http://www.usnews.com/opinion/slideshows/12-ways-republicans-want-to-change-the-constitution/2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/jeff-flake-arizona-senate_n_1771064.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
It is a rare day when my anti-Federalist blood gets as pumped as it did today when I read this article. While many Democrats would scoff at me for supporting this, I am behind it..at least tentatively. In fact, I think if Democrats were to look at their roots, they too might be on board. If a modern Democrat looked at the party and it's origins, they will see a desire for the public to be best represented. Jefferson, the first Democrat, had the American people in mind, as did Jackson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson. Indirect election would actually, in my mind, put the election of Senators back into the hands of the people. It takes some reasoning, but if you follow my line of thought you might just agree
Under the original plans, states elected their Senators in the state houses. It favored parties that were in power in the state. This ideally would mean that state officials were more important than they are today. I am a big fan of close representation which state elections are a prime example. Ideally, your state delegate is someone from your community. They are easy to access and are more accountable to their district. If a state house is Republican, it means that the state is primarily Republican. Simply put, state government is a better representation of the state.
If the state house is a better representation of the people, it picking a Senator to go to Washington would mean that Senator it picks is a better representation of the people. Granted it does add a middle man, but it would force people to pay closer attention to the representatives they send to their state capitals. I see people paying attention to a state race more when it means that in affect they are electing three people, not just one. Democrats have always been about close government more than small government. Jefferson's whole political philosophy is based on the idea of a organic government. The people representing you should be the people you are closest associated. The public should not only be educated about the people they are voting for, they should have an intimate understanding of the person. State elected officials are about the closest you can get, and them have any power. Adding the power to elect a Senator adds responsibility to the delegates, whom you should have a better relationship. If you do not agree with the Senator sent to Washington by your delegate, you have every right to vote them out.
There are some inherent problems with in-direct elections. The given one being the corruption that comes with it, but it does add positive implications to state elections. Adding power to the states adds to the responsibility of the state officials, AND the people of that state. This is something I agree with totally. We the voting public need to be more educated about those that we are sending to the state capital. These are people we should already know, so educating ourselves on the political stances should not be too hard. Knowing too the fact that my state delegate is sending the right person to Washington is something I should take more seriously. While it might seem less democratic, and something modern Democrats ought to be against, they ought to be behind this. It gives the power to the people, and taps into the roots of not only the early Democrats but the anti-Federalist nerve endings. Patrick Henry would be jumping up and down.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Friday, August 10, 2012
What Is Wrong With This Picture? I Got Nothing Except Everything
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/9/former_dhs_analyst_daryl_johnson_on
I heard this article on Democracy Now yesterday and knew right away this was a good candidate for a WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?. If you look at this the way I did, you will not see much wrong, except the glaringly obvious fact that the government failed to act on information given to them, AND the fact that history has shown this to be true. This is a prime example of the upper levels of the government failing to heed the warnings of lower level information, and frankly history. So again I ask WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PICTURE? and say I got nothing except everything.
From a historical context, the idea that hate groups and radical organizations that seek out the destruction of central fibers in our way of life springing up during times of economic hardship is not new. Many Depression historians will note that groups like the The American Communist Party and the Klu Klux Klan had a ground swell of membership at the height of the Great Depression. An astonishing number of people who could barely put food on the table, found a way to pay dues for groups that sought to press down economically competing groups of people or sought alternatives to the then broken system. If the increase in numbers to such groups during the Great Depression is not evidence enough, perhaps the origins of these groups during American Reconstruction is. One does not need to think hard to make the connection between the fears of new economic participants (former slaves) being introduced to a struggling economy (The South) as an impudence for the formation of an organizations like the KKK. The group's goals at the time (and to this day) was to chase away groups that posed a economic threat to their already struggling class of poor whites. If race is not your flavor, economics might be. The American Communist Party dates back to the late 1800's when Communism was a new political theory out of Europe. Americans who looked for a reconfiguring of the American system as a way to increase their own economic standing flocked to the party in droves.
