quiet hints that the drone pictured on Iranian television is the real deal, and today President Obama asked for the Iranians to return the drone.  All the while, the Iranians are likely spending an incredible amount of resources trying to reverse engineer this craft.  They are mapping dimensions, acquiring chemical makeups of different materials, replicating electrical components, etc.  End the end, their efforts will prove futile, because the craft is a fake, at least in my view.  The phony craft was probably intentionally flown over Iran with the end purpose being the Iranians would hack into the systems to take control of the drone.  Think of it as a modern day Trojan Horse, without the little men inside of it trying to kill everyone.  Instead, the purpose is to force the Iranians to spend vast amounts of money and man power to replicate this drone that will never work as advertised.

Of course, this whole idea could be completely wrong.  The Iranians really could have the drone.  But my explanation is just as plausible, and explains why the drone seems to be largely intact, and why the American Government has been so nonchalant about recovering this valuable piece of national security.

My Choice for the Nominee is....

Through countless debates, numerous hours sifting through written and spoken positions, and through many more  hours of personal reflection, I have decided on a candidate I am going to support in the Republican field.  While this is not an endorsement in any way of the Republican Party, which is an establishment I loathe nearly as much as the Democrat Party, I have found a candidate who I think could:

1) Beat President Obama
2) Solve our Debt Crisis
3) Scale Back our War and Military Spending
4) Limit the Capacity of Big Banks to Ruin the Economy
5) Lead

I am going to support Jon Huntsman in the race to be president.  To be straightforward, Mitch Daniels (as my governor) was my first choice, but since he didn't run I had to make adjustments.  Ron Paul finished second on my list, but I will show you why I think Huntsman is a better choice for President.  I know that Huntsman is polling pretty terribly nationwide, and this "endorsement" (is it really an endorsement if you have no influence?) isn't likely to spur any additional interest into his campaign, but I suppose we all have to start somewhere.  I know in an earlier post I stated that Huntsman shouldn't be at the debates because of poor polling numbers.  I'd like to retract that statement, mainly because I think he is such a strong candidate.  I will also put the "Jon Huntsman is a liberal" myth to rest, based on Huntsman's record and campaign platform.  I think Huntsman scares the Republican establishment because of some of his common-sense ideas, and I think that's a great thing.

Let's have a brief overview of the other candidates in the field and why they will fall short against Obama.

Mitt Romney: No one knows what he actually believes.  He will say anything and everything to get elected.
Newt Gingrich: His two former wives couldn't trust him...  why should we?  His great debate performances and occasional brilliance will be offset by enormous personal baggage.  House ethics trials... etc.
Rick Perry:  He is a worse public speaker than W, and has lost much of his fundraising base after inexcusable, embarrassing gaffes.
Michelle Bachmann:  She says crazy things.....
Rick Santorum: Running as a social conservative when the number one priority to Americans is the economy is just terrible campaign strategy.
Ron Paul: He finished a close second for my choice.  Libertarians might have their day, but not in 2012.  When he talks about the Fed, people want to listen, but he's too smart for most.

With a candidate pool full of people who have numerous personal and positional flaws, Jon Huntsman stands out as the lone (besides Ron Paul) candidate who is running on a record, and not away from it.  For example, while cutting taxes and tripling the state's "rainy day fund", Utah was ranked as the nation's best managed state.  Competitive tax codes allowed Utah to lead the nation in percentage of jobs created while Huntsman was governor.  He provides market driven solutions towards job and wealth creation, not government-centric "solutions."  He plans to overhaul the tax code by lowering overall rates to 23% for top wage-earners, 14% for middle earners, and 8% for the lowest wage earners.  By eliminating tax loopholes and write-offs, this plan reduces overall rates while remains deficit-neutral.  While corporations in the United States are currently taxed among the highest in the industrialized world, Huntsman would lower that rate to 25%.  While again eliminating loopholes, multi-billion dollar companies such as GE would actually have a tax bill and contribute towards footing our massive federal funding requirements.  The simplification of the tax code, by some estimates, could save up to $400 billion alone in efficiency increases.

