I saw an interesting story yesterday about voter id requirements. I've followed this story as a part of my "compassionate conservative" approach to things. Or as I like to say it "think globally, act locally." What this means is I try to vote and think conservatively, then do local things compassionately.
Globally, I think a conservative approach is best for everyone, but then I also realize that there are some people who need a helping hand and when possible, I try to be that helping hand. I give to many local charities and volunteer close to 100 hours each year to help low income individuals and families in their tax preparation.
The voter id law passed by SC was done in an attempt to keep voter fraud in line. The idea is that by requiring an id, illegals won't be able to vote. Some of the opponents have noted that there has never been a case of voter fraud in SC, so the law is unnecessary. They also point to the 200,000 registered voters who do not have a valid SC id (yes, 200,000). They point out that most of these 200,000 are minorities and that, they say, shows that the law is targeted at suppressing minority vote.
Proponents of the law have offered to help un-identified, legal voters get the necessary documentation. Also, the NAACP (which opposes the law) is offering " to drive people to get their picture ID and even finds sponsors for those who can't afford one. I guess both sides can agree to help some of those impacted.
I honestly don't know how I feel about the new law and won't argue either way. But assuming that it stays in effect (the supreme court is reviewing), I think that the offers to help people get their ID is a great way to help people. But what if the people don't want to vote? According to the story I read yesterday (seen here) a lot of the people impacted have no "interest to go out and get a picture id." The story goes on to say "A lot of people don't want to vote. A lot of people say, why should I vote, it doesn't matter."
Unfortunately, I think this lady is right. It's not just about voter id, or even voter education. In order for more people to be interested in voting, politicians have to stay true to their beliefs and state those beliefs clearly. Then, we the people, can vote our hearts and feel that our voice is being heard. Whether it's voting someone into office or kicking someone out, we want our votes to be heard.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Thursday, January 05, 2012
My name is RB and I endorsed this message - Platform priorities
Yesterday I explained that I wanted to lay out what I thought were important priorities for the Presidency 2012-2016. This will be the planks of my platform should I decide to stick with the idea of the run (it will have to be a write-in campaign).
In preparation, I looked back at what I said in 2008. I think the same issues apply, so I'm going to steal heavily from my ideas back then. One difference I notice between 2008 and 2012 is the lack of focus on change. In 2008, almost every candidate was talking change (both the D's and the R's). Well, change happened, we went from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat. Some might say too much changed, some might say too little. But change happened.
My focus will be pretty much the same as last time, with some change thrown in for good measure. Here are the areas I see that need to be addressed for the next four years. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat in priority order, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be soon. The current budget outlook for defense means major cuts. We're relying less on boots-on-the-ground and more on drones-in-the-air and special ops. Where do we go from here?
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration) - My only update to this list is to add the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, etc) and North/South Korea
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations - it seems one candidate wants us to pull back and focus on US alone, I'll look at my ideas four years ago and update them.
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending. I know you think this should be higher. When I look at the economy, I'll explain why it's ranked #4.
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
6) Points of light - This is an old George H Bush idea. I mentioned it yesterday in a phone conversation with a friend and think it needs to be addressed.
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter and my readers, want me to address?
In preparation, I looked back at what I said in 2008. I think the same issues apply, so I'm going to steal heavily from my ideas back then. One difference I notice between 2008 and 2012 is the lack of focus on change. In 2008, almost every candidate was talking change (both the D's and the R's). Well, change happened, we went from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat. Some might say too much changed, some might say too little. But change happened.
My focus will be pretty much the same as last time, with some change thrown in for good measure. Here are the areas I see that need to be addressed for the next four years. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat in priority order, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be soon. The current budget outlook for defense means major cuts. We're relying less on boots-on-the-ground and more on drones-in-the-air and special ops. Where do we go from here?
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration) - My only update to this list is to add the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, etc) and North/South Korea
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations - it seems one candidate wants us to pull back and focus on US alone, I'll look at my ideas four years ago and update them.
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending. I know you think this should be higher. When I look at the economy, I'll explain why it's ranked #4.
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
6) Points of light - This is an old George H Bush idea. I mentioned it yesterday in a phone conversation with a friend and think it needs to be addressed.
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter and my readers, want me to address?
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
My name is RB and I endorsed this message
I'm in it to win it. I'm the one you Hope to Change. I Believe in America. All of those catchy phrases go here.
You see, 4 years ago yesterday, I started a series of blog posts declaring my candidacy for president. In those posts, I laid out my platform, my ideas on every topic. I also laid out which pieces of that platform I thought were most important and the order of importance.
So, I decided to do that again. I will look back at what I said four years ago. And to start that out, I'm going to cut/paste my comments from that blog post here, so you don't have to go back via links. Here it is with updates in {brackets}:
My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president
When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now,14 {18} years later, I'm re-announcing my candidacy.
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise. {My anti-Rudy reasoning has softened some. I'm still not sure I can vote for a man that has committed that particular sin, but over the last four years I've become less focused. Romans 3:23 comes to mind.}
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
{In reading the comments from my post four years ago, it looks like David of this blogsite, offered to be my Yard Sign Creator. Hoping he's still available}
You see, 4 years ago yesterday, I started a series of blog posts declaring my candidacy for president. In those posts, I laid out my platform, my ideas on every topic. I also laid out which pieces of that platform I thought were most important and the order of importance.
So, I decided to do that again. I will look back at what I said four years ago. And to start that out, I'm going to cut/paste my comments from that blog post here, so you don't have to go back via links. Here it is with updates in {brackets}:
My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president
When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.
However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now,
Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.
So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.
Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise. {My anti-Rudy reasoning has softened some. I'm still not sure I can vote for a man that has committed that particular sin, but over the last four years I've become less focused. Romans 3:23 comes to mind.}
So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.
{In reading the comments from my post four years ago, it looks like David of this blogsite, offered to be my Yard Sign Creator. Hoping he's still available}
Friday, August 19, 2011
A different election?
In my reviewing the 2008 election, I saw it as a foregone conclusion. President Obama had been running for the office for over four years and was specifically groomed for the office. Anyone who doubts that should only go back to his 2004 speech at the DNC. He wrote books to carefully lay out his views and everything he did in the Senate was to head him in that direction.
It was a candidate who could not lose. He was in the party that could not lose. The political and economic wind was blowing at the Democrats' back and in the Republicans' face. The war in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan made the Democratic candidate an almost foregone conclusion.
And he was pitted against a candidate who could not win. Sen McCain was not a strong candidate. He admitted openly that he was not an expert in the economy and was more interested in debating than deciding.