Fastforward to today, and the ideas are still here. Neo-Nazis and Communist type groups (OWS) are still dominate in the news, more especially in the light of the tragic shooting in Wisconsin. The fact that those in the media are treating this increase in groups like this during our very own Great Recession as a new occurrence (or even denying it) is a bit disheartening. As a quasi- historian, I can see this as an extension of the growth during the Great Recession. Times are hard, and people are (to use a term from the Depression) "looking for answers." Some seek out groups that wrongly target people that they deem are the cause of the depression like gays, immigrants, and black. Other look to groups like the TEA Party and OWS that try to change the very nature of the American economic system. Is this right? I would argue for the groups that seek change over those that target and use hate. Is it new? Not in the least.
What I have the biggest problem with is the Bush administration's failure to heed the warnings from the Department of Homeland Security about radical groups in the United States. What is even more troubling is that the DHS was Bush's baby. Here is a cabinet department born at the hands of George himself, and he is not listening to serious threats being brought to him from his child. Information (brought to Bush from the department's cabinet member) was present that warned of an increase of hate groups, but that information was ignored almost wholesale. This represents a failure of our government to protect citizens, when the opportunity arose. The presidential cabinet is designed to advise the President, and in this case that system failed.
By no means am I saying hate groups are a good thing, but they are not new. Neither is the idea that the government does not heed even the most blatant information designed to protect its citizens. One can find examples of both in our history. What is new is the media's failure to recognize that history does tend to repeat itself in similar if not exact ways. Also new is the idea that an administration failing to heed warnings brought to it by it's very own poster child. Even Kennedy listened to NASA when it said it needed money and manpower. From my point of view, there is very little wrong with this picture..except everything.
I heard this article on Democracy Now yesterday and knew right away this was a good candidate for a WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?. If you look at this the way I did, you will not see much wrong, except the glaringly obvious fact that the government failed to act on information given to them, AND the fact that history has shown this to be true. This is a prime example of the upper levels of the government failing to heed the warnings of lower level information, and frankly history. So again I ask WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PICTURE? and say I got nothing except everything.
From a historical context, the idea that hate groups and radical organizations that seek out the destruction of central fibers in our way of life springing up during times of economic hardship is not new. Many Depression historians will note that groups like the The American Communist Party and the Klu Klux Klan had a ground swell of membership at the height of the Great Depression. An astonishing number of people who could barely put food on the table, found a way to pay dues for groups that sought to press down economically competing groups of people or sought alternatives to the then broken system. If the increase in numbers to such groups during the Great Depression is not evidence enough, perhaps the origins of these groups during American Reconstruction is. One does not need to think hard to make the connection between the fears of new economic participants (former slaves) being introduced to a struggling economy (The South) as an impudence for the formation of an organizations like the KKK. The group's goals at the time (and to this day) was to chase away groups that posed a economic threat to their already struggling class of poor whites. If race is not your flavor, economics might be. The American Communist Party dates back to the late 1800's when Communism was a new political theory out of Europe. Americans who looked for a reconfiguring of the American system as a way to increase their own economic standing flocked to the party in droves.
Fastforward to today, and the ideas are still here. Neo-Nazis and Communist type groups (OWS) are still dominate in the news, more especially in the light of the tragic shooting in Wisconsin. The fact that those in the media are treating this increase in groups like this during our very own Great Recession as a new occurrence (or even denying it) is a bit disheartening. As a quasi- historian, I can see this as an extension of the growth during the Great Recession. Times are hard, and people are (to use a term from the Depression) "looking for answers." Some seek out groups that wrongly target people that they deem are the cause of the depression like gays, immigrants, and black. Other look to groups like the TEA Party and OWS that try to change the very nature of the American economic system. Is this right? I would argue for the groups that seek change over those that target and use hate. Is it new? Not in the least.
What I have the biggest problem with is the Bush administration's failure to heed the warnings from the Department of Homeland Security about radical groups in the United States. What is even more troubling is that the DHS was Bush's baby. Here is a cabinet department born at the hands of George himself, and he is not listening to serious threats being brought to him from his child. Information (brought to Bush from the department's cabinet member) was present that warned of an increase of hate groups, but that information was ignored almost wholesale. This represents a failure of our government to protect citizens, when the opportunity arose. The presidential cabinet is designed to advise the President, and in this case that system failed.