One of the greatest possibilities for job growth in America is through our domestic energy sector.  Just look what at the successes of North Dakota and Texas , where recent oil discoveries has led to an environment where companies are literally not able find enough workers to meet their needs.  These jobs are certainly "shovel ready" and the laborer are paid great wages.  It's a slam-dunk way to get our country out of this stubborn recession.  Increasing our access to energy sources at home lessens our need on foreign oil, namely from Middle Eastern nations who actively work against American interests.  Keeping money here in the United States keeps wealth out of the hands nations who really don't like us, and is tantamount for impeding the ability of foreign countries to influence American energy policy.  I know, some of my environmentalist friends are saying "We're going to run out of oil eventually" or "what about protecting our other resources?"  To this, I have to say that I am the proverbial "all of the above type guy".  Renewable energy sources are clearly not where they need to be in order to provide for American energy needs.  The fear of running out of carbon-based fuels is no reason not to use them now.  Our economic recovery and standard of living requires access to low-cost energy sources.  Those renewable sources may very well be the answer in 40 years, but not now.  Of course, that isn't to stay we shouldn't stop our investment in the technology and future developments, but we should stop federal subsidies in deployments of these technologies in the near term.  They simply aren't cost effective.  Markets do a remarkably good job at determining prices, and America can not maximize its success while subsidizing multiple energy sources.  While these subsidies, in my view, need to end, so too must the regulations that prevent us from using our energy sources.  In basic "supply and demand" terms, the regulations create an artificial shortage of supply by limiting our access to the resources, thus artificially inflating prices.  Anyway, enough of my speak, back to Huntsman.

While Jon Huntsman has had obvious success as a Governor, he has also been named the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore (the youngest U.S. Ambassador in nearly 100 years) and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for trade development, commerce for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.  And, while serving as Governor of Utah, he answered President Obama's call to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to China, arguably the most important ambassadorship in our day.  Huntsman has demonstrated he can put country ahead of politics, a virtue oftentimes lacking in Washington, D.C.  His experiences in the international relations arena is great indication he can handle the pressures of the Oval Office as required by the Commander-in-Chief.  He can use those negotiating skills to avoid future military engagements, except for when absolutely necessary. My generation has taken more than its fair share in hits from current military engagements in terms of lives and treasure lost.  I'm certainly not keen on seeing the next generation of Americans suffering from unnecessary interventions.  Huntsman also has plans reorganize our armed forces, something I'd like additional clarification upon.  In a dream world, our federal budget obligation to the Pentagon will lightened by prioritizing more divisions like "Seal Team 6", where small, fast, stealthy military groups can be used to take out priority targets if need be, without the risk of occupying a nation for 10 years with hundreds of thousands of troops.  While this reorganization will prioritize efficiency over excesses, our military will still remain the strongest in the world, allowing for continued security and the ability to promote American ideals.

The economic crisis we are still struggling with today was created by a confluence of things, but namely because of the housing bust.  Once the housing bubble popped, so did big banks, and we feel the effects of it today.  One of the many reasons the impact has had such a long-lasting effect is because large financial institutions hold a disproportionate amount of wealth.  Lehman Brothers went prior to its collapse, the firm had approximately $275 billion dollars under its management.  Currently, several of the large banking institutions hold a higher dollar amount than Lehman did at its peak.  If one of these banks fail today, the federal government will again have to step in for a bail out, or risk another prolonged economic meltdown.  If an institution can have such a devastating effect on the economy, it simply should not be allowed to exist.  Huntsman has pledged to end this madness by stating on numerous occasions, "Too big to fail means too big to exist."  The risk placed on the shoulders of the American people outweighs the right of these companies to exist in a free market arena.  This is one area where the federal government should have the authority to limit the ceiling on wealth for these mega-banks, to make sure potential future collapses do not again ruin the global economy.

Another reason I support Jon Huntsman is because he has lived an inspiring American Dream.  A high school dropout (who later received his G.E.D.), Huntsman spent his latter teenage years playing in a rock band.  Once those dreams lost their luster, he received a degree from Pennsylvania University.  Out of college he went on a two year mission trip and later worked for both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in capacities described earlier.  While ambassador, Huntsman oftentimes chose to forgo traditional motorcades and instead preferred to rides his bike from place to place, which gave him the opportunity to meet new people.  He served as as the Chairman of the Huntsman Corporation, a chemical company with current revenues of approximately 8 billion dollars.  That company currently employs approximately 12,000 employees.  Huntsman has a terrific family with 7 children.  Just think of all the jobs already created for the additional paparazzi needed to cover them!

