For many decades, there have government critics who think government would be better if it were run like a business. Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.
If government were run like a business, then the president (or governor) would be approved every year by the Senate. This approval would be almost automatic every three years. The President would hold his position until he retires, quits, or is fired by the Senate. If the Senate fires him, there would be few if any hearings
The President would appoint new members to the board as previous members quit or die.
Every year, the voters would get to approve a third of the current members of the board. They would have two choices: for or abstain.
Rather than have a variety of public services available to all citizens, there would be fees for every service.
You want to get mail, you would have to pay an annual fee or by piece each day.
You want to drive somewhere, you would have to pay an annual fee to each jurisdiction you drive in or pay a toll each time you drive in a certain jurisdiction.
You want to have a quick response if you have a medical emergency, a fire, or a robbery, you would have to pay an annual fee to each entity or pay before you get the help.
And on and on it goes to where we might have to put coins in our refrigerator to open it.
None of us really likes to pay taxes, but without taxes our lives would be chaos. Supposedly, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, “I like taxes, they buy me civilization.” And he was a Republican!!
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 05, 2019
Monday, January 08, 2018
Trump smart at playing dumb
Sarah Kendzior has an interesting view of Trump’s actions. Among other things, she writes that he has wanted to be President for 30 years.
See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trump-is-no-genius-but-hes-smart-at-playing-dumb/article37518954/.
See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trump-is-no-genius-but-hes-smart-at-playing-dumb/article37518954/.
Sunday, December 03, 2017
The Woman Who Cost Clinton the Election
See “The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election”, Jill Filipovic, New York Times, 2017-12-01.
Jill Filipovic wrote an interesting column about the bad treatment that Hilary Clinton got from several male interviewers. I don’t watch TV and so I don’t know the details, but I believe she is right about their bias towards Clinton and their misplaced bias in favor of Trump.
However, in many ways Clinton was her own worst enemy. Many felt she had a sense of entitlement to the presidency. I can think of several women who would have made better candidates: Elizabeth Warren (who supposedly decided against it), Amy Klobuchar, Kathleen Sebelius, and many others others who are already prominent in politics.
I would have gladly voted for any of them over Clinton. However, given that her opponent was Donald Trump, I reluctantly voted for her.
Unfortunately, too many others who thought that she was not the best possible candidate stayed away and gave the election to the worst possible candidate.
Remember, the only way you throw your vote away is to stay away.
Jill Filipovic wrote an interesting column about the bad treatment that Hilary Clinton got from several male interviewers. I don’t watch TV and so I don’t know the details, but I believe she is right about their bias towards Clinton and their misplaced bias in favor of Trump.
However, in many ways Clinton was her own worst enemy. Many felt she had a sense of entitlement to the presidency. I can think of several women who would have made better candidates: Elizabeth Warren (who supposedly decided against it), Amy Klobuchar, Kathleen Sebelius, and many others others who are already prominent in politics.
I would have gladly voted for any of them over Clinton. However, given that her opponent was Donald Trump, I reluctantly voted for her.
Unfortunately, too many others who thought that she was not the best possible candidate stayed away and gave the election to the worst possible candidate.
Remember, the only way you throw your vote away is to stay away.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Free Healthcare for politicians
I left this comment on “The Blood on the Tax Cuts”, Timothy Egan, New York Times, 2017-06-30. As of this posting, it had not been accepted.
They don't care about this plan because they get free, unlimited care at Walter Reed Hospital. And the President gets his free, annual check-up by an Admiral or a General.
They don't care about this plan because they get free, unlimited care at Walter Reed Hospital. And the President gets his free, annual check-up by an Admiral or a General.
Abraham Lincoln would have been a loser
I've never understood why people who don't give a dime or time to a political party get to choose the party candidates. Good thing we didn't have television or party primaries when Abe Lincoln was nominated by his party to run for president.
See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/sunday/the-problem-with-participatory-democracy-is-the-participants.html.
See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/sunday/the-problem-with-participatory-democracy-is-the-participants.html.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Quote of the day: Why vote?
"Hillary Clinton didn’t inspire anyone. Why the hell stand in line if it’s just to vote for more of the same?"
- Unnamed union official
"Can the Democratic Party Find New Voters?", Timothy B. Edsall, New York Times, 2017-06-15
The only reason I voted for Clinton was that she was not Trump. I can name several female politicians I would rather have seen on the ballot. Maybe we'll see one of them on the presidential ballot in 2020.