By no means am I saying hate groups are a good thing, but they are not new. Neither is the idea that the government does not heed even the most blatant information designed to protect its citizens. One can find examples of both in our history. What is new is the media's failure to recognize that history does tend to repeat itself in similar if not exact ways. Also new is the idea that an administration failing to heed warnings brought to it by it's very own poster child. Even Kennedy listened to NASA when it said it needed money and manpower. From my point of view, there is very little wrong with this picture..except everything.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
When Politics Meets Sports
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/sports/olympics/olympic-runner-from-sudan-seeks-asylum-in-london.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ike-awgu/olympics-2012_b_1738691.html
As we here in America celebrate the Olympics and count the many medals our athletes are winning there is a predictable undercurrent of politics at the London games. Even before a single event was played, the political implications of the Olympics had started. Whether it is the South Sudanese runner who came to the games virtually without a country, or the growing number of political defectors, the Olympics represent more than world class performances on the field. It is a time when strife and politics take a back seat to skill and determination, but as always this isn't the case.
On one hand you have the somewhat mild case of Gaur Marial from South Sudan, where his country is simply too new. South Sudan has just recently turned a year old, and in the midst of forming a new country did not have time to form an Olympic track team. Marial was left without a place to train. Wanting to represent South Sudan, Marial came to the U.S. to train, but was not cleared to leave the country for London because he had yet to become a citizen. This is less about politics (The United States recognized South Sudan instantly) and more with timing but it brings up the idea that politics does supersede sports, even when it has to do with the United States. South Sudan is the world's newest country, and the United States had much to do with it, but it does take awhile to become a citizen..Olympic athlete or not. Marial plans to come back to the United States after competing as an Independent Olympic athlete in London, where I am sure he will gladly become a citizen.
On the other you have the more sinister cases of political defectors and their home country's attempts to prevent the defections. Already in London, several athletes (including a Sudanese runner, Cameroonian boxers, soccer players and swimmers) have made their way to English authorities to claim asylum. This is not an uncommon occurrence at the Olympics or any international sporting event. The list of defected athletes is too extensive to list here (including a the child of Cuban defectors competing for the United States), but there is mutual benefit for these political vagabonds and the countries that come to.
Two things come to light when citizens of one country leave that country for another. The first is that there must be serious unrest in the home country. I love my country, and it would take a good deal for me to leave my family and friends in that country. The second is much less ideological and more cruel. Actions taken by home countries to keep there athletes range from futile to down right cruel. North Korea offers cars, money and even refrigerators, while others reportedly threaten to harm family members should an athlete not return. To me this is senseless. Why would the country not spend more time correcting what would cause a person to leave, rather than simply trying to stop them from leaving. Let's face it, would you come back to North Korea for a car? I don't think all the cars in the world would make me want to come back to North Korea. Understand, these countries are often dictatorships or very centralized governments, so they simply don't care about the people, but maybe if things were better at home the athletes would not want to leave.
Politics are important. Sports are important. Every four years these worlds mix in a tense but glorious event known as the Olympics. Though the Olympics are an event to showcase the competitive talents of world class athletes often times political events take precedence. From the athlete stymied by the fact that his country is simply too young, to young people striving to make their life better in a new country, there are somethings that are more important than sports. Even at the event that is supposed to only be about sports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ike-awgu/olympics-2012_b_1738691.html
As we here in America celebrate the Olympics and count the many medals our athletes are winning there is a predictable undercurrent of politics at the London games. Even before a single event was played, the political implications of the Olympics had started. Whether it is the South Sudanese runner who came to the games virtually without a country, or the growing number of political defectors, the Olympics represent more than world class performances on the field. It is a time when strife and politics take a back seat to skill and determination, but as always this isn't the case.