Now it's 2012 (well, will be soon). I just heard an interview on WLFJ 660 AM with Michelle Bachmann and I am impressed. (I'm hoping to find the interview on their archives and will post a link here if I find it). Her answer during the debate to the "submit" question was amazing. I've also posted recently about Gov Perry's approach to solving school problems.
It's still early, but it seems to me that the Republicans have a much stronger group of candidates than they did in 2008. Will this be a different election?
It was a candidate who could not lose. He was in the party that could not lose. The political and economic wind was blowing at the Democrats' back and in the Republicans' face. The war in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan made the Democratic candidate an almost foregone conclusion.
And he was pitted against a candidate who could not win. Sen McCain was not a strong candidate. He admitted openly that he was not an expert in the economy and was more interested in debating than deciding.
Now it's 2012 (well, will be soon). I just heard an interview on WLFJ 660 AM with Michelle Bachmann and I am impressed. (I'm hoping to find the interview on their archives and will post a link here if I find it). Her answer during the debate to the "submit" question was amazing. I've also posted recently about Gov Perry's approach to solving school problems.
It's still early, but it seems to me that the Republicans have a much stronger group of candidates than they did in 2008. Will this be a different election?
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
What the election means to me
I don't pretend to be a political pundit or to have my finger on the pulse of the electorate. There are plenty of bloggers who will do that and give in depth analysis. Instead, I will simply point out a couple of things yesterday's elections mean to me.
As you've probably read, Republicans won big in many elections, especially in SC. We elected the first ever female governor, a lady of Indian descent (born in SC to Indian parents). We also elected our first African-American Republican Representative, Tim Scott. He's not a representative to my district, but I've seen some very good things about him. For SC to elect these two is very progressive for a state that isn't known for it's progressiveness. We also elected a real conservative Representative (Trey Gowdy) in my district to replace a pseudo-conservative Representative (Bob Inglis).
We passed four amendments in SC, guaranteeing a right for hunting and fishing, a right to a secret ballot in union elections and helping fiscal soundness.
I've already seen reports of voter intimidation and expect we'll see more. These incidents should be dealt with quickly and (if accurate) severely. I would hope that candidates on both (or all) sides will come down hard on these people.
Am I celebrating this morning? Hardly. We still have an economic mess in this nation and it's not going to be over soon. We still have a social mess with the Federal Government trying to get into too many parts of my life and that won't end soon. Our nation is still at risk from terrorists and I see people and politicians willing to close their eyes to avoid looking at it. And we have an abundance of politicians who claim to be leaders that have serious moral issues and personal baggage.
So I guess I'm troubled. Happy that the results went the way I wanted, but nervous that it won't make a difference. Or at least enough of a difference.
As you've probably read, Republicans won big in many elections, especially in SC. We elected the first ever female governor, a lady of Indian descent (born in SC to Indian parents). We also elected our first African-American Republican Representative, Tim Scott. He's not a representative to my district, but I've seen some very good things about him. For SC to elect these two is very progressive for a state that isn't known for it's progressiveness. We also elected a real conservative Representative (Trey Gowdy) in my district to replace a pseudo-conservative Representative (Bob Inglis).
We passed four amendments in SC, guaranteeing a right for hunting and fishing, a right to a secret ballot in union elections and helping fiscal soundness.
I've already seen reports of voter intimidation and expect we'll see more. These incidents should be dealt with quickly and (if accurate) severely. I would hope that candidates on both (or all) sides will come down hard on these people.
Am I celebrating this morning? Hardly. We still have an economic mess in this nation and it's not going to be over soon. We still have a social mess with the Federal Government trying to get into too many parts of my life and that won't end soon. Our nation is still at risk from terrorists and I see people and politicians willing to close their eyes to avoid looking at it. And we have an abundance of politicians who claim to be leaders that have serious moral issues and personal baggage.
So I guess I'm troubled. Happy that the results went the way I wanted, but nervous that it won't make a difference. Or at least enough of a difference.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Vote early and vote often
Ok, maybe not more than once per election (unless you live in Chicago), but I truly believe that you should vote every chance you can. And unless you've had your TV turned off and plan to keep it turned off for the next 33 days, you're probably aware that we have an election coming up. On November 2 in fact.
October 2 is the last day to register in SC if you're going to vote in this election. Of course, if you voted last time and nothing has changed, you don't need to re-register. If you've missed voting a time or to, you can easily check to see if your registration is still valid.
But what are we voting on? Well, I needed to know that myself, so I did a quick search on "greenville sc voting locations." (I didn't intend to add the period, but it got stuck in and it worked anyway - that's how easy this is)
Once the search completed, I clicked on the entry for "http://www.greenvillecounty.org/voter_registration/". There they had an item labeled Candidates for November 2010. This brings up a PDF file (4 pages). Now I'm somewhat informed. I'll do some searching on the candidates, but now I know what we're voting on.
Here's a promise I make to all of my readers: if you don't know what you're voting on, I will find this information out for you. Give me a way to contact you and I'll look up your state and district to find comparable information. I won't tell you who to vote for (at least not in this exchange) and won't ask you who you plan to vote for. I'll simply give you the information.
Incidentally, we're voting for state offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Comptroller, Supt. of Education, Adjutant General and Commissioner of Agriculture), US Senate, US Representative, State House, County offices, School District Representatives and four amendments to our state constitution. What are you voting on?
Remember - vote early and vote often!!
October 2 is the last day to register in SC if you're going to vote in this election. Of course, if you voted last time and nothing has changed, you don't need to re-register. If you've missed voting a time or to, you can easily check to see if your registration is still valid.
But what are we voting on? Well, I needed to know that myself, so I did a quick search on "greenville sc voting locations." (I didn't intend to add the period, but it got stuck in and it worked anyway - that's how easy this is)
Once the search completed, I clicked on the entry for "http://www.greenvillecounty.org/voter_registration/". There they had an item labeled Candidates for November 2010. This brings up a PDF file (4 pages). Now I'm somewhat informed. I'll do some searching on the candidates, but now I know what we're voting on.
Here's a promise I make to all of my readers: if you don't know what you're voting on, I will find this information out for you. Give me a way to contact you and I'll look up your state and district to find comparable information. I won't tell you who to vote for (at least not in this exchange) and won't ask you who you plan to vote for. I'll simply give you the information.
Incidentally, we're voting for state offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Comptroller, Supt. of Education, Adjutant General and Commissioner of Agriculture), US Senate, US Representative, State House, County offices, School District Representatives and four amendments to our state constitution. What are you voting on?
Remember - vote early and vote often!!