- Unnamed union official
"Can the Democratic Party Find New Voters?", Timothy B. Edsall, New York Times, 2017-06-15
The only reason I voted for Clinton was that she was not Trump. I can name several female politicians I would rather have seen on the ballot. Maybe we'll see one of them on the presidential ballot in 2020.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Constitutional Amendments: Government Power Versus Personal Rights
Originally published in the
Reader Weekly
November 25, 2004
I don’t know how many constitutional amendments have historically been before Congress, but in the last two decades it almost seems Congress has been flooded with them.
I did a Google Search and a search of the House of Representatives web site for “constitutional amendment”; both yielded thousands and thousands of results. I narrowed my search to the House Judiciary Committee and got a mere 6652 hits. However, I had a hard time finding more descriptive material in them. I went back to the Google search and looked into several of the first 80 items. From various sources I succeeded in finding ten currently proposed amendments.
Marriage Protection Amendment (H. J. 106)
Constitutional Rights for Victims (S.J. Res. 1, H. R. Res. 10)
Desecration of Flag (S.J. Res. 4, H.J. Res. 4)
Balanced Budget (H.J. Res. 22)
Religious Freedom (H.J. Res. 46)
Abortion Ban
Continuity of Government (H.J.Res. 83)
Naturalized Citizens for President (H.J. Res. 104)
Natural Born Citizen Act (S.2128)
Direct Election of the President (H.J. Res. 109)
Some readers will think all these amendments should be adopted and some will think some of them are frivolous. I put the relevant House or Senate bills after most of these. You can find their text, current status, and related information by searching from The Library of Congress' Thomas by bill number or keywords.
I didn’t put a bill number by Abortion Ban because I could not find a bill that seemed to directly relate to it. All the bills I scanned seemed either to limit it or limit its prohibition.
I think we should ask four questions about any proposed amendment to the Constitution.
1. Does it define the structure and purpose of government?
2. Does it preserve the checks and balances?
3. Does it extend the power of government or does it extend the rights of persons?
4. Will it really work?
If you read the original Constitution, you will find that it mostly defines how the government should work and defines broadly what functions each of the three branches has. It doesn’t get into details of what people may or may not do; those are left to particular laws, their administration, and their judicial review.
We who were fortunate enough to take civics and American history learned repeatedly that the framers of the Constitution did not want one branch of the government to dominate the other. They were especially wary of a king-like executive. They were divided on how strong the federal government should be.
The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were to correct a flaw many critics felt the original Constitution lacked – protection of the people from an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, although Congress thought it had a clear vision of what those rights should be, many people have distorted them to either claim a greater right than Congress intended or claim a right does not cover certain situations.
Will an amendment really work? History gives us mixed lessons on this. The amendment that flopped the most was Prohibition – it really was interpreted by a large number of people as a restriction of their freedom. On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race or color, took decades to be enforced. Some feel that it is still not uniformly enforced in all States.
Let’s take a quick peek at some of the amendments I listed and see how they satisfy my four questions.
Marriage Protection Amendment
It could be argued that this defines a purpose of government, but that is a stretch. It really is an extension of the power of the federal government at the expense of individuals and the states.
The best comment I found was by Rep. Jim Davis of Florida. “Personally, I believe marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman; however, I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because I also believe the United States Constitution should protect rights, not deny them, and states should have the right to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognized within their borders.”
If it is to be considered an extension of people’s rights and a protection of marriage, then maybe the first sentence should read “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman and they shall be considered equal partners.”
Will it work? It certainly won’t prevent two men or two women living together.
Constitutional Rights for Victims
This amendment enjoys bi-partisan support. It essentially guarantees that victims of violent crimes be informed of proceedings against the accused, be allowed to heard at public proceedings, and be protected from further injury. It does have a loophole about restrictions “dictated … by compelling necessity.”
It definitely extends the rights of some people though others would say it limits the rights of the accused.
As to preserving checks and balances, the judiciary prefers a statutory approach to victims' rights over a constitutional amendment.
Religious Freedom
This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of amendments. In the guise of protecting freedom it extends the power of government to promote religion. The catch is the use of “people” instead of persons, such as in “The people retain the right to pray…” Does this mean that if the majority determines that a public gathering will have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim prayer, then the minority must sit quietly by while a prayer that they find offensive is given? Is the “people” a local government that will specify the prayers? Would an evangelical Christian be happy if all local government functions began with a Muslim prayer?