On one hand you have the somewhat mild case of Gaur Marial from South Sudan, where his country is simply too new. South Sudan has just recently turned a year old, and in the midst of forming a new country did not have time to form an Olympic track team. Marial was left without a place to train. Wanting to represent South Sudan, Marial came to the U.S. to train, but was not cleared to leave the country for London because he had yet to become a citizen. This is less about politics (The United States recognized South Sudan instantly) and more with timing but it brings up the idea that politics does supersede sports, even when it has to do with the United States. South Sudan is the world's newest country, and the United States had much to do with it, but it does take awhile to become a citizen..Olympic athlete or not. Marial plans to come back to the United States after competing as an Independent Olympic athlete in London, where I am sure he will gladly become a citizen.
 |
| Gaur Marial, South Sudan's Only Olympic Athlete |
 |
| Gymnast Maria Gonzalez and Coach Yin Alvarez Both Defected From Cuba And Represent The United States In London |
 |
| "Come Home, Get A Refrigerator" Said One North Korean Olympic Official |
Monday, August 6, 2012
If It Could Have Gotten Worse For Democrats..It Just Did
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/04/us-usa-politics-tennesee-idUSBRE87302Y20120804
Tennessee is home to two national mule and donkey shows (Shelbyville and Columbia), but these are the only two places you are going to find a large gathering of donkeys (four legged or otherwise). As I have written before, Democrats in Tennessee in a bad way, and last week's story about Mark Clayton only hurts their case. Tennessee is, and appears to remain, a Republican state. In addition to their solid voting Republican, they seem to have a pretty good eye for who is a "good Republican." So where does that leave the Democrats? Is there any need for them to bother? The evidence is stacked against them. Despite the effort of a few strong willed pockets of Dems, fools like Mark Clayton are not helping the cause, that's for sure, but he is only the latest in a long list of problems for the donkeys in Tennessee.
Many might say the problems started for the Democrats when ran Mike McWherter, son of former governor Ned McWherter, for governor in 2010. Granted Bill Haslam did have the backing of big money from the Republican party, it was not even a real race. McWherter managed a meager 33.1% of the popular vote and won a paltry five counties, all west of Knoxville (and people don't believe me when I say west Tennessee is a different state). McWherter did not campaign well. At least in eastern Tennessee he was a none factor. Part of that could have been that Haslam was the very popular mayor of Knoxville and had the east sewn up before he started. It is easy to say the cards were stacked against McWherter from the start, but I contend other wise.
Tennessee's last Democratic Senator left office in 1995. In the U.S. House, only two placards have (D-TN) after the name. If you leave Al Gore Jr. out of the picture, Tennessee has not played large in national politics in half an century. You could argue the last volunteer to hold major power was Cordell Hull. Tennessee's state house is held by Republicans, and so is the Senate. Tennessee went for Bush both times and McCain. Despite it's Democratic leanings in the west, central and east are Republican almost to a man. It is a solidly red state, but why?
I think that part of it is that Tennesseeans are for the most part conservative when it comes to money issues, and ultimately those win out. No one (nation wide) is all that liberal on taxes and government money, so social issues are where many votes are won and lost. Tennessee happens to be a fairly conservative state on those too so the Republican win out. Republicans simply win out on the G's (Guns, God, Gays) and Tennesseeans go red. In addition to the issues, Republicans run candidates that are actually Tennesseeans. Haslam, Lamar Alexander, and all but one Republican Representative is from Tennessee. The Gores had northern roots, and Phil Bredesen (Tennessee's last Democratic governor) was from New Jersey. It makes it hard to vote for a guy that isn't from where he represents..or at least it is for my and my high standards.
The Democrats don't help themselves by affiliating themselves with jokers like Clayton, but there is a larger problem. Democrats are simply not "Democrat enough." In his book BLUE DIXIE, Bob Moser points out the flaws on a regional scale, and the inability of the Democratic party to win majorities in the south since the Civil War. Political wildcards like my favorite consultant Dave "Mudcat" Saunders are running around out there trying to spread the gospel of the Jackson to the descendants of Jackson and it is a tough sale. Rather than trying to be real Democrats (something Moser and Saunders would agree is a good thing), Democrats are trying to be Republican-Lite and its not working.