Monday, August 16, 2010
Game Change - Overview
Ok, I've shared my notes from the book, it's time to wrap it all up. First, thanks to all of those who stuck it through. I've shared emails with a few people about the book and have been promised a deep discussion with the person who loaned me the book. I'm looking forward to it.
I'm not sure the book changed my mind on anything. I think it clarified a lot of things and has influenced my thinking a great deal. But no major changes. I'll also have to say that the book wasn't a great work of art. It was informational and interesting, but I had to slug my way through it. I will say, it was worth it.
About the candidates - McCain really seemed like his heart wasn't in it. He would have accepted if someone appointed him president, and he would have made a good commander-in-chief. But he bent with the wind too much on other subjects. Without the right people around him, he wouldn't have helped us through the financial crisis. And I'm not sure he knew who the right people were.
Palin has always impressed me as a bright lady, who wasn't ready for the job of VP. But then I'm not sure any person is ready for that job (or the job of president). Her selection seemed so haphazard that she never had time to prepare. Like a student cramming for an exam, she failed to grasp everything. It wasn't her fault, but she certainly could have said no. Everyone is pushing her to 2012 and she'll certainly be more ready. I have serious concerns however, about her lack of persistence with her job as governor. To me, it seems she left that job to make money. That's ok, but it has consequences.
Edwards - I can't see how anyone can trust him. He repeatedly lied and his main goal was to get into the White House (as President or VP). He could care less how he did it. I will restate something I've said many times, anyone who donated money to his campaign should ask for a refund (Warren Buffett said it first).
H. Clinton - she really seemed like she thought deserved the nomination. However, once the decision was made, she tucked it in and worked for her party. I have respect for her attitude and her methods.
B. Clinton - the book did nothing to make me trust him anymore. I've always felt he would lie, cheat and steal at any chance. In fairness, the book didn't make me trust him any less.
M. Obama - The book didn't say a lot about her. She seems a stand-up-for-your-man kind of lady. The only thing I think I learned about her was that she still doesn't see how her "proud of my country" comment hurt a lot of people.
B. Obama - Overall, my opinion didn't change much. There were a couple of mentions of him playing the race card and I've always felt he was beyond that - that he wants to move beyond the distractions. I'll tuck away this new information and use it in my future thoughts about him.
I've always felt that President Obama was a very bright man, who found some strong people to put in place around him. He's a fast learner and knows where he wants to go. He either knows, or finds out how to get there.
The election in general. I'm more convinced that no Republican could have won the race and that no Democrat could have lost. It seemed like the perfect storm. First, McCain was the strongest Rep and he was very weak. Second, Obama was very strong and the country was ready for change. Change away from Bush. It seemed like he had been in office for 20 years, with a short recess for Clinton. Call it malaise, call it anything you like, the country was ready for something different, anything. His primary battle with Clinton seemed to bolster his style, and his chances.
More than that, I'll go to a Hillary Clinton quote - "God wants him to win." Many on both sides will have problems with that statement, but I'll stand by it. The question is, why did He want it? Sometimes, God gives us what we need, sometimes gives us what we want in order to show us what we really need. I'm firmly convinced that President Clinton was put in office to give Americans an idea what would happen when we traded our morals for good economic times. I'm convinced that Bush was put into office to have a strong person there for 9/11. Why is Obama in office? Only time will tell.
I'm not sure the book changed my mind on anything. I think it clarified a lot of things and has influenced my thinking a great deal. But no major changes. I'll also have to say that the book wasn't a great work of art. It was informational and interesting, but I had to slug my way through it. I will say, it was worth it.
About the candidates - McCain really seemed like his heart wasn't in it. He would have accepted if someone appointed him president, and he would have made a good commander-in-chief. But he bent with the wind too much on other subjects. Without the right people around him, he wouldn't have helped us through the financial crisis. And I'm not sure he knew who the right people were.
Palin has always impressed me as a bright lady, who wasn't ready for the job of VP. But then I'm not sure any person is ready for that job (or the job of president). Her selection seemed so haphazard that she never had time to prepare. Like a student cramming for an exam, she failed to grasp everything. It wasn't her fault, but she certainly could have said no. Everyone is pushing her to 2012 and she'll certainly be more ready. I have serious concerns however, about her lack of persistence with her job as governor. To me, it seems she left that job to make money. That's ok, but it has consequences.
Edwards - I can't see how anyone can trust him. He repeatedly lied and his main goal was to get into the White House (as President or VP). He could care less how he did it. I will restate something I've said many times, anyone who donated money to his campaign should ask for a refund (Warren Buffett said it first).
H. Clinton - she really seemed like she thought deserved the nomination. However, once the decision was made, she tucked it in and worked for her party. I have respect for her attitude and her methods.
B. Clinton - the book did nothing to make me trust him anymore. I've always felt he would lie, cheat and steal at any chance. In fairness, the book didn't make me trust him any less.
M. Obama - The book didn't say a lot about her. She seems a stand-up-for-your-man kind of lady. The only thing I think I learned about her was that she still doesn't see how her "proud of my country" comment hurt a lot of people.
B. Obama - Overall, my opinion didn't change much. There were a couple of mentions of him playing the race card and I've always felt he was beyond that - that he wants to move beyond the distractions. I'll tuck away this new information and use it in my future thoughts about him.
I've always felt that President Obama was a very bright man, who found some strong people to put in place around him. He's a fast learner and knows where he wants to go. He either knows, or finds out how to get there.
The election in general. I'm more convinced that no Republican could have won the race and that no Democrat could have lost. It seemed like the perfect storm. First, McCain was the strongest Rep and he was very weak. Second, Obama was very strong and the country was ready for change. Change away from Bush. It seemed like he had been in office for 20 years, with a short recess for Clinton. Call it malaise, call it anything you like, the country was ready for something different, anything. His primary battle with Clinton seemed to bolster his style, and his chances.
More than that, I'll go to a Hillary Clinton quote - "God wants him to win." Many on both sides will have problems with that statement, but I'll stand by it. The question is, why did He want it? Sometimes, God gives us what we need, sometimes gives us what we want in order to show us what we really need. I'm firmly convinced that President Clinton was put in office to give Americans an idea what would happen when we traded our morals for good economic times. I'm convinced that Bush was put into office to have a strong person there for 9/11. Why is Obama in office? Only time will tell.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Does the truth make a difference?
I'm reading a political book recommended by a friend. The book describes several candidates for president as they worked their way up to the 2008 election. I was thinking that one (or more) of the candidates lied about so many things and would say anything to get elected.