Special Elections/Appointment (Continuity of Government)
Naturalized Citizens for President
Natural Born Citizen Act
Direct Election of the President
These are the only amendments in my list that I think really satisfy all of the questions I posed. My only caveat is, will they work as intended or will they have some serious unintended consequences? The Continuity of Government is opposed by many representatives because it doesn’t guarantee quick elections to replace representatives. The Naturalized Citizen amendment is called the “Schwarzenegger Amendment” but it could apply equally to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born, Democratic governor of Michigan. The Natural Born act is more limiting in that applies to people whose citizen parents happened to be elsewhere at the time of their birth or to people who immigrated as children. Direct Election essentially abolishes the Electoral College.
Let’s hope that these four get more attention than the others and that Congress and the State legislatures deliberate them openly and honestly.
Reader Weekly
November 25, 2004
I don’t know how many constitutional amendments have historically been before Congress, but in the last two decades it almost seems Congress has been flooded with them.
I did a Google Search and a search of the House of Representatives web site for “constitutional amendment”; both yielded thousands and thousands of results. I narrowed my search to the House Judiciary Committee and got a mere 6652 hits. However, I had a hard time finding more descriptive material in them. I went back to the Google search and looked into several of the first 80 items. From various sources I succeeded in finding ten currently proposed amendments.
Marriage Protection Amendment (H. J. 106)
Constitutional Rights for Victims (S.J. Res. 1, H. R. Res. 10)
Desecration of Flag (S.J. Res. 4, H.J. Res. 4)
Balanced Budget (H.J. Res. 22)
Religious Freedom (H.J. Res. 46)
Abortion Ban
Continuity of Government (H.J.Res. 83)
Naturalized Citizens for President (H.J. Res. 104)
Natural Born Citizen Act (S.2128)
Direct Election of the President (H.J. Res. 109)
Some readers will think all these amendments should be adopted and some will think some of them are frivolous. I put the relevant House or Senate bills after most of these. You can find their text, current status, and related information by searching from The Library of Congress' Thomas by bill number or keywords.
I didn’t put a bill number by Abortion Ban because I could not find a bill that seemed to directly relate to it. All the bills I scanned seemed either to limit it or limit its prohibition.
I think we should ask four questions about any proposed amendment to the Constitution.
1. Does it define the structure and purpose of government?
2. Does it preserve the checks and balances?
3. Does it extend the power of government or does it extend the rights of persons?
4. Will it really work?
If you read the original Constitution, you will find that it mostly defines how the government should work and defines broadly what functions each of the three branches has. It doesn’t get into details of what people may or may not do; those are left to particular laws, their administration, and their judicial review.
We who were fortunate enough to take civics and American history learned repeatedly that the framers of the Constitution did not want one branch of the government to dominate the other. They were especially wary of a king-like executive. They were divided on how strong the federal government should be.
The first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) were to correct a flaw many critics felt the original Constitution lacked – protection of the people from an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, although Congress thought it had a clear vision of what those rights should be, many people have distorted them to either claim a greater right than Congress intended or claim a right does not cover certain situations.
Will an amendment really work? History gives us mixed lessons on this. The amendment that flopped the most was Prohibition – it really was interpreted by a large number of people as a restriction of their freedom. On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote regardless of race or color, took decades to be enforced. Some feel that it is still not uniformly enforced in all States.
Let’s take a quick peek at some of the amendments I listed and see how they satisfy my four questions.
Marriage Protection Amendment
It could be argued that this defines a purpose of government, but that is a stretch. It really is an extension of the power of the federal government at the expense of individuals and the states.
The best comment I found was by Rep. Jim Davis of Florida. “Personally, I believe marriage should be a bond between a man and a woman; however, I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because I also believe the United States Constitution should protect rights, not deny them, and states should have the right to decide whether same sex marriages should be recognized within their borders.”
If it is to be considered an extension of people’s rights and a protection of marriage, then maybe the first sentence should read “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman and they shall be considered equal partners.”
Will it work? It certainly won’t prevent two men or two women living together.
Constitutional Rights for Victims
This amendment enjoys bi-partisan support. It essentially guarantees that victims of violent crimes be informed of proceedings against the accused, be allowed to heard at public proceedings, and be protected from further injury. It does have a loophole about restrictions “dictated … by compelling necessity.”
It definitely extends the rights of some people though others would say it limits the rights of the accused.
