Category Politcal Muse

Entries 14 Total

Give Iowa the Death Penalty, Now!

Jan 19, ’12 9:31 AM

The first primary of the year has always been held in Iowa. Iowa is a tiny little state that gets a LOT of attention every four years. I have always wondered why both Republicans and Democrats let Iowa have so much power in presidential politics. You may recall that on January 3rd Iowa announced that Mitt Romney had won the Iowa Caucus. Today we learn that votes from eight precincts weren’t counted and as a result Rick Santorum actually won the Iowa caucuses.

The New Hampshire primary has already passed (Romney won) and South Carolina’s primary is tomorrow – and Iowa is just now figuring out who won? This is nuts. I think it is time for the GOP and DNC to step back and rethink the whole order of primaries. It never made sense to give Iowa so much power, but now that we ALSO realize that they are incompetent I think it is time let another state be first.

There are a number of primary reform ideas. Which one do you like best (anything but Iowa I say):

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System (American Plan)
One reform concept is the graduated random presidential primary system, variations of which have been referred to as the American Plan or the California Plan. This plan starts with small primaries, and gradually moves up to larger ones, in 10 steps, with states chosen at random. The idea is that fewer initial primaries, typically in smaller states, would allow grassroots campaigns to score early successes and pick up steam. However, since states are chosen at random, travel costs may still be significant.

Delaware Plan
A commission empaneled by the Republican National Committee recommended the Delaware Plan in 2000. This plan had states grouped by size into four groups, with the smallest primaries first, then the next-smallest, and so on. Populous states objected to the plan, however, because it would have always scheduled their primaries at the end of the season. Other criticisms included the wide geographic range of the states, necessitating high travel costs. The Delaware Plan was put to vote at Republican National Convention of 2000 and rejected.

Rotating Regional Primary System
The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed a Rotating Regional Primary System, with the country split into four regions: the West, the Midwest, the South, and the Northeast.[20] Unlike the Delaware Plan and the American Plan, the Rotating Regional Primary System would lower campaigning costs by restricting groups of primaries to single, contiguous regions. Criticisms of the regional plan include the higher entry costs than the other plans (since 1/4 of the country would vote in the first regional), and the political bias of certain regions (the South or the Northeast) unduly influencing the selection of a nominee.

Interregional Primary Plan
In the Interregional Primary Plan the country is divided into geographical regions. On each primary date from March to June, one state from each of six regions votes. Each election date would contain a wide variety of perspectives. The order of the states in each region is set by a lottery. In a 24-year cycle, every state would have a chance to be among the first primary states. The primary criticism of this plan is that travel costs would be quite high: in each round, candidates would essentially have to cover the entire country in order to effectively campaign. Contrary to most reform plans, this would reduce the ability of lesser-funded candidates to build up from small contests to large ones.[21]

National Primary
Many have proposed a National Primary, a single day on which all state primaries and caucuses would be held.

Comments (0)

Who killed the pipeline? Republicans or Obama?

Jan 19, ’12 8:59 AM

If you have listened to the news on the Keystone XL Pipeline today you might be thinking that the Republicans are responsible for killing the pipeline – you would be wrong. After hearing these reports I decided to read Obama’s official statement on his rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline. He suggested that Republicans ‘forced’ his hand by setting an arbitrary 60-day deadline for a decision. When I heard the explanation on NPR this morning the president’s position seemed reasonable and appropriate. Those crazy Republicans wanted to force him to make a decision before he had enough time to study the impact of the pipeline – they only gave him two months. Wow. So I decided to do a little research of my own. Turns out the truth is very different from what either Obama or NPR wants us to believe. Obama has been delaying a decision for political reasons since entering office in 2008 – more than three years…

The Keystone XL was proposed in 2008 and was approved by the National Energy Board in 2010.  Obama and NPR’s assertion that Republicans are ‘rushing’ him is completely BS. His administration has had three years to study the impact of the pipeline. The Republican’s 60 day deadline for a decision was in direct response to Obama’s announcement in November that he was going to delay a decision on the pipeline until November 2013 – just days after the presidential election. Obama wasn’t rushed – he was forced to admit what he was planning all along – to reject the pipeline. The only way we get the pipeline is to get a new President, period.

Obama claims that he is concerned about the pipeline’s route through the environmentally sensitive Sandhills in Nebraska. What he doesn’t tell you is that Keystone worked extensively with the US Department of State and came up with 14 (yes 14) different routes including one route that avoided the Sandhills entirely. In November the Governor of Nebraska signed to compromise bills with the pipeline builder to move the route out of the Sandhills.