I will leave my comments on the specifics with Mark Clayton to another time, but I will say it is a hard day for Democrats in Tennessee. Selling Jackson, Jefferson, and FDR (for heavens sake that ought to be easy) is not as easy because of names like Bredesen, McWharter, and now Clayton, but it is not entirely their fault. Democrats need to step up and be Democrats Stop being ashamed. After all we have two national celebrations for the four legged variety and it was a donkey of the two legged nature that gave power to the valley. It's time the Democrats remember that, and start recruting some two legged donkeys that are worth more than a broken down four legged.
Tennessee is home to two national mule and donkey shows (Shelbyville and Columbia), but these are the only two places you are going to find a large gathering of donkeys (four legged or otherwise). As I have written before, Democrats in Tennessee in a bad way, and last week's story about Mark Clayton only hurts their case. Tennessee is, and appears to remain, a Republican state. In addition to their solid voting Republican, they seem to have a pretty good eye for who is a "good Republican." So where does that leave the Democrats? Is there any need for them to bother? The evidence is stacked against them. Despite the effort of a few strong willed pockets of Dems, fools like Mark Clayton are not helping the cause, that's for sure, but he is only the latest in a long list of problems for the donkeys in Tennessee.
Many might say the problems started for the Democrats when ran Mike McWherter, son of former governor Ned McWherter, for governor in 2010. Granted Bill Haslam did have the backing of big money from the Republican party, it was not even a real race. McWherter managed a meager 33.1% of the popular vote and won a paltry five counties, all west of Knoxville (and people don't believe me when I say west Tennessee is a different state). McWherter did not campaign well. At least in eastern Tennessee he was a none factor. Part of that could have been that Haslam was the very popular mayor of Knoxville and had the east sewn up before he started. It is easy to say the cards were stacked against McWherter from the start, but I contend other wise.
Tennessee's last Democratic Senator left office in 1995. In the U.S. House, only two placards have (D-TN) after the name. If you leave Al Gore Jr. out of the picture, Tennessee has not played large in national politics in half an century. You could argue the last volunteer to hold major power was Cordell Hull. Tennessee's state house is held by Republicans, and so is the Senate. Tennessee went for Bush both times and McCain. Despite it's Democratic leanings in the west, central and east are Republican almost to a man. It is a solidly red state, but why?
I think that part of it is that Tennesseeans are for the most part conservative when it comes to money issues, and ultimately those win out. No one (nation wide) is all that liberal on taxes and government money, so social issues are where many votes are won and lost. Tennessee happens to be a fairly conservative state on those too so the Republican win out. Republicans simply win out on the G's (Guns, God, Gays) and Tennesseeans go red. In addition to the issues, Republicans run candidates that are actually Tennesseeans. Haslam, Lamar Alexander, and all but one Republican Representative is from Tennessee. The Gores had northern roots, and Phil Bredesen (Tennessee's last Democratic governor) was from New Jersey. It makes it hard to vote for a guy that isn't from where he represents..or at least it is for my and my high standards.
The Democrats don't help themselves by affiliating themselves with jokers like Clayton, but there is a larger problem. Democrats are simply not "Democrat enough." In his book BLUE DIXIE, Bob Moser points out the flaws on a regional scale, and the inability of the Democratic party to win majorities in the south since the Civil War. Political wildcards like my favorite consultant Dave "Mudcat" Saunders are running around out there trying to spread the gospel of the Jackson to the descendants of Jackson and it is a tough sale. Rather than trying to be real Democrats (something Moser and Saunders would agree is a good thing), Democrats are trying to be Republican-Lite and its not working.
I will leave my comments on the specifics with Mark Clayton to another time, but I will say it is a hard day for Democrats in Tennessee. Selling Jackson, Jefferson, and FDR (for heavens sake that ought to be easy) is not as easy because of names like Bredesen, McWharter, and now Clayton, but it is not entirely their fault. Democrats need to step up and be Democrats Stop being ashamed. After all we have two national celebrations for the four legged variety and it was a donkey of the two legged nature that gave power to the valley. It's time the Democrats remember that, and start recruting some two legged donkeys that are worth more than a broken down four legged.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Democracy And Technology Have A Spoiled Brat For A Child
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/pfeiffer-i-overshot-the-runway-on-churchill-bust-130704.html
The above article has something to do with an apology from a writer about a misguided story regarding the removal of a Winston Churchill bust from the White House. I'm not really sure of the story, nor why it is important. What got my attention, and thus made it to this blog, were the scathing responses from Facebook at the bottom.