As to preserving checks and balances, the judiciary prefers a statutory approach to victims' rights over a constitutional amendment.
Religious Freedom
This is the wolf in sheep’s clothing of amendments. In the guise of protecting freedom it extends the power of government to promote religion. The catch is the use of “people” instead of persons, such as in “The people retain the right to pray…” Does this mean that if the majority determines that a public gathering will have a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim prayer, then the minority must sit quietly by while a prayer that they find offensive is given? Is the “people” a local government that will specify the prayers? Would an evangelical Christian be happy if all local government functions began with a Muslim prayer?
Special Elections/Appointment (Continuity of Government)
Naturalized Citizens for President
Natural Born Citizen Act
Direct Election of the President
These are the only amendments in my list that I think really satisfy all of the questions I posed. My only caveat is, will they work as intended or will they have some serious unintended consequences? The Continuity of Government is opposed by many representatives because it doesn’t guarantee quick elections to replace representatives. The Naturalized Citizen amendment is called the “Schwarzenegger Amendment” but it could apply equally to Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born, Democratic governor of Michigan. The Natural Born act is more limiting in that applies to people whose citizen parents happened to be elsewhere at the time of their birth or to people who immigrated as children. Direct Election essentially abolishes the Electoral College.
Let’s hope that these four get more attention than the others and that Congress and the State legislatures deliberate them openly and honestly.
Friday, May 05, 2017
Trump Care for Congress and President
Suggested amendment to Trump Care in the Senate:
On passage of this bill, all government health insurance for members of Congress and for the President and members of his Cabinet shall cease. If the “free market” is good enough for the people, it should be good enough for Congress and the President.
If it is good enough for us geese, then it is good enough for the ganders in Washington!
I sent the above to Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. If you are a U.S. citizen, I hope you will send something similar to your senators. You can find their email links via www.sen.gov.
On passage of this bill, all government health insurance for members of Congress and for the President and members of his Cabinet shall cease. If the “free market” is good enough for the people, it should be good enough for Congress and the President.
If it is good enough for us geese, then it is good enough for the ganders in Washington!
I sent the above to Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. If you are a U.S. citizen, I hope you will send something similar to your senators. You can find their email links via www.sen.gov.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Why Donald Trump has an affinity to Russia
Alexander Borodin wrote an opera about him:
Prince Ego
See also http://focusonthegold.blogspot.com/2013/03/donald-trumps-ego-is-not-worlds-biggest.html
See also http://focusonthegold.blogspot.com/2013/03/donald-trumps-ego-is-not-worlds-biggest.html
Thursday, February 23, 2017
It can happen here!
Many of us think that the Constitution protects us from a dictatorship. Unfortunately we are seeing signs of the possibility with Congress almost being in lockstep with the President and the Supreme Court becoming more subservient to the same ideology as the President and Congress.
Kurt Gödel, a mathematician and refugee from Hitler, studied the Constitution thoroughly in preparation for his citizenship. He saw a flaw that his friends cautioned him not to mention it in his hearing.
The examiner sympathetically mentioned that what was happening under Hitler couldn’t happen here. Gödel mentioned that he knew how it could. His friends managed to quiet him down and he became a citizen. See My Brain is Open by Paul Erdös.
How could it happen here? The Constitution can be amended. Could it be amended to give the President a life term, extend to the terms of Congress, abolish free speech,…?
Think of how much of the Constitution has already been corrupted by Supreme Court decisions: Corporations as people, people becoming persons,…
Think of how Republicans are working hard to suppress voting or dilute the effect of any opposition.
All that is needed is for a hard-nosed party to take absolute control of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Boom! There goes our Constitution.
Only you can prevent it. Vote thoughtfully in each and every election, from city council to state house to Congress to President. You are our only bulwark against our loss of freedom.
Kurt Gödel, a mathematician and refugee from Hitler, studied the Constitution thoroughly in preparation for his citizenship. He saw a flaw that his friends cautioned him not to mention it in his hearing.
The examiner sympathetically mentioned that what was happening under Hitler couldn’t happen here. Gödel mentioned that he knew how it could. His friends managed to quiet him down and he became a citizen. See My Brain is Open by Paul Erdös.
How could it happen here? The Constitution can be amended. Could it be amended to give the President a life term, extend to the terms of Congress, abolish free speech,…?
Think of how much of the Constitution has already been corrupted by Supreme Court decisions: Corporations as people, people becoming persons,…
Think of how Republicans are working hard to suppress voting or dilute the effect of any opposition.