Then it hit me, that most (all?) candidates lie and will say anything to get elected. So, my question is, does the truth make a difference? If all candidates lie, which lies do we believe? Or do we just discount it all?
I'm interested in your opinion.
Then it hit me, that most (all?) candidates lie and will say anything to get elected. So, my question is, does the truth make a difference? If all candidates lie, which lies do we believe? Or do we just discount it all?
I'm interested in your opinion.
Monday, January 19, 2009
For such a time as this - Bush?
I'm hoping some of the people who don't support Bush will read this and comment.
If you haven't heard Wayne Watson's song "For Such a Time as This", you should go right now and listen to it and see the words on YouTube (here). It's taken from the Old Testament book of Esther.
If you're not familiar with the book, you should go to a Jewish Purim play (hopefully Messianic Jews). They put the book on as a play. The one I attended was fun, involving the audience throughout. The premise of the book is that the Jews are living as slaves in Persia (modern Iran). During this time, Esther (who happens to be a "closet" Jew) is made Queen. Then Haman, a really bad dude, crafts a plan to kill all the Jews. It was at this time, that her uncle said "who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this."
The song is interesting to me personally, because I've seen in my life where God placed someone "for such a time as this." That person helped me through a particularly difficult time, but I found later that I helped that person also.
But back to my theme, I believe that President Bush believes he was made president "for such a time as this."
At this point, I won't deliberate whether I agree with him or not, I just want to stipulate what I think HE believes. I believe that everything about what Pres. Bush has done since September 2001 has been based on that. He believes that he is operating on a power, not given by the American people, but given by God.
I have to confess, in some ways, this bothers me. For him to put so much faith, and to control the nation by that faith, well, it's just a little scary. I can't find anything constitutionally wrong with this idea. But what if his power isn't from God? Well, I've decided that in that case, I'd let God take care of it. He's better equipped than me.
So, I'd ask you to read Pres. Bush's mind a little or at least evaluate what he's done the last 8 years and see if you agree. Does Bush believe that he was placed in the presidency "for such a time as this?"
If you haven't heard Wayne Watson's song "For Such a Time as This", you should go right now and listen to it and see the words on YouTube (here). It's taken from the Old Testament book of Esther.
If you're not familiar with the book, you should go to a Jewish Purim play (hopefully Messianic Jews). They put the book on as a play. The one I attended was fun, involving the audience throughout. The premise of the book is that the Jews are living as slaves in Persia (modern Iran). During this time, Esther (who happens to be a "closet" Jew) is made Queen. Then Haman, a really bad dude, crafts a plan to kill all the Jews. It was at this time, that her uncle said "who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this."
The song is interesting to me personally, because I've seen in my life where God placed someone "for such a time as this." That person helped me through a particularly difficult time, but I found later that I helped that person also.
But back to my theme, I believe that President Bush believes he was made president "for such a time as this."
At this point, I won't deliberate whether I agree with him or not, I just want to stipulate what I think HE believes. I believe that everything about what Pres. Bush has done since September 2001 has been based on that. He believes that he is operating on a power, not given by the American people, but given by God.
I have to confess, in some ways, this bothers me. For him to put so much faith, and to control the nation by that faith, well, it's just a little scary. I can't find anything constitutionally wrong with this idea. But what if his power isn't from God? Well, I've decided that in that case, I'd let God take care of it. He's better equipped than me.
So, I'd ask you to read Pres. Bush's mind a little or at least evaluate what he's done the last 8 years and see if you agree. Does Bush believe that he was placed in the presidency "for such a time as this?"
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Swing Vote - Movie Review
"Swing Vote" was our best Netflix pick in a long string of bad picks. If you haven't see the previews, it's like this: through an odd sequence of events, the presidential election comes down to one man's vote. That man is "Bud" Johnson, a worker in an egg sorting factory. He has a couple of weeks to make his decision and during that time, he's in the spotlight.
Courted by the nominees of both parties, he has to decide the next leader of the free world. All during the movie, I kept thinking, what if "Joe the Plumber" had to make that decision. Now while I might have agreed with Joe's choice, frankly I think the whole ordeal was grossly overplayed by both parties. And that's what happens in this movie.
What's interesting is to think about a given topic (say environmental protection) and where the republican and democratic candidates might stand on the topic. Then see where they stand in this movie, or better yet, where they stand when they try to when Bud's vote.
But is a single dad, with a 12 year old daughter who knows more about politics and politicians than he does. During his two weeks of fame, he and his daughter have secret service protection, yet she still manages to slip away. Bud is upset and yells at he secret service "you guys protect the President." To which they reply "she's smarter" (than the President).
During another banter with his daughter, Bud expresses his distaste for egg-salad sandwiches for lunch every day (remember he works at an egg sorting factory). His daughter explains "You want to eat better? Drink less beer."
The one downside to the movie was the profanity. Am I the only one in America upset with profanity? www.kids-in-mind.com (an excellent website for reviews) says that there are 38 instances of profanity. I think they missed a few.
Overall, the movie was a good one. I give it an easy thumbs-up
Courted by the nominees of both parties, he has to decide the next leader of the free world. All during the movie, I kept thinking, what if "Joe the Plumber" had to make that decision. Now while I might have agreed with Joe's choice, frankly I think the whole ordeal was grossly overplayed by both parties. And that's what happens in this movie.
What's interesting is to think about a given topic (say environmental protection) and where the republican and democratic candidates might stand on the topic. Then see where they stand in this movie, or better yet, where they stand when they try to when Bud's vote.
But is a single dad, with a 12 year old daughter who knows more about politics and politicians than he does. During his two weeks of fame, he and his daughter have secret service protection, yet she still manages to slip away. Bud is upset and yells at he secret service "you guys protect the President." To which they reply "she's smarter" (than the President).
During another banter with his daughter, Bud expresses his distaste for egg-salad sandwiches for lunch every day (remember he works at an egg sorting factory). His daughter explains "You want to eat better? Drink less beer."
The one downside to the movie was the profanity. Am I the only one in America upset with profanity? www.kids-in-mind.com (an excellent website for reviews) says that there are 38 instances of profanity. I think they missed a few.
Overall, the movie was a good one. I give it an easy thumbs-up
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Election day
It's finally here. After one of the longest, ugliest, most prolonged battles I've ever seen, today is the day we cast our votes. Many have already voted and I think that's good. I voted absentee once when I lived in NC, I can't remember why. SC doesn't have early voting, so to vote early here you have to sign an affidavit saying you can't be there on election day. Any reason is acceptable, but I just feel funny when I know I can be here.