I have to admit several things before I go further. One of such things is that it is summer, and I am not working. I have time to read these things and get my knickers in a wad. A second thing (and you may know this) is that it is easy to get yanked into a debate on a Facebook forum or what not and have a whole argument in short sentences. I've done it, and you may have too. I'm not faulting the people, but I do have a problem with the system.
I am not old enough to remember politics without the internet. The world without the internet is something I grasp, but I was not aware of politics until a time when the internet played a role. I was able (however reluctantly) to see the internet effect politics from the start both in high school and college. In it's infancy the internet was seen as the center piece of a "new Democracy." We would suddenly see what people from across the country thought about a policy. We would have new ways to share ideas, and communicate for the common good. Then social media springs up as if it were loaded, and it too was going to be the savior of democracy in this new world. In reading the remarks at the bottom of this article, I could not disagree more.
Yes, there have been some successful uses of the internet, social media in particular, in spreading movements like the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street Movement (remember those guys?) but on a daily basis Democracy has devolved into harmful snipes at the bottom of a blog post. We want to win a debate over complex issues in twenty-five words or less. We pick fights with people thinking we are smarter than them on no grounds other than what we assume they are. Democracy (subsequently debate) is about knowing the person you are debating, knowing why they think the way the do. Carefully thought out counterpoints not smartassed remarks aimed at inflaming the argument. Democracy thrives when both people are right, and each sees the validity of the other's argument. In reading the comments at the bottom of the article, I saw none of that. Lame remarks and cheap shots are far more common than words with substance and valid points. And this is the face of a "new Democracy?"
Any debate is going to have quick lines and come backs, but this is to a new low. I would welcome anyone to comment on any of my posts, but I would require the be something behind your words. Think before you type away.
The above article has something to do with an apology from a writer about a misguided story regarding the removal of a Winston Churchill bust from the White House. I'm not really sure of the story, nor why it is important. What got my attention, and thus made it to this blog, were the scathing responses from Facebook at the bottom.
I have to admit several things before I go further. One of such things is that it is summer, and I am not working. I have time to read these things and get my knickers in a wad. A second thing (and you may know this) is that it is easy to get yanked into a debate on a Facebook forum or what not and have a whole argument in short sentences. I've done it, and you may have too. I'm not faulting the people, but I do have a problem with the system.
I am not old enough to remember politics without the internet. The world without the internet is something I grasp, but I was not aware of politics until a time when the internet played a role. I was able (however reluctantly) to see the internet effect politics from the start both in high school and college. In it's infancy the internet was seen as the center piece of a "new Democracy." We would suddenly see what people from across the country thought about a policy. We would have new ways to share ideas, and communicate for the common good. Then social media springs up as if it were loaded, and it too was going to be the savior of democracy in this new world. In reading the remarks at the bottom of this article, I could not disagree more.
Yes, there have been some successful uses of the internet, social media in particular, in spreading movements like the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street Movement (remember those guys?) but on a daily basis Democracy has devolved into harmful snipes at the bottom of a blog post. We want to win a debate over complex issues in twenty-five words or less. We pick fights with people thinking we are smarter than them on no grounds other than what we assume they are. Democracy (subsequently debate) is about knowing the person you are debating, knowing why they think the way the do. Carefully thought out counterpoints not smartassed remarks aimed at inflaming the argument. Democracy thrives when both people are right, and each sees the validity of the other's argument. In reading the comments at the bottom of the article, I saw none of that. Lame remarks and cheap shots are far more common than words with substance and valid points. And this is the face of a "new Democracy?"
Any debate is going to have quick lines and come backs, but this is to a new low. I would welcome anyone to comment on any of my posts, but I would require the be something behind your words. Think before you type away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)