All that is needed is for a hard-nosed party to take absolute control of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Boom! There goes our Constitution.
Only you can prevent it. Vote thoughtfully in each and every election, from city council to state house to Congress to President. You are our only bulwark against our loss of freedom.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Thousands of phone calls are better than thousands of protestors
I posted the following to the comments section of “The Alt-Majority: How Social Networks Empowered Mass Protests Against Trump”, Farhad Manjoo, New York Times, 2017-01-30
Anti-Trump demonstrations are shedding harsh light on much of Trump’s arrogance, but my big question is what percentage of the protestors voted.
As stated in the article, the protests are getting attention and making Trump nervous. But are the protests going to change the minds of those in Congress who enable Trump?
A better way to make a protest is to call your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives, even if they are Democrats. Calling Democrats will help give them more backbone.
The best way is to call, not send email or a letter. You can find your Senators phone numbers at https://www.senate.gov/ and your Representative’s number at http://www.house.gov/.
Keep your message brief: 200 words or less. Be polite. If you have a another message, don’t hesitate to call at another time.
Also call your state senators and representatives, especially if you live in a gerry-mandered state.
If you voted in the last election, the American people thank you. If you did not make sure to vote in each and every election from now on. And in your phone call, remind the office holder that you intend to vote.
The Trump White House doesn’t list a phone number, but it does have an email form at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact. Gosh, what would happen if every protester filled out this form. Would it bring down one of the White House servers?
Anti-Trump demonstrations are shedding harsh light on much of Trump’s arrogance, but my big question is what percentage of the protestors voted.
As stated in the article, the protests are getting attention and making Trump nervous. But are the protests going to change the minds of those in Congress who enable Trump?
A better way to make a protest is to call your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives, even if they are Democrats. Calling Democrats will help give them more backbone.
The best way is to call, not send email or a letter. You can find your Senators phone numbers at https://www.senate.gov/ and your Representative’s number at http://www.house.gov/.
Keep your message brief: 200 words or less. Be polite. If you have a another message, don’t hesitate to call at another time.
Also call your state senators and representatives, especially if you live in a gerry-mandered state.
If you voted in the last election, the American people thank you. If you did not make sure to vote in each and every election from now on. And in your phone call, remind the office holder that you intend to vote.
The Trump White House doesn’t list a phone number, but it does have an email form at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact. Gosh, what would happen if every protester filled out this form. Would it bring down one of the White House servers?
Monday, January 23, 2017
Denying Donald
Yes, the title has three meanings.
The first was inspired by all the denials of the Trumpistas of facts, like the size of the Women's March vs. the size of the Inaugural crowd.
The second is a play on Trump's still ranting about "Lying Hilary”.
The third is that we should do all we can to deny the legitimacy of Trump's election.
For more on comparison of the crowds at Trumps inauguration and the Women’s March, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html
Denying Donald said that the rain stopped as soon as he started speaking. According to the NYT the rain continued throughout Trump's speech. Could this be a message from God expressing disapproval of Trump as President?
Not really, if Clinton had won, she would have had the same weather. “Conservative” “Christians” would have been certain the rain meant God’s disapproval of her. Liberal Christians would say “The rain falls on the just and unjust alike."
Remember the perspective, Trump came in third to a de facto "None of the Above”. One would think he would have a bit of humility. Too many people liked Trump even less than Clinton and stayed away, thus giving the election to Trump.
The first was inspired by all the denials of the Trumpistas of facts, like the size of the Women's March vs. the size of the Inaugural crowd.
The second is a play on Trump's still ranting about "Lying Hilary”.
The third is that we should do all we can to deny the legitimacy of Trump's election.
For more on comparison of the crowds at Trumps inauguration and the Women’s March, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html
Denying Donald said that the rain stopped as soon as he started speaking. According to the NYT the rain continued throughout Trump's speech. Could this be a message from God expressing disapproval of Trump as President?
Not really, if Clinton had won, she would have had the same weather. “Conservative” “Christians” would have been certain the rain meant God’s disapproval of her. Liberal Christians would say “The rain falls on the just and unjust alike."
Remember the perspective, Trump came in third to a de facto "None of the Above”. One would think he would have a bit of humility. Too many people liked Trump even less than Clinton and stayed away, thus giving the election to Trump.
Monday, January 02, 2017
Al Franken prescient about Trump?