So, in about 6 hours, I'll walk about 1/4 mile to my voting place. It's nice being that close, and I'll save the parking spaces for those who have to go further. Surprisingly, my son has asked me to wake him up when I go so that he can go with me. It's his first election and until last night I wasn't sure he was going to vote. His reasons seemed actually to make sense, but I won't fight his battles here.
Sometime tonight (in theory), we will know who the next president/vice president will be. Unless something really unusual happens, we will either have the first African-American President-Elect or the first female Vice President-Elect. It's a historic election. We've had African-American candidates before (Alan Keyes to name one) and we've had a female VP candidate (Geraldine Ferraro). But this is the first time we've had them on both major parties' ticket.
Regardless who wins, the election process, as ugly as it has been, serves to inform us. We know more about both candidates than ever before. We have the potential to take the issues that concern us the most and evaluate the candidates' responses. What will the next President face? We may not know, but we should be able to estimate how they will react.
But at the end of the day, or the end of the voting, one thing will still be true. Actually, several things will still be true. 1) President Bush will still be president. 2) God is still in control.
When you think about that last one, what else really matters?
* Update - I just finished voting. From the time I got in line until the time I walked out, under 1 hour total. Our state limits you to 3 minutes in the voting booth and does electronic touch-screen voting. I took my time, reviewed each selection before I made it, reviewed it again after I made it, then went through the final review twice to be sure. Not sure how long I was in the booth, but it was under the 3 minutes easily. 1/2 mile of walking up & back, I won't have to exercise for another month now.
So, in about 6 hours, I'll walk about 1/4 mile to my voting place. It's nice being that close, and I'll save the parking spaces for those who have to go further. Surprisingly, my son has asked me to wake him up when I go so that he can go with me. It's his first election and until last night I wasn't sure he was going to vote. His reasons seemed actually to make sense, but I won't fight his battles here.
Sometime tonight (in theory), we will know who the next president/vice president will be. Unless something really unusual happens, we will either have the first African-American President-Elect or the first female Vice President-Elect. It's a historic election. We've had African-American candidates before (Alan Keyes to name one) and we've had a female VP candidate (Geraldine Ferraro). But this is the first time we've had them on both major parties' ticket.
Regardless who wins, the election process, as ugly as it has been, serves to inform us. We know more about both candidates than ever before. We have the potential to take the issues that concern us the most and evaluate the candidates' responses. What will the next President face? We may not know, but we should be able to estimate how they will react.
But at the end of the day, or the end of the voting, one thing will still be true. Actually, several things will still be true. 1) President Bush will still be president. 2) God is still in control.
When you think about that last one, what else really matters?
* Update - I just finished voting. From the time I got in line until the time I walked out, under 1 hour total. Our state limits you to 3 minutes in the voting booth and does electronic touch-screen voting. I took my time, reviewed each selection before I made it, reviewed it again after I made it, then went through the final review twice to be sure. Not sure how long I was in the booth, but it was under the 3 minutes easily. 1/2 mile of walking up & back, I won't have to exercise for another month now.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Election time
Is it just me or has this election gotten nasty? I'm used to all of the nasty commercials and such. I expect that. This is my 8th presidential election (and as many non-presidential elections) and those type attacks come every year.
But what has surprised me are the actors & actresses that have gotten nasty. Oh sure, Tom Cruise and a few others threatened to leave in 2004 if W. was elected (they didn't). But it just seems that more of them have turned out this time.
What makes it worse is that they lose credibility. I love the skits on SNL and (until recently) I liked some of the light night sketches. David Letterman's "Great moments in presidential speeches" took jabs at President Bush's speech patterns. Very humorous. But lately, I've grown to wonder more about how Letterman really feels.
In the past, I've avoided watching light night TV when a political candidate was on. I've made two exceptions: 1) I watched former President Carter on Leno and 2) I watched McCain on Letterman. I was disappointed in both cases.
Two other actors who have lost credibility are Tina Fey and Martin Sheen. I loved Fey's skits on SNL, even the ones poking at Gov. Palin. But after watching her comments on Letterman, I can no longer watch her. She is no longer (probably never was) objective and has no credibility. Same thing with Sheen.
What about you? Have you seen actors and been swayed for/against them because of their credibility? What about businesses?
But what has surprised me are the actors & actresses that have gotten nasty. Oh sure, Tom Cruise and a few others threatened to leave in 2004 if W. was elected (they didn't). But it just seems that more of them have turned out this time.
What makes it worse is that they lose credibility. I love the skits on SNL and (until recently) I liked some of the light night sketches. David Letterman's "Great moments in presidential speeches" took jabs at President Bush's speech patterns. Very humorous. But lately, I've grown to wonder more about how Letterman really feels.
In the past, I've avoided watching light night TV when a political candidate was on. I've made two exceptions: 1) I watched former President Carter on Leno and 2) I watched McCain on Letterman. I was disappointed in both cases.
Two other actors who have lost credibility are Tina Fey and Martin Sheen. I loved Fey's skits on SNL, even the ones poking at Gov. Palin. But after watching her comments on Letterman, I can no longer watch her. She is no longer (probably never was) objective and has no credibility. Same thing with Sheen.
What about you? Have you seen actors and been swayed for/against them because of their credibility? What about businesses?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we voting for?
Did you know that there are SIX choices for president on the ballot in my state? In addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates, there are candidates in the Green party, the Libertarian party, the Petition party (Ralph Nader) and the Constitution party.
We'll also be voting for senator this year, only two people on the list there, and Representative (3 choices).
I have to check my voter registration card next to determine all of the state offices I can vote for, it looks like many of these are uncontested. One person I know commented back in the spring, that in SC you HAD to vote in the republican primary if you wanted to have a choice in the elections.
I also get to vote in County elections. The main contested battle there is for Sheriff. I'm thinking Matt Dillon is getting a little old to sport his badge, so I need to check out the two candidates there.
And finally, there are three amendments that are on the ballot this year. One would allow the state legislature to set the age of consent for women (no mention of young men). The second has to do with funding public employee pensions and medical benefits (which goes along with a book I just finished) and investing these funds in the stock market. The final amendment is the same as the second amendment, but it relates to local governments.
Over the next few days, I'll be evaluating the various offices and stating my opinion. You can follow along with the ballot at this website: http://www.greenvillecounty.org/Voter_Registration/pdf/candidates_2008.pdf
If you live outside Greenville County, but inside SC, some of the information will still apply to you.
We'll also be voting for senator this year, only two people on the list there, and Representative (3 choices).