At the end of the day Obama is against the pipeline. Had it not been for the Republicans forcing him to reveal his decision the American people wouldn’t have known about his decision until after he was reelected. Will this information make a difference? I hope so. Energy independence is VERY important for America. Sending our money to the Middle East is simply a bad idea. Depending on the Middle East for our oil is a VERY bad idea. Today we produce around 60% of our own oil and with the pipeline the Americas could produce more than 2/3rds of our oil – within a decade we could produce 100%.

Comments (0)

Making America Fair in 2012

Jan 2, ’12 10:51 AM

I wanted to share two stories with you on this second day of 2012 that gave me pause. They are bookends – the first a story about how government is using its power to allow discrimination against candidates who are too intelligent – the second a story about how government is using its power to prevent discrimination against candidates who lack even the most basic education.

The first story is out of New London, Connecticut where the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that police departments may bar applicants with high IQs from serving as police officers. The New London Police Department determined that less intelligent applicants are less ambitious and tend to stay in the same job longer than smarter applicants who tend to be more ambitious. Need I explain why this is a mistake on so many levels?

The second story is out of Washington DC where the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has warned employers that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC suggests that applicants who were unable to graduate because of learning disabilities would be protected under the ADA and have actions against any employer who might reject their application for employment for lack of a diploma.

Our leaders are well intentioned, but I can’t help but feel their best of intentions are dooming us for failure as a nation. We need fewer laws, fewer regulations, fewer leaders – doing less, not more.

Comments (0)

Is Newt too liberal to get the GOP nomination?

Dec 16, ’11 9:56 AM

Interestingly, many of the recent attacks against Newt Gingrich have coalesced around this idea that Newt isn’t conservative enough to win the GOP presidential nomination. My first reaction is to argue that Newt is very conservative, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that perhaps these attacks can help voters realize why he is perhaps the perfect leader for the problems this country faces.

Too many conservatives seem to get stuck on principle and fail to move their agenda forward. The reality is that most Americans want America to work ~ liberals and conservatives ~ and if you can harness this desire you can accomplish a LOT. Newt’s detractors suggest that by working with Democrats like Bill Clinton he showed his true colors as a moderate (and not a right wing nut). I suggest that today, perhaps more importantly than ever before, we need to find ways to come together to deal with problems that seem insurmountable. Beating our heads against the wall to push our agenda forward without success is perhaps a strategy best left in the past.

For centuries armies unsuccessfully attacked the island fortress of Tyre ~ it was simply impossible to attack from the sea. The fortress had its own fresh water source and could withstand a siege indefinitely. Alexander the Great needed the island to be able to continue his campaign against the Persians, but his advisers and detractors thought he was insane for attempting to take the island despite the hundreds of years of history indicating it was impossible. Instead of using brute force Alexander turned to his engineers who designed and built a land bridge to allow his army to walk right up to the walls and attack them with traditional siege engine technologies. Alexander needed to take the city, but instead of solving the naval problem he decided to solve a different problem that no one before him ever considered. Once he laid out his plans it was obvious to everyone (his detractors and opponents) that he would be successful. I think Newt can be the same kind of leader. Will he spend his time on abortion policy and gay marriage? Probably not, but I would argue that when your house is on fire you shouldn’t be measuring for new drapes – you need to put out the fire.

Newt has literally written the book on every major issue we face as a country. No one else has as much experience (and if you think we don’t need experience just look at the current occupant of the White House if you want a novice running our country) getting things done on both sides of the aisle. Newt is willing to compromise when that compromise will advance the interests of our country.

Comments (0)

Puppies, Drugs and Guns – an issue of demand

Dec 5, ’11 7:23 PM

Michael Mooney published an article in D Magazine titled, “Dallas’ Puppy Problem, Last year, the city killed 14,732 dogs. Until that number drops, it should be illegal to sell them.” My friends on the left think the quickest way to solve things like illegal drug use, gun crimes and puppy massacres is to ban them. Simply pass a law and people will stop taking drugs, killing each other and abandoning their dogs, right? In fact if Michael gets his way we will have more unwanted dogs and even more puppy mills.

Interestingly, Michael explains my point in his article when he explains, “Meanwhile, plenty of people in Dallas are willing to spend hundreds—sometimes thousands—of dollars on commercially bred puppies. Whether operating from a temporary setup in a parking lot or through the dozens of classifieds each week advertising designer puppies for sale, sellers rarely collect sales taxes or report earnings.”