"I think he's a joke, but maybe he's exactly the kind of joke the American people would like to see in the White House for the next four years."
- fictional Bill Kristol on fake "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
"He" is Al Franken whose only issue is ATM fees in "Why Not Me? The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency".
He followed "Kristol's" statement with one by "George Will": "Well, if he's a joke, he's a very bad joke." And more about sex and drug use.
Franken's book is a very off-the-wall take on a very disorganized campaign in which he says what he wants and does what he wants. He wrote it in 1999.
It is rather obvious that Franken didn't take himself seriously. Sometimes Trump doesn't either, but that was early on.
See also "If a clown can be President, why not a comedian?"
- fictional Bill Kristol on fake "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
"He" is Al Franken whose only issue is ATM fees in "Why Not Me? The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency".
He followed "Kristol's" statement with one by "George Will": "Well, if he's a joke, he's a very bad joke." And more about sex and drug use.
Franken's book is a very off-the-wall take on a very disorganized campaign in which he says what he wants and does what he wants. He wrote it in 1999.
It is rather obvious that Franken didn't take himself seriously. Sometimes Trump doesn't either, but that was early on.
See also "If a clown can be President, why not a comedian?"
Trump installs coal furnaces in the Gray House
To carry out his promise to bring back coal, Donald Trump has promised to install coal furnaces in the White House.
Republicans, especially from gas-producing states are in an uproar. They have been promoting gas as a clean energy for decades. Republican budget hawks are angry about the cost, both of the retrofit and the cost of union coal stokers.
Democrats are just snickering, calling the whole fiasco Gray-House-Gate.
Republicans, especially from gas-producing states are in an uproar. They have been promoting gas as a clean energy for decades. Republican budget hawks are angry about the cost, both of the retrofit and the cost of union coal stokers.
Democrats are just snickering, calling the whole fiasco Gray-House-Gate.
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote an article with the above title that was published in the New York Times, 2106-12-16 at
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-threat-to-democracy.html
I was surprised that a day later it was still open for comments with 1667. I just had to put in my two cents with my the following comment.
"Let's stop blaming the system for the embarrassing low turnout, among the worst in the world, especially for a nation that regards itself as the greatest democracy in the world.
"Sure, many blocks to voting have been put up by corrupt, self-serving politicians. Sure, the "media" has spread many distorted stories that have discouraged many potential voters. But too many people willingly choose not to vote.
"What would the result have been if half the no- shows had actually voted? We really don't know. Maybe Clinton would have won. Maybe Trump might have done better than third to a defacto none of the above.
"Whatever elections come up next where you live, remind your friends and neighbors 'The only way You throw your vote away Is to stay away!'”
After I posted the above, I searched for “The only way You throw your vote away. One of the top hits was https://justinegraykin.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/be-subversive-vote. Justine posted a lot of right-on comments:
“If you fail to vote, you have only yourself to blame."
“Bad politicians are elected by Good People who don’t vote”
"If 99% of America showed up to vote, it wouldn’t matter what the 1% wanted.”
“Vote as if the future depends on it. It does.”
She had a link to “HP Lovecraft Historical Society — Why settle for the lesser evil?” As I had recently listened to a “To the best of our knowledge” podcast on HP Lovecraft http://www.ttbook.org/book/hp-lovecraft. I thought I would check the link out. Unfortunately, it was broken. But I did find https://cthulhuforamerica.com/. Among the pictures is hooded figures holding signs for “Cthulhu for President 2016, Vote best evil”. Cthulhu was a deep sea monster in one or more of Lovecraft’s stories.
What would have happened if there had been a massive vote for Cthulhu? If Cthulhu won, the election would have to go to the runner-up because Cthulhu doesn’t exist? But what if somebody had adopted that name?
I think this kind of tomfoolery indicates that we should have far better candidates running: people who truly want to make the U.S. a country for all of us rather than stoke their own egos or be in the pockets of the 1%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-threat-to-democracy.html
I was surprised that a day later it was still open for comments with 1667. I just had to put in my two cents with my the following comment.
"Let's stop blaming the system for the embarrassing low turnout, among the worst in the world, especially for a nation that regards itself as the greatest democracy in the world.
"Sure, many blocks to voting have been put up by corrupt, self-serving politicians. Sure, the "media" has spread many distorted stories that have discouraged many potential voters. But too many people willingly choose not to vote.
"What would the result have been if half the no- shows had actually voted? We really don't know. Maybe Clinton would have won. Maybe Trump might have done better than third to a defacto none of the above.