I have to check my voter registration card next to determine all of the state offices I can vote for, it looks like many of these are uncontested. One person I know commented back in the spring, that in SC you HAD to vote in the republican primary if you wanted to have a choice in the elections.
I also get to vote in County elections. The main contested battle there is for Sheriff. I'm thinking Matt Dillon is getting a little old to sport his badge, so I need to check out the two candidates there.
And finally, there are three amendments that are on the ballot this year. One would allow the state legislature to set the age of consent for women (no mention of young men). The second has to do with funding public employee pensions and medical benefits (which goes along with a book I just finished) and investing these funds in the stock market. The final amendment is the same as the second amendment, but it relates to local governments.
Over the next few days, I'll be evaluating the various offices and stating my opinion. You can follow along with the ballot at this website: http://www.greenvillecounty.org/Voter_Registration/pdf/candidates_2008.pdf
If you live outside Greenville County, but inside SC, some of the information will still apply to you.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
How do you define support?
In today's world, support is defined by money. When we look at presidential candidates, one metric is how much money the candidate is raising. This was constantly monitored during the primaries and will be monitored even more closely between now and November. Candidates are raising money through all types of methods, including the Internet.
My fundamental question though, is: it really "support" if everyone sends $1?
On the Internet today, you can raise money easily. There are tools like PayPal and ChipIn that allow people to safely donate to the cause du jour. I don't mean to imply that these tools are bad or that some of the collections are bad. I think it's a good way to do fund raising. But, the question is, should we measure a politician's success by his (or her) ability to raise money this way?
I saw a recent article about a candidate for the Kansas legislature who is using PayPal to raise money for his candidacy. Sean Tevis has gone from a measly $1525 in his war chest before he started his Internet campaign to over $95,000 in just two weeks. And over 1/2 of these donations were under $8.34 each. But are these 5700+ people really supporting him or are they just laughing at the comic strip on his website?
Four years ago, Howard Dean was a fund-raising machine. He even looked at fund-raising as a sporting event, playing games with Bush supporters. When Bush had a big fund-raising dinner with $1000-a-plate (and more) dinners, Dean challenged his supporters to raise even more via the Internet, a few dollars at a time. (see article here).
But of course, Dean's campaign folded during the primaries and he never even made it to the 2004 election. (Kerry won the nomination, Bush the election)
You can even go back to 1970 and see the same kind of fund raising. Of course the Internet didn't exist in 1970, so George McGovern used an early form of spam called "direct mail" to do fund raising. It was a novel approach at the time and the response he received was higher than expected. "2 percent would have been a strong response," McGovern achieved 4%. Today's standard is 1/2 percent (reference here). The fund raising paid off, he won the Democratic nomination in 1972. However, he lost in a landslide election to Richard Nixon.
Now you can look at McGovern and Dean and identify other reasons these candidates didn't finish with the results reflected in their fund-raising. I have no idea of Sean Tevis' chances. But the question remains, does financial support through these fund raising techniques reflect real support?
I think the answer is obvious. But in order to prove it, I'd like everyone on the Internet to send me $1 for more research. If I raise $1million, I'm sure it will prove I have a lot of support.
My fundamental question though, is: it really "support" if everyone sends $1?
On the Internet today, you can raise money easily. There are tools like PayPal and ChipIn that allow people to safely donate to the cause du jour. I don't mean to imply that these tools are bad or that some of the collections are bad. I think it's a good way to do fund raising. But, the question is, should we measure a politician's success by his (or her) ability to raise money this way?
I saw a recent article about a candidate for the Kansas legislature who is using PayPal to raise money for his candidacy. Sean Tevis has gone from a measly $1525 in his war chest before he started his Internet campaign to over $95,000 in just two weeks. And over 1/2 of these donations were under $8.34 each. But are these 5700+ people really supporting him or are they just laughing at the comic strip on his website?
Four years ago, Howard Dean was a fund-raising machine. He even looked at fund-raising as a sporting event, playing games with Bush supporters. When Bush had a big fund-raising dinner with $1000-a-plate (and more) dinners, Dean challenged his supporters to raise even more via the Internet, a few dollars at a time. (see article here).
But of course, Dean's campaign folded during the primaries and he never even made it to the 2004 election. (Kerry won the nomination, Bush the election)
You can even go back to 1970 and see the same kind of fund raising. Of course the Internet didn't exist in 1970, so George McGovern used an early form of spam called "direct mail" to do fund raising. It was a novel approach at the time and the response he received was higher than expected. "2 percent would have been a strong response," McGovern achieved 4%. Today's standard is 1/2 percent (reference here). The fund raising paid off, he won the Democratic nomination in 1972. However, he lost in a landslide election to Richard Nixon.
Now you can look at McGovern and Dean and identify other reasons these candidates didn't finish with the results reflected in their fund-raising. I have no idea of Sean Tevis' chances. But the question remains, does financial support through these fund raising techniques reflect real support?
I think the answer is obvious. But in order to prove it, I'd like everyone on the Internet to send me $1 for more research. If I raise $1million, I'm sure it will prove I have a lot of support.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Obama's speech on racism
Warning: This entry could surprise my friends on both sides of the political aisle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.
In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!
I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.
Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.
At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.
Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."
Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.
Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."
What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.
He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).
He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).
Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".
He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."
So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
I endorsed this message - Platform building
Last week I announced my candidacy for the president. Then I explained that I was actually just planning to lay out what I thought was important for the candidate I intend to choose.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
When is a library not a library?
When you can't check anything out! See the article here.
Seems the Bill Clinton Presidential Library has a limited selection of information available to the viewing public. In particular, a collection of emails and papers about Hillary is not available and won't be until long after the 2008 election. Is she trying to hide something? How long did it take for her to find Whitewater papers? She must've used that as a trial ground to work this angle.
The story I heard on the radio said that less than 1/2 of 1% of all of the material from the Clinton days is available. This after Hillary promised us the library would be open.
Several republicans are running on the platform that they are the one who can beat Hillary. I've never liked someone who runs on a platform like this. But she is one person who almost makes me change my mind...
P.S. There's also a fishy report I heard about Hillary receiving donations from the China connection. I haven't researched it yet, but will post an entry when I do.
Seems the Bill Clinton Presidential Library has a limited selection of information available to the viewing public. In particular, a collection of emails and papers about Hillary is not available and won't be until long after the 2008 election. Is she trying to hide something? How long did it take for her to find Whitewater papers? She must've used that as a trial ground to work this angle.
The story I heard on the radio said that less than 1/2 of 1% of all of the material from the Clinton days is available. This after Hillary promised us the library would be open.
Several republicans are running on the platform that they are the one who can beat Hillary. I've never liked someone who runs on a platform like this. But she is one person who almost makes me change my mind...