So lets recap the reasons why Huntsman should be the nominee:
1.  He can beat Obama.  By pushing conservative principles and by lacking the baggage or kookiness of his fellow candidates, Huntsman can run an effective campaign of being the anti-Obama.  Private corporation experience, international relations experience, gubernatorial experience.  JOB CREATING EXPERIENCE!!  Our president has done a very good job at letting people know he did not create the financial crisis, but he has been far less vocal on acknowledging his mismanagement of it.  Huntsman is a proven leader, a quality our current president so obviously lacks. 
2. See the above.

American Foreign Policy

"Chaos in Cairo" is the title of an article on the Huffington Post as I write this post.  After the Obama Administration supported the uprising against and the removal of Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt, the Egyptian military intervened and formed a "temporary" government with Mohamed Hussein Tantawi Soliman as the new head of state.  Soliman is also the commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces, and his background is almost entirely based in the military.  The Egyptian military stepped in to temporarily fill the void left by the Mubarak government with promises to hold democratic elections in order to progress Egypt into a freer, more democratic state.  However, to date, the military has not seemed willing to part with this new found power.  So again, as we witnessed last January and February in Egypt, protesters are now #Occupying Tahrir Square in Cairo to demand freedom from oppression and for democratic elections. 

One would think the government of the United States would weigh all actions when deciding to support the ousting of a head of state of a sovereign nation.  "What will happen in the struggle for power when he/she leaves?"  "Who is going to take his/her place?"  "What are the chances that violence will erupt in the struggle for vacated power?"  These questions, although likely asked, were obviously not properly answered.  As in February, protesters in Egypt are being murdered by an oppressive government unwilling to cede the power they promised to give up when they gained said power.  The question to be asked is: Are Egyptians better off than they were eight months ago?"

This dilemma now faced by American foreign policy experts has been typical for the past 40 years or so.  Americans have a history of supporting rebels in various parts of the globe, without truly understanding the ramification of their actions, or what type of people they are supporting.

Here are some of the particularly troubling people/governments the United States has supported in the past few decades:

-Afghan Mujahideen (which included Osama bin Laden)
-Saddam Hussein
-The current government of Pakistan
-The interim Libyan government
-The interim Egyptian Government
-The King of Saudi Arabia
-Hamid Karzai

Many of the above people/governments do not openly support democratic processes, individual liberties, and/or work against American interests.  Time for America to reconsider its foreign policy options?  Probably.

A Rainy Day...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/politics/gerrymandering/index.html?iref=allsearch

"Why Your Vote for Congress Might Not Matter"

When I first read this headline on CNN, I thought, "what an irresponsible headline."  I mean, from our earliest exposures to civics in Elementary School were are taught that voting is an important part of our civic duty and our democratic process.  Then I read the content of the article and I realized how on-point the headline is.  If you read the article for yourself, good for you.  If you did not read it, then I will sum it up for you.

David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report estimates there are approximately 20 seats in the House of Representatives that are competitive in the upcoming election.  Yes, that's right.  20 out of 435, or about 4.5% of the seats in that legislative body.  All of the other seats are essentially "in the bag" for incumbent party (though not necessarily for the incumbent themselves).  In the past 10 years, approximately 78% (4 of 5) of the House of Representative seats never changed political parties once.  All of this is thanks to gerrymandering, a process by which political officials or appointees re-draw congressional districts based on their political interests.  This happens every ten years after states get updated population trends in their state from the Census.

Gerrymandering happens in a few different ways.  For example, in the state of Indiana, a Republican legislature drew maps to include predominately poor Black or Hispanic populations into two districts (Indianapolis and Gary), giving those districts a Democratic edge.  Consolidating those voting blocks into two districts theoretically gives Republicans the upper hand in surrounding rural and suburban areas because a large majority of those who might vote Democrat are confined to two Congressional districts.  Republicans also increased the rural area in a district containing Bloomington, a very liberal area.  The increased rural area is meant to counter the liberal influence of Bloomington voters.  In 2008, Democrats held 5 of 9 Congressional districts in Indiana.  My bet is in 2012, Republicans will hold 6 or 7 of 9 seats.