"Whatever elections come up next where you live, remind your friends and neighbors 'The only way You throw your vote away Is to stay away!'”
After I posted the above, I searched for “The only way You throw your vote away. One of the top hits was https://justinegraykin.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/be-subversive-vote. Justine posted a lot of right-on comments:
“If you fail to vote, you have only yourself to blame."
“Bad politicians are elected by Good People who don’t vote”
"If 99% of America showed up to vote, it wouldn’t matter what the 1% wanted.”
“Vote as if the future depends on it. It does.”
She had a link to “HP Lovecraft Historical Society — Why settle for the lesser evil?” As I had recently listened to a “To the best of our knowledge” podcast on HP Lovecraft http://www.ttbook.org/book/hp-lovecraft. I thought I would check the link out. Unfortunately, it was broken. But I did find https://cthulhuforamerica.com/. Among the pictures is hooded figures holding signs for “Cthulhu for President 2016, Vote best evil”. Cthulhu was a deep sea monster in one or more of Lovecraft’s stories.
What would have happened if there had been a massive vote for Cthulhu? If Cthulhu won, the election would have to go to the runner-up because Cthulhu doesn’t exist? But what if somebody had adopted that name?
I think this kind of tomfoolery indicates that we should have far better candidates running: people who truly want to make the U.S. a country for all of us rather than stoke their own egos or be in the pockets of the 1%.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Trump has “no conflict of interest”
Well, well, the President and Vice-President are exempt from conflict of interest laws. See “Fact Checker: Trump’s claim that ‘the president can’t have a conflict of interest’”, Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Washington Post, 2016-11-23.
“And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Excerpt From: Edward Samuel Corwin. “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.” iBooks
The article pointed out that Congress has excepted the President and Vice-President from this clause "on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.”
“And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Excerpt From: Edward Samuel Corwin. “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.” iBooks
The article pointed out that Congress has excepted the President and Vice-President from this clause "on the theory that the presidency has so much power that any possible executive action might pose a potential conflict.”
Thursday, November 10, 2016
The election was stolen, really!
Who stole it?
All those eligible voters who didn't show up. They are the one's who had no confidence in Donald Trump as president, but they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton. Many of these believed Trump's accusations against Clinton even though they disbelieved everything else Trump said.
Consider that an extra 50,000 votes total in just three states would have given Clinton the election.
See "For Reeling Democrats, Now What?", Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times, 2016-11-10,
Were you one of these 50,000 non-voters? Did you steal the election? Did you help rig the election?
The only way you throw your vote away is to stay away.
Be sure to vote in 2018 to bring about a better balance in Congress.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Rain or shine: VOTE! If you don't, you could give the election away!!
Rain or cool weather means lower Democratic turnout. Does this mean those without cars don’t show if the weather is not good.
"These findings significantly illuminate the theory in regards to voter turnout. In
particular, these results show that the primary exogenous mechanism through which
turnout affects elections is the composition effect. In other words, when turnout is
increased, newly mobilized voters are disproportionately Democratic. Furthermore, these results illuminate a question that has been claimed to be unanswerable: If one could increase voter turnout, would it help Democrats? We find that the answer to this question is, resoundingly, yes.”
"The Joke Isn’t on the Democrats? The Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout"
Alexander Kendall, Political Science, Stanford University
http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci353/2004spring/reading/kendall_final.pdf
"These findings significantly illuminate the theory in regards to voter turnout. In
particular, these results show that the primary exogenous mechanism through which
turnout affects elections is the composition effect. In other words, when turnout is
increased, newly mobilized voters are disproportionately Democratic. Furthermore, these results illuminate a question that has been claimed to be unanswerable: If one could increase voter turnout, would it help Democrats? We find that the answer to this question is, resoundingly, yes.”
"The Joke Isn’t on the Democrats? The Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout"
Alexander Kendall, Political Science, Stanford University
http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci353/2004spring/reading/kendall_final.pdf
Monday, October 10, 2016
If you don’t vote, you have only yourself to blame
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
October 28, 2004
The U.S. is still considered a democracy. The word comes from the Greek demos for people and kratein for rule. It means the people rule. If you don’t vote, how can you rule?
Democracy has been interpreted as majority rule. But no president has ever been elected by a majority of the adult population. Before the 1860’s few blacks could vote. Before 1920 few women could vote (Wyoming territory being the exception in 1869). Since 1932 the voter turnouts have never been greater than sixty-three percent (1).