P.S. There's also a fishy report I heard about Hillary receiving donations from the China connection. I haven't researched it yet, but will post an entry when I do.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Texas Student Booted - Follow-up
Several days ago, I posted an entry titled Texas Student Booted from School for Wearing John Edwards T-Shirt. In the post, I said “the question becomes, does the school district have the right (or responsibility) to restrict the clothes worn in order to keep the peace in school?” I sided with the schools.
I generated a couple of responses and promised to do more research. Special thanks to David and Tom who made me think (something that hasn’t happened outside of work in a while). This post will be long, I apologize but ask you to read it in full. Dissenting comments are welcome and expected.
While I have: 1) spent a lot of time in research and thought, 2) taken one (business) law course and 3) stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once or twice, any attempt to use this post for legal advice should be considered foolish. Or, if you use any arguments here in a bar and get into a fight, please don’t sue me.
Here’s a rough outline of my post, First, I will cover stare decis. It’s painfully long, but important. My second point will look quickly at some points on this specific case, along with points from cases that are similar. Finally, I will wrap up with my opinion and some supporting information.
Stare Decis
It’s important to understand a little bit about American law. Much to the disdain of my more conservative friends, criminal law in the US is based not only on the constitution and legislative laws, but also based on previous decisions. A policy of “stare decis” (I love speaking Latin) applies in the courts. Literally, this is translated “to stand by things decided.” It means that the courts recognize that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents.
In cases involving the Constitution, the Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases (according to Wikipedia – not always the best source, but usually good).
In his confirmation hearing, Judge Clarence Thomas said “Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. (This was in a response to Sen. Strom Thurmond, my SC senator for roughly 100 years).
But Thomas hasn’t always followed precedence. Judge Scalia has said "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right." Thomas would rather go against a previous ruling than continue a mistake. The judicial oath requires loyalty to the Constitution, rather than to precedence. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution (again, thanks to Wikipedia).
Specific cases
I found a variety of cases regarding schools and enforcement of dress code. Nearly all focused on the student’s freedom of speech vs the school’s requirements for peace. Tom mentioned a benchmark case (Tinker vs Des Moines School District) where students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The courts said that the school could not limit the students’ rights to free speech unless that speech constituted a “material disruption.”
Many cases go back to this 1969 decision. When looking at this specific case (Texas/Edwards t-shirt) it should be noted that the school district dress code prohibits all writing or slogans on student clothing except for “school spirit” slogans and “university logos.” The legal question would be: Does this school’s dress code meet the Tinker criteria – does the t-shirt create a “material disruption?”
The courts have decided that age of the student makes a difference. In Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., the courts ruled that elementary school students' rights were not violated when students were disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades" and "Racism". The court concluded that the students failed to demonstrate the right to wear expressive T-shirts while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.
In my words, elementary age students have no freedom of speech. (oops opinion slipping in too quickly)
Not only can age be a factor, but community standards can also influence school policy. In Hines v. Caston School Corp. the court noted that The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.
The court stated that a community's schools be permitted to reflect its values. The court also said that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."
In my words, the courts saw value in dress code.
The same held true in a 1987 Illinois case prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school. In this case, the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools. The court upheld the policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment. (Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228)
But the courts have not always supported a dress code. In California (where else?) in 1993 students filed and won a lawsuit against a dress code that prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college. The court ruled that the policy violated the student’s First Amendment free speech rights. (Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District)
And in a 1992 case in Oklahoma case, the courts held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students when the district banned T-shirts with advertisements for alcoholic beverages. The school district failed to meet its burden of proof that the T-shirt message in question would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages or that it would result in substantial disruption to the school. (McIntire v. Bethel Sch.)
Probably the most recent case was the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (2007). Seems a young man created a sign with the aforementioned slogan and held it at a school-sanctioned event (students were let out of class and accompanied by their teachers). He was suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use. The courts ruled his rights were not violated and his banner was “sophomoric”.
Opinion
So, staring in the face of stare decis (sorry couldn't resist), precedence going both ways, how should this case be settled? The courts have ruled both ways depending on whether or not they see a need for the policy. If it disrupts school, leads to gang violence or drugs is against community standards or if the children are young, the courts have upheld dress codes.
On the other hand, they have often torn down dress codes in the spirit of free speech. There’s no telling which way the court will rule here IF (big if) the people involved appeal. I wouldn't bet one way or the other.
My opinion remains the same. I side with the schools. If they have a policy against political comments on t-shirts, they should enforce it. Students who violate the policy should be disciplined.
If an individual is concerned about free speech, they should go to the school board meeting and voice their concern (no evidence that this was done in this case). If the school board fails to respond, a lawsuit could be filed WITHOUT disrupting school. You may argue that this shouldn’t disrupt schools, but it will. The teacher involved and the principal will have to decide whether to enforce the rules as handed to them, or violate them (and risk their jobs). Students will begin to lose respect for the system as a whole.
It’s possible to effect change within the system.
Thanks for reading this entire note. Special thanks again to Tom and David for making me think.
I generated a couple of responses and promised to do more research. Special thanks to David and Tom who made me think (something that hasn’t happened outside of work in a while). This post will be long, I apologize but ask you to read it in full. Dissenting comments are welcome and expected.
While I have: 1) spent a lot of time in research and thought, 2) taken one (business) law course and 3) stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once or twice, any attempt to use this post for legal advice should be considered foolish. Or, if you use any arguments here in a bar and get into a fight, please don’t sue me.
Here’s a rough outline of my post, First, I will cover stare decis. It’s painfully long, but important. My second point will look quickly at some points on this specific case, along with points from cases that are similar. Finally, I will wrap up with my opinion and some supporting information.
Stare Decis
It’s important to understand a little bit about American law. Much to the disdain of my more conservative friends, criminal law in the US is based not only on the constitution and legislative laws, but also based on previous decisions. A policy of “stare decis” (I love speaking Latin) applies in the courts. Literally, this is translated “to stand by things decided.” It means that the courts recognize that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents.
In cases involving the Constitution, the Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases (according to Wikipedia – not always the best source, but usually good).
In his confirmation hearing, Judge Clarence Thomas said “Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. (This was in a response to Sen. Strom Thurmond, my SC senator for roughly 100 years).
But Thomas hasn’t always followed precedence. Judge Scalia has said "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let’s get it right." Thomas would rather go against a previous ruling than continue a mistake. The judicial oath requires loyalty to the Constitution, rather than to precedence. Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution (again, thanks to Wikipedia).