Another example comes to us from Illinois. Take a look at the 4th Congressional district in the greater Chicago area.

The 4th district is shaded in green.  This district is at some points only 100 yards wide, stretching only the width of a highway, to make sure the district is connected.  The Democratic state legislature drew this district to unite two predominately Hispanic populations.  The defense behind the "earmuffs district" is to give the Hispanics living in the Chicago area one district.  This one district would give Hispanics a greater voice in Congress by allowing them elect a representative that more closely represents their needs and wants.  Luis Gutierrez, the first Hispanic elected to Congress from the Midwest, is currently the Democratic representative from this district.

The following is a picture from Iowa, where a non-partisan citizen group draws the congressional boundaries every ten years.  This map reflects the newly drawn districts effective from 2012-2022.

See how this district different from the Illinois model?  Each district is comprised of whole counties, not counties broken up to fill political needs.  As mandated by the Supreme Court, each district contains approximately the same number of citizens as the next.  This was all accomplished without resorting to the politically charged redistricting seen in most other states, and likely will result in more competitive elections between parties.

I titled this post "A Rainy Day..." to reflect both the weather outside and the cynicism I am experiencing about our government as a whole.  The United States just exceeded $15 TRILLION dollars in debt.  The "Super Committee" is full of the super-ideological and was doomed to fail from the beginning.  Politicians who are elected to work with each other for the good of the nation sacrifice our future to in order to score political points.  Republicans refuse to look at revenue increases (except the modest proposals made by Toomey) and defense cuts.  Democrats refuse to tackle social spending or entitlements in any significant way.  Their inability to compromise on anything will be used in charges against each other in the 2012 elections, where each side hopes the better "blamers" will win.

For decades Republicans and Democrats have colluded with each other to make it increasingly difficult for third parties to participate in our democratic elections.  By making registration, signature petitions, and filing requirements more strenuous, the two parties solidified their holding on American Government, leaving the average Joe helpless in enacting real change from the top down.  Only those with significant personal wealth are able to run against the two parties, and more often than not the wealthy choose to join one of the two major parties.  Even if we wanted to make major change in Federal Government, we are limited by gerrymandering, where our only real choice comes in primary voting, where political extremists tend to have a larger say in who gets the nomination.

And President Obama, who was promised to be our first post-partisan, post-racial president, has arguably been as or more divisive than President Bush. Where President Bush was decisive to a fault, this President lacks the leadership and testicular fortitude necessary to lead us to a new era of political cooperation and prosperity.  He is the epitome of an empty suit and any time he faces any significant criticism, he caves.  Except for killing terrorists, he's done a good job at that.  

Sorry for that last rant as it was a bit off topic, but it is sometimes difficult to remain an optimist when you look at the schmucks running our government.  Here is one last graphic to show some of the troubles the United States is in.

 
The following represents debt as a percentage of GDP.  The United States currently has about 60% debt to GDP (based on pre-stimulus, 2008 levels).  Using current spending increases as a baseline to approximate future spending levels, some economists put the United States on track to hit 200% debt to GDP by 2040.  If you look at the map, some of the countries that have higher than 100% debt to GDP levels are Greece and Italy.  We all know how the debt crises in those two nations have impacted the global economy.  What happens when the world's largest economy hits those levels?  Let's end the hyper-partisanship, starting with politically-based gerrymandering, so we can get our nation back on track.  Let's allow greater access to third party candidates to our election system.  Let's elect people to Congress who can actually lead, not mud-slinging experts.  We really can not afford not to.
 

Two Days Later

By now most of us have seen Mr Perry's gaffe at the Debate on Wednesday night.  If you haven't, its on the second video.  The first video is from a a Fox News Republican debate on September 22, 2011.  Both show two major setbacks in Perry's campaign because of how embarrassing the exchanges are.  I previously noted how the Perry campaign has been sluggish since he entered the race as a perceived front runner.  You have two videos here to see why.

