"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.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
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.
"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.
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.
Friday, November 11, 2011
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).
Monday, November 7, 2011
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.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)