Dog breeders who violate State and Federal tax laws at the risk of real jail time aren’t going to worry about a municipal regulation requiring they NOT to sell a puppy. How is a citywide ban going to solve the underlying population of unwanted dogs? Will the ban make people want to buy fewer puppies? Michael knows that it won’t. Ironically, such a ban would likely make the underlying problem worse. The good breeders – i.e. high quality breeders who screen for genetic problems, good owners and pay their sales and use taxes – are going to STOP selling puppies. The demand side – i.e. people that want puppies – won’t decrease simply because the city passes an ordinance, instead the BAD breeders (the ones who don’t pay their taxes) are going to get a boost in demand and sell even more. Many of these ‘defective’ dogs will be abandoned by their owners because they are, frankly, defective.

The answer likely lies with technology and taxation. Technology used to register/title dogs much as we register/title cars (RFID style tags implanted before sale). Taxation at the original sale and in the event of an abandonment. Banning something doesn’t stop it. Drugs and guns are just like puppies – you can’t stop them unless you can stop demand (and good luck with that).

Comments (0)

Sharon Bialek Accuses Herman Cain of Sexual Assault

Nov 7, ’11 1:39 PM

According to Gloria Allred, Democratic donor and famous lawyer, introduced her client, Sharon Bialek, at a news conference earlier today. The woman is from Chicago and worked for the NRA until she was fired the late 90′s. Some time after her termination she contacted Herman Cain and arranged to travel to Washington DC to meet with him. The pair met for drinks in her hotel and then drove to a nearby restaurant for dinner. Afterward she claims he took her to the NRA offices where he sexually assaulted her. She explained that he grabbed her genitals and then tried to force her head into his lap. She told him to stop and then asked Mr. Cain for a ride back to her hotel.

If true Mr. Cain should have been arrested and sentenced to prison. Of course it has been fourteen years since this alleged sexual assault took place. The accuser, Sharon Bialek, would not take questions from the assembled press. Mrs. Allred indicated that Sharon has not filed a civil case against Mr. Cain. For his part, Herman Cain has denied that he sexually assaulted Mrs. Bialek.

 

Comments (0)

Herman Cain Put His Arm Around Me!

Nov 6, ’11 4:07 PM

I was a little concerned about coming forward, but I thought it was important for the country to know what sort of man Herman Cain really is. Last night, Herman Cain put his arm around me. I have photographic evidence of the advance that I will share here:

Of course for those of you who can’t take a joke – NO I WASN’T UNCOMFORTABLE – Cain and Newt did an amazing job at the debate. I wanted to thank Cain for taking a minute to chat and take a photo. :)

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

Capital Punishment

Sep 8, ’11 3:15 PM

First, I think that murders, rapists, child molesters and traitors should be put to death.  Kill the bastards.  The only problem?  The death penalty process is run by flawed governmental institutions at the federal and state level.  These institutions think it is appropriate to run up a $10 trillion dollar deficit to save us from economic ruin.  They can’t run a simple business like the Post Office efficiently ($10 billion in debt each each year, FedEx and UPS are doing great).  Do we really want to trust these guys to make life or death decisions?  I think not.

If we had a system that could guarantee 100% accuracy, I would support the death penalty for murders, rapists, child molesters and traitors.  However, our current criminal justice system does NOT get it right 100% of the time.  More than 39 executions in the United States have been carried out despite compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt.  Since 1992, DNA has exonerated 15 death row inmates.

What I believe we should do:

  • Ban the death penalty for federal cases.
  • Recommend that states do the same.

Until we can be certain, and I am not sure you can ever be 100% certain, I don’t think we should be killing human beings for crimes.  The death penalty is not a mistake you can undo in this lifetime.  I guess I am for AND against the death penalty.

Comments (0)

Gun Control

Aug 8, ’11 3:14 PM

King Henry the Second of England promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181.  The law required all freemen to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their country and their king.  Our founders took this a step further when they passed the Second Amendment to the Constitution that protects the right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal government.  Why did our founders feel the right to bear arms was important?  Let me give you a hint – it had nothing to with hunting:

  • deterring undemocratic government (see Iranian Election)
  • repelling invasion (see Red Dawn)
  • suppressing insurrection
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense (see home invasion)
  • participating in law enforcement

The Supreme Court took up the matter in a very recent (2008) landmark case: District of Columbia v. Heller where they held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individuals’ right to possess a firearm for private use. It is the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals in addition to a collective right that applies to state-regulated militias.

I believe families have an obligation to own firearms.  These firearms should be secured from unauthorized access, they should be in good working order and they should be used regularly by appropriate members of the household.  Why?  For the same reasons the founders included the right in our Constition:

  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense (see home invasion)
  • deterring undemocratic government (see Iranian Election)
  • repelling invasion (see Red Dawn)
  • suppressing insurrection
  • participating in law enforcement

It is our right and obligation to protect ourselves and our families from those who would do harm to us or our property.  Of course everyone will think you are crazy if you tell them, but the second reason you should keep and bear arms is to deter an undemocratic government or foreign insurrection.  Those eventualities seem impossible today, but that is mainly due to the fact that half of all Americans own guns (according to Gary Kleck ‘Targeting Guns’.