In August, several polls placed Perry ahead of Romney as the front runner for the Republican nomination for president.  Between his announcement in mid-August and 3rd quarter reporting deadlines on September 30th, Perry raised over $17 million for his campaign.  At this point, he is still second among Republicans in total funds raised, according to the Federal Elections Commission.  To many conservative Republicans, Perry positioned himself as the "anti-Romney", someone who could represent those who felt that Romney was too liberal to be the party nominee.

As someone who entered the presidential race relatively late compared to other candidates, Perry had to increase his name recognition and fare well at the debates to maintain his place among the top of Republican contenders.  While he has increased his name recognition, it has largely been due to pitiful debate performances, not with great performances like he needed.  In two separate debates he has missed the mark in historical fashion, leaving many wondering if he was able to handle the media spotlight and the pressures of a national campaign.  His debate follies will rival Richard Nixon's performance against John F. Kennedy in the lead-up to the 1960 presidential election.  That is certainly not the company that Perry wants to keep, but it is unfortunately where he is now.  

In my last post I described how Newt Gingrich has done well for himself due in large part to his eloquence at the debates.  Because of Perry's inability to capture the conservative base of the party, voters have opened their minds to both Gingrich and Cain.  A new CBS/NYTimes poll places Gingrich tied with Romney for second place, with Cain having a five point lead over the two.  If Gingrich, who has raised only 2.9 million dollars (compared to Romney's $32.2 million) can persuade voters that he is the consistent conservative to rival Romney, he very well might be able to take Romney head on in the primaries.

This is kind of off-topic, but after while I watched the debate on Wednesday night, I couldn't help but notice how cluttered the stage was.  It is difficult for people to make connections with potential candidates when there is such limited time to be able to hear the ideas of candidates.  I Tweeted during the debate that the next debate should feature Romney, Cain, Gingrich, Perry, and Paul because Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman have such little support from voters.  Even before his epic blooper, I was hesitant to include Perry on the list.  After the blunder, I am sure it is time to take him off the list.  Although this will not happen, I think the debate should be left to Romney, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul.  These four offer diverse views and each have significant support from the potential GOP voters.  This will allow voters more intimate insights on each candidate, without having to worry about Mrs Bachmann dodging every question asked of her and using her time solely to bash Obama.  And while the economy is certainly going to be the predominant aspect of the next election, let's ask the candidates about questions other than tax and economic policy.  There's much more to each candidate than those issues.

It has been incredible to see how important the debates have been in shaping voter's opinions of candidates.  It is easy to understand why Romney among the top of the field with his fundraising capabilities and name recognition from the 2008 primaries.  However, neither Cain nor Gingrich have the national organization or campaign war chest that Romney has, yet they still rival him in the polls due to excitement around their debate performances.  And Perry, who has raised over $17 million has suffered such an epic decline in support due to his performances.  With only a few more months until the Iowa Caucuses, this is anyone's game (of the four I mentioned).

Newt's Ascent

A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports asked likely Republican Primary voters who they supported for President.  Herman Cain fared best with 26%, Mitt Romney followed closely with 23%, and one would expect the likes of Rick Perry or Ron Paul to be in third place.  However, third place, at least for now, belongs to Newt Gingrich who had 14% the vote of these likely Republican voters.  

I detailed a few weeks ago some of the troubles with the Perry campaign.  Since then, no candidate's support has sunk as quickly or dramatically as Perry's.  While Gingrich has certainly benefited from Perry's downfall, his rise in popularity among likely Republican voters can also to be attributed to his debate performances.  Gingrich is easily the most eloquent speaker of all of his counterparts, it is by far the best at articulating conservative principles.  In debates he appears extremely intelligent, but has an uncanny ability to explain his ideas in a way that the average man can understand them.  

I think some of those who dismissed Gingrich on account of his personal life (having an affair on his second wife while she suffered from cancer with his current wife) have warmed up to him because of his debate performances and dissatisfaction with other candidates.  Ron Paul is considered too wacky, Rick Perry is considered too Texan, Mitt Romney is considered too liberal, and Herman Cain is facing sexual harassment claims.  With a field full of "not-ideal" candidates, Newt Gingrich might able to fill that void.  If it wasn't for dodgy personal choices, he would likely be a front-runner in this race.