Specific cases
I found a variety of cases regarding schools and enforcement of dress code. Nearly all focused on the student’s freedom of speech vs the school’s requirements for peace. Tom mentioned a benchmark case (Tinker vs Des Moines School District) where students wore black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The courts said that the school could not limit the students’ rights to free speech unless that speech constituted a “material disruption.”
Many cases go back to this 1969 decision. When looking at this specific case (Texas/Edwards t-shirt) it should be noted that the school district dress code prohibits all writing or slogans on student clothing except for “school spirit” slogans and “university logos.” The legal question would be: Does this school’s dress code meet the Tinker criteria – does the t-shirt create a “material disruption?”
The courts have decided that age of the student makes a difference. In Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., the courts ruled that elementary school students' rights were not violated when students were disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades" and "Racism". The court concluded that the students failed to demonstrate the right to wear expressive T-shirts while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.
In my words, elementary age students have no freedom of speech. (oops opinion slipping in too quickly)
Not only can age be a factor, but community standards can also influence school policy. In Hines v. Caston School Corp. the court noted that The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.
The court stated that a community's schools be permitted to reflect its values. The court also said that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."
In my words, the courts saw value in dress code.
The same held true in a 1987 Illinois case prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school. In this case, the school provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools. The court upheld the policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment. (Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228)
But the courts have not always supported a dress code. In California (where else?) in 1993 students filed and won a lawsuit against a dress code that prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college. The court ruled that the policy violated the student’s First Amendment free speech rights. (Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District)
And in a 1992 case in Oklahoma case, the courts held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students when the district banned T-shirts with advertisements for alcoholic beverages. The school district failed to meet its burden of proof that the T-shirt message in question would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages or that it would result in substantial disruption to the school. (McIntire v. Bethel Sch.)
Probably the most recent case was the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (2007). Seems a young man created a sign with the aforementioned slogan and held it at a school-sanctioned event (students were let out of class and accompanied by their teachers). He was suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use. The courts ruled his rights were not violated and his banner was “sophomoric”.
Opinion
So, staring in the face of stare decis (sorry couldn't resist), precedence going both ways, how should this case be settled? The courts have ruled both ways depending on whether or not they see a need for the policy. If it disrupts school, leads to gang violence or drugs is against community standards or if the children are young, the courts have upheld dress codes.
On the other hand, they have often torn down dress codes in the spirit of free speech. There’s no telling which way the court will rule here IF (big if) the people involved appeal. I wouldn't bet one way or the other.
My opinion remains the same. I side with the schools. If they have a policy against political comments on t-shirts, they should enforce it. Students who violate the policy should be disciplined.
If an individual is concerned about free speech, they should go to the school board meeting and voice their concern (no evidence that this was done in this case). If the school board fails to respond, a lawsuit could be filed WITHOUT disrupting school. You may argue that this shouldn’t disrupt schools, but it will. The teacher involved and the principal will have to decide whether to enforce the rules as handed to them, or violate them (and risk their jobs). Students will begin to lose respect for the system as a whole.
It’s possible to effect change within the system.
Thanks for reading this entire note. Special thanks again to Tom and David for making me think.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Great post in another blog
One of my sometimes-readers had a humorous post that I loved. I hope you'll love it too.
Look at his blog here.
I intentionally pointed to his whole blog, not just the post that got my attention. Look for "The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name..." it's hilarious (note that he says it's a parody).
The post after that (or before that depending on how you look at it) is done in respect for equal time.
Look at his blog here.
I intentionally pointed to his whole blog, not just the post that got my attention. Look for "The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name..." it's hilarious (note that he says it's a parody).
The post after that (or before that depending on how you look at it) is done in respect for equal time.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Call to treason
If you like Tom Clancy and just don't have the time to read one of hus 600+ page books, but can handle 400 pages, this Op-Center book is a good read.
If you are into politics and you've ever wondered how much change politics can implement, or how much government agencies should carry out political changes, you should read this.
If you're concerned about Homeland security, CIA involvement in politics, etc, you should read this.
In all cases, remember that it's fiction.
Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Call to Treason is a good read. As with all of the Op-Center books, this is not real Clancy, but it's close. Clancy sketches an outline, passes it to some "junior" writers and then reviews it. As with other Op-Centers, this book is exciting.
The characters in this book are passed along from the other Op-Center books. If you've read other Op-Center books, you'll know them and have ideas about them. But if you haven't read those, don't worry, the book can be enjoyed without any other knowledge. This book may encourage you to read all of them (they're always on my list, for lighter reading).
In the book, Op-Center faces budget cuts. The organization is down-sized and one of the guys goes to work for a new political party. The new political party is aiming to win the presidency and change things. First on the agenda are immigration and trade.
But some folks related to the new party have a habit of getting killed (as with most of Clancy's stuff, killed in a spectacular way).
Trying to figure out who the good guys are and who are the bad guys is intriguing. I had trouble deciding if the head of the party was good or bad. And also for the guys below him
One question that was raised was how far is too far to go to stop a bad politician? If you didn't like one of the political candidates, and you thought he/she might win, to what lengths would you go to stop him/her? The book doesn't try to answer that (it's just entertainment, not ethics), but you should think about it.
Overall, a very good read.
If you are into politics and you've ever wondered how much change politics can implement, or how much government agencies should carry out political changes, you should read this.
If you're concerned about Homeland security, CIA involvement in politics, etc, you should read this.
In all cases, remember that it's fiction.
Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Call to Treason is a good read. As with all of the Op-Center books, this is not real Clancy, but it's close. Clancy sketches an outline, passes it to some "junior" writers and then reviews it. As with other Op-Centers, this book is exciting.
The characters in this book are passed along from the other Op-Center books. If you've read other Op-Center books, you'll know them and have ideas about them. But if you haven't read those, don't worry, the book can be enjoyed without any other knowledge. This book may encourage you to read all of them (they're always on my list, for lighter reading).
In the book, Op-Center faces budget cuts. The organization is down-sized and one of the guys goes to work for a new political party. The new political party is aiming to win the presidency and change things. First on the agenda are immigration and trade.
But some folks related to the new party have a habit of getting killed (as with most of Clancy's stuff, killed in a spectacular way).
Trying to figure out who the good guys are and who are the bad guys is intriguing. I had trouble deciding if the head of the party was good or bad. And also for the guys below him
One question that was raised was how far is too far to go to stop a bad politician? If you didn't like one of the political candidates, and you thought he/she might win, to what lengths would you go to stop him/her? The book doesn't try to answer that (it's just entertainment, not ethics), but you should think about it.
Overall, a very good read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)