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” – Thomas Jefferson

Note: I know that some of you shouldn’t own guns.  I don’t mind if you decide not to own a firearm – I just hope that you appreciate those who can and do.  Support them by supporting the Second Amendment.

Comments (0)

Religion

Jul 8, ’11 3:13 PM

I have always felt that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had specific meaning: to prevent the state from ‘establishing a religion’ but I never really saw it as a prohibition of religion in state funded/sponsored organizations (schools and townhalls).  My view was unique mainly because I wasn’t terribly religious earlier in my life.  Prior to meeting my wife the only church I attended with any regularity was a Unitarian congregation in Massachusetts.  In 1998 my wife and I began visiting various churches around Dallas looking for a church home and literally ran across a Cooperative Baptist church called Wilshire.  We immediately connected with the church and I was baptized in 2001.

My views about separation of church and state have been evolving of late.  As a Republican in Texas I have been surprised how much the party seems to revolve around religious values instead of conservative values.  While at first glance this may seem positive, I think it has hurt our party and ironically our religious institutions.  When Governor Bush became President Bush his first executive order was to create the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.  His second executive order lifted restrictions on DOJ, HUD and Health and Human Services, Department of Labor and Department of Education that made it difficult for private organizations (i.e. churches) from seeking federal funds.  The federal government was going to start funding activities sponsored by churches (and other groups).  This didn’t seem like a very conservative measure – in fact it seemed a lot like an expansion of government and intermingling of the state and religion.

Bush’s executive orders meant that billions of dollars would be injected into faith-based organizations as well as non-faith-based organization like ACORN.  The proverbial floodgates were opened and the money flowed.  I believe this was a mistake. Bush and his allies suggested that the money would NOT be spent on religious purposes – but this is a silly argument – money is 100% fungible.  ACORN has two arms.  The nonpartisan side of the house at ACORN focuses on voter drives, receiving federal funding to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year.  The partisan side of the house at ACORN endorsed Barak Obama and took money from his election to fund voter drives.

MY POSITION: The founders never mentioned God in the Constitution.  They specifically sought to prevent the establishment (i.e. funding) of religion in the United States.  We need to return to those ideas.  Separation of church and state is NOT meant to protect the state, but to protect the church.  The state can ONLY poison religion (see the Middle East).  Bush sought to expand the role of the church to offset the role of secular groups like ACORN, but abandoning conservative values is never the answer.  Ironically, ACORN was MUCH better at securing federal funding than our churches were.  Our party is made up of Christians, but it shouldn’t be a Christian party.  Our country is made up of Christians, but we shouldn’t attempt to make it a Christian state.

Last Sunday Wilshire hosted a Baptist historian from the First Baptist Church (i.e. the first Baptist church founded in the New World – 1638) who gave a presentation on the history of the Baptist church as it relates to the separation of church and state.  I was fascinated by Stanley Lemmons presentation.  Dr. Stanley was a history professor at Rhode Island College from 1967 to 2006 and is the historian for the First Baptist Church in America.  I learned a couple of interesting things:

  • Early Baptist in England, like Roger Williams, came up with the revolutionary idea that church and state should be separated.
  • Rhode Island was chartered by Baptist and it was the ONLY colony/state not to adopt a state religion.
  • Baptist in Virginia blocked ratification of the Constitution until James Madison promised to include the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment after ratification.

Interestingly, the Baptist felt that any institution with the power of the sword had no business dealing with matters of the church.  They believed in soul freedom, i.e. “the soul is competent before God, and capable of making decisions in matters of faith without coercion or compulsion by any larger religious or civil body.”  In early America Baptist were a fringe religious sect and they felt that given a ‘free marketplace of ideas’ their ideas would spread like wildfire – all that was needed was for the state to get out of the way.  They were right.  Once each state abandoned the idea of a ’state’ religion the Baptists and Methodists flourished in the United States.

The atheists have co-opted the argument FOR separation of church and state and many conservatives (even Baptists) have taken up the argument FOR inclusion of religion in state sponsored activities like school and in town squares.  The whole idea of the separation of church and state was invented by Baptists who sought the freedom to practice their Religion without state interference.  Roger Williams, one of the early founders of the Baptist church, was exiled from England for his beliefs.  He was even exiled from Massachusetts for those same beliefs.  Conservatives (and Baptists) need to take back the issue of separation of church and state – the concept is biblicaly sound as well as founded in conservative values.  Today we may be the majority, but tomorrow we might be the minority (see growth of Islam).

Comments (0)
Seo 1 plugin by abhbass.com