Newt's served the 6th District of Georgia for 20 years, from 1979 to 1999.  He became Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1995 after the landslide 1994 mid-term elections.  He is credited with forcing Bill Clinton to sign, among other things, welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut, which were a conservative rallying points for years.  He created the Contract With America, which he claims allowed the government to pass balanced budgets and even created the a sizable budget surplus.  However, after the public was not too keen on a government shutdown how he handled the Bill Clinton impeachment, and he left office in 1998.

While Newt certainly has a long way to go in his quest to become the Republican Party nominee for president, he has made up a significant amount of ground along the way.  He will still need to convince voters to ignore personal digressions and sell them on his ideas for leading the country.  Considering that much of his staff quit the campaign in June of this year, this surge is quite remarkable.  I would not dismiss Newt Gingrich at this point in the race.  Iowa and New Hampshire will certainly be interesting in January.     

A Case for Right-to-Work

Don't be alarmed.  This is not a case against labor unions, but a case for workers' rights.  Individuals should have the right to choose whether or not they join a union.  If an individual freely chooses to join a union and do so without coercion, they should have that choice.

Right-to-work laws guarantee people the right to employment without being forced to join a labor union or pay labor union dues.  Right-to-work affords individuals a choice; one can choose whether or not to join a labor union after being hired by an employer.  In forced union states, one must agree to join a union as a condition of employment by their employer.  In some instances in forced union states, if a unionized employee fails to pay union dues they might be terminated from their job, even if they did not violate any of the employer's rules.  I believe that forced unionization is frankly an anti-American, tyrannical concept.

The freedom of association is guaranteed in the United States Constitution.  Although the words do not appear in the document itself, the Supreme Court case of NAACP v. Alabama outlines the idea that freedom of association is guaranteed by freedom of speech.  Freedom of association guarantees individuals the opportunity to engage in relationships with people (and employers) with whom they choose.  It also gives them the opportunity to form unions if they believe it is in their best interest.

Some who oppose right-to-work legislation argue that without forced unionization, unions would lose their power, therefore workers would suffer.  Some also argue right-to-work laws encourage free loaders, meaning those who work at a unionized facility and do not pay union dues benefit from those who do pay union dues.  I disagree with those notions.  If employees think that unions are worth investing in, they will do so.  Employees will choose to join a labor union and pay union dues if they feel it is in their best interest.  Many people do, in fact, choose to engage in union membership, and that is absolutely their right.  There are obviously many benefits in choosing to join a union, as those unions generally fight for higher wages, safer working conditions, and better benefits.  That being said, if I wanted work as a dockworker in Washington state, I would be forced to join a union and pay union dues as a condition of employment, likely to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).  If I find the actions of that organization reprehensible, such as storming a dock and taking six security guards hostage (which they did), I would still be forced to be a union member or risk losing my job.  Based on my freedom of association which is guaranteed by the Constitution, I should be allowed to stop paying union dues and still be able to keep that job.

Those who oppose right-to-work legislation oftentimes argue, "If you don't want to join a labor union, you should find a job that doesn't require you to join."  First of all, with unemployment at 8.6%, who wants to choose between having a job and joining a labor union?  As another point, local governments have enacted smoking bans in public places in many counties and municipalities across the country.  Many of these laws were written to protect employees at restaurants and bars from being subjected to second hand smoke inhalation.  We didn't tell these employees simply to find other jobs if they didn't like the smokey workplace.  Government stepped in with a seemingly sensible legislation so that Chef Tom at Don's Diner doesn't retire at 65 and develop lung cancer just a few years later.

I support both the right-to-work and the right to organize.  Both are guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and they are not mutually exclusive.  If we give individuals the right to choose their government, why can't we give them the right to choose whether or not to join a labor union?

Larry's Past...

In my last post I briefly discussed how most people gave Lawrence O'Donnell a pass in his interview with Herman Cain.  I said that if any conservative pundit interviewed President Obama the way O'Donnell did Herman Cain there would be cries of racism.  Then I remembered watching this interview from last May where Mr O'Donnell interviews former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice.  I remember thinking the same thing.  I know some of the controversy of Mr O'Donnell's interview with Mr Cain has died down, but I haven't gotten around to posting this yet and I think it needs to be.  If you watch this interview, you'll see the blatant disregard by Mr O'Donnell for any interviewer/interviewee protocols that have been established over the past decades in television broadcasting.  Larry constantly interrupts Ms Rice and is generally a jerk during the entire interview.  Ms Rice actually threatens to walk out of the interview at one point because of the unrelenting disrespect showed to her by Mr O'Donnell.

The idea behind this is to show that Mr O'Donnell has a history of provoking Conservative African Americans who he interviews for his show.  My point is that if a conservative pundit interviewed Eric Holder and President Obama the way O'Donnell has interviewed both Ms Rice and Mr Cain, there would be a mob outside of the studio protesting how racist that pundit was, which would likely end in the pundit's termination.  Oh well, I guess this type of interviewing is why O'Donnell got bumped from 8pm to 10pm anyway.  He has lost on average 100,000+  nightly viewers compared to Keith Olbermann who previously held that 8 o'clock time slot.  Well, maybe viewers really do recognize poor journalism when they see it.

Larry and Herman

In this interview between Lawrence O'Donnell and Herman Cain, Mr O'Donnell asked some interesting questions of Mr Cain. Some of the questions were exceptionally leading, including accusing Mr Cain of "sitting out" of the Civil Rights Movement and dodging military service in Vietnam. Many have focused on the former, but I would like to focus on the latter. Fast forward the clip to 5:35 where Mr O'Donnell asks Cain about the commander in chief role.

"Can you explain how you avoided military service during the Vietnam War and during the draft and why you should be Commander-in-Chief if you did successfully avoid military service during the war that came during what would have been your war years? How you be-eh-eh-eh after avoiding the Vietnam War, why should you be Commander-in-Chief?"

Have you ever heard a more biased question from a journalist (I use that term loosely)? It is one thing to ask why a person didn't serve in the military and I think that is a fair and just question. Any person who is running for president should be properly vetted in every area, especially when it comes to decisions regarding war. However, it is another thing entirely to accuse someone of "avoiding" the war as O'Donnell did of Cain. First of all, Cain explains that he worked for the Department of the Navy in an area called "exterior ballistics." He stated he worked on the "rocket assisted projectile" and his local draft board in Atlanta told him he was more valuable to the Navy working as a mathematician than he would in active service in the military. Just think how rare that skill set is and how difficult it would be to replace mathematicians during the war. Secondly, Cain said he was registered for the draft, but he was never called up. It is a difficult case to make that he was "avoiding" the Vietnam War and O'Donnell should be ashamed for asking the question in such a way.

He then compared Cain to John Kerry who volunteered service in during the Vietnam War. I do not want to diminish Kerry's service or courage to volunteer during wartime. Nor do I want to minimize lives lost during the Vietnam War. That being said, Kerry was graduated with a degree in Political Science (something we have in common). Political Science is a dime-a-dozen degree as I have had the great pleasure of experiencing first hand. Kerry could very well have been more useful on those Swift Boats he led into enemy territory during the war than somewhere in the United States. That being said, advanced mathematics is more rare and specialized degree and its applications are of the utmost importance in the military. The deployment of the rockets Mr Cain worked on undoubtedly saved a great number of American soldiers. Should we shame him for being more valuable at home than over seas? Mr Cain is no draft dodger and Mr O'Donnell should apologize for that interview.

If a conservative leaning pundit had an interview session with President Obama on par with Mr O'Donnell's interview with Mr Cain they would instantly be labeled racist. Look at some of the reactions from Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama before the Super Bowl. O'Donnell is a liberal, however, and he is applauded for asking tough questions to the black candidate. It seems tough questions to candidates really only go one way, lest risking being labeled a racist.

The politicization of prime time cable news has certainly done more harm than good for America. People like Lawrence O'Donnell, Sean Hannity, and Ed Shultz have their own agendas when reporting the news and interviewing people for their shows. It makes me yearn for the days of Tim Russert where everyone who went on Meet The Press knew they were going to get a fair interview with unbiased, tough questions.

The Death of Anwar al-Awlaki (and the precedent it sets)

On September 30, 2011, a a predator drone hellfire missile attack in Yemen killed a top official of Al-Qaeda official, Anwar al-Awlaki. America is certainly war-weary and every significant blow to the terrorist organization brings us one step closer to ending this threat. Normally, this news would bring emotions of relief and resolution to the American public, and maybe it did. That being said, the death of this man has raised some eyebrows because he is an American citizen, not a foreign national which has been the case in all other air strikes.

Born in 1971 in New Mexico, al-Awlaki has degrees from Colorado State University and San Diego State University. He left the United States shortly after the September 11 attacks and spent a few years in the United Kingdom before moving to Yemen in 2004. He has been dubbed "The Bin Laden" of the Internet due to his success in radicalizing Muslims over the internet. Information suggests he had connections to the Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad. The man was certainly a threat to American national security, and threatened innocent men, women, and children across the globe.

That being said, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees that an American citizen can not be executed for alleged crimes unless the crimes are proven in a court of law (among other things). In other words, every American citizen is entitled to due process. This sacred promise protects citizens from being put to the sword without being able to present evidence in support of their defense, and to have a trial by a competent jury. Mr al-Awlaki was not given that chance. Due to a secret Justice Department memo, the "justification" for circumventing the Constitution was given to the President to carry out this strike and eventual death of an American citizen. This, of course, comes from the same administration who railed against the previous administration for using Justice Department memos finding legality in "advanced interrogation techniques." If these techniques were illegal in the eyes of the current administration, certainly the murder of an American citizen should be considered illegal as well.

I raise this point because most would agree that it certainly is a dangerous precedent to allow the President to be judge, jury, and executioner in respect with American citizens. Am I glad al-Awlaki no longer presents a threat to the American public? Of course. However, no person, not even the President of the United States, should be given that power to kill any member of the citizenry. Due process is a right given to every citizen of the of the United States and should not be circumvented, no matter the circumstances. The American Public should now allow this sort of abuse of the Constitution else risk further abuses on our individual rights.

Perry's Malaise

On track to even surpass Rudy Giuliani's campaign for president in 2008, Rick Perry campaign could rewrite history books - not in a positive way. The Giuliani campaign left many in political circles scratching their collective heads with his Florida or bust strategy he used in that campaign. Largely ignoring the key states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, Giuliani put all of his eggs into campaigning in Florida where he felt he would show strongly. A win there, he thought, would give him the momentum needed to win big on Super Tuesday, where many of the remaining delegates for the Republican Convention would be won. However, it seems dismal showings in the key aforementioned states swayed would be voters to other candidates. John McCain won the state with 36% of the vote. Giuliani finished a distant third with 14.6% of the vote behind both McCain and Mitt Romney.

I bring up this disaster of a campaign to shed light on what is happening in the Perry camp. When he entered the race, the collective right sighed with relief that this "staunch conservative" ally had thrown his hat into the proverbial ring. Perry, who has had success lowering taxes, driving job growth, has been a foil to President Obama. He was everything was everything the right was looking for. However, once he became a perceived front runner, he also opened himself to ever mounting criticism. His record has been attacked successfully by his opponents in his bid to fill the White House. Perry's debate performances has been disappointing at best to some of his supporters, and laughable to many others. Just look at the Florida debate on September 22 and his feeble attempt to attack Mitt Romney. As a viewer, I literally felt embarrassed for him during his drawn out, incoherent, bumbling "attack". The Florida Straw poll was on September 24, just two days after the debate. Perry finished second to Herman Cain in the poll. Second place wouldn't be considered too bad for candidates in a poll, however, Perry lost by 22 points to Mr Cain.

Perry, who in some polls at the beginning of September had as much as a 19 point lead has seen that lead drop to a mere 3.5 points at the end of the month. His pitiful debate performance compounded by numerous attacks made by his opponents has certainly weakened his brand. His wife has attributed poor debate performance to Mr Perry being "tired". Does the American Public really want a President who begins rambling, incoherent monologues when he is "tired"? If the Perry campaign doesn't adjust, and quickly, Perry could be out of the race quicker than he was in it.