That high was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy won with 34,227,096 votes to Richard M. Nixon’s 34,108,546, a difference of 118,550. However, over 40 million people did not vote! More people stayed away than voted for either candidate. (2)
Ronald Reagan supposedly had a landslide victory in 1980 over Jimmy Carter. The voter turnout was less than 53 percent. If you consider that less than 28 percent of the eligible voters voted for Ronald Reagan, he did not have a mandate. Almost twice as many people stayed away as voted for Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton had five million votes more than Bob Dole in 1992 but the turnout was 55 percent. Fewer voters might have shown up if Ross Perot hadn’t run and won almost 20 million votes, more than half of those that went to Bob Dole. Even then 84 million people stayed away, giving Bill Clinton a plurality of 27 percent, a lower plurality than Ronald Reagan who also had a three-way race.
Even if you don’t like any of the presidential candidates, vote. You don’t have to mark a vote for every office. A lot of people skip voting for judges or conservation district commissioners, why not skip voting for president? Leaving a blank presidential ballot shows you care enough to show up, and you get counted in the vote totals.
Many people blame Ralph Nader for Bush winning in Florida in 2000. Nader got 97,588 votes and the difference between Bush’s and Gore’s totals was 537 votes (3). However, over three million of Florida’s eligible voters did not even show up at the polls (4). That is, more people stayed away than voted for either Bush or Gore.
In no midterm election since 1974 have more than forty percent of the adult population voted (2). Midterm congresses aren’t the best money can buy; they are the result of extreme voter apathy.
You can vote strategically, you can vote tactically, but vote. You can vote because of an overall result you want; say you want one party to dominate in Congress. Therefore you wouldn’t vote for a third party candidate you respect. Or, you can vote because you want a specific person in Congress. Therefore you would vote for a third party candidate or a “major” party candidate in a party different than the party you want to dominate in Congress. Either way, vote
You think Bush should be punished for the mess he made and that Kerry shouldn’t get the blame when he tries to fix it. So vote for Bush, but vote.
You think that Bush has done a marvelous job, then especially in Minnesota you should vote.
You think Bush should not be rewarded for the mess he made and that Kerry can clean it up. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should be president in 2008. If so, Kerry should not be president. But don’t stay away, vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should not be president in 2008. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
Do you think the make up of the Supreme Court is important?
Do you consider yourself patriotic?
Do you think the country is on the right track?
Do you think the country is on the wrong track?
For any of these reasons, vote.
You can’t get time off from work to vote? Wrong, by law (in Minnesota) your employer must allow you paid time off to vote. It’s your future, vote.
You can’t get a ride to the polls to vote? Call for a ride. (Sorry, I have no current phone numbers for these, but you can probably find some party info on facebook. Look for your party of choice at the municipal or Congressional district level.)
OK Northlanders! Let’s show we care about our country. Let’s have over 90% turnout of the voting age population on November 2, 2004 (as of this re-posting, November 8, 2016).
VOTE!
(1) World Almanac 1998
(2) "National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996", Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm)
(3) “Nader Has Impact on Presidency”, Associated Press, posted at http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/123100/nad_nader.shtml (The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.)
(4) “Who took votes from whom?” http://magree.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-took-votes-from-whom.html
©2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2016 Melvyn D. Magree
Reader Weekly
October 28, 2004
The U.S. is still considered a democracy. The word comes from the Greek demos for people and kratein for rule. It means the people rule. If you don’t vote, how can you rule?
Democracy has been interpreted as majority rule. But no president has ever been elected by a majority of the adult population. Before the 1860’s few blacks could vote. Before 1920 few women could vote (Wyoming territory being the exception in 1869). Since 1932 the voter turnouts have never been greater than sixty-three percent (1).
That high was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy won with 34,227,096 votes to Richard M. Nixon’s 34,108,546, a difference of 118,550. However, over 40 million people did not vote! More people stayed away than voted for either candidate. (2)
Ronald Reagan supposedly had a landslide victory in 1980 over Jimmy Carter. The voter turnout was less than 53 percent. If you consider that less than 28 percent of the eligible voters voted for Ronald Reagan, he did not have a mandate. Almost twice as many people stayed away as voted for Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton had five million votes more than Bob Dole in 1992 but the turnout was 55 percent. Fewer voters might have shown up if Ross Perot hadn’t run and won almost 20 million votes, more than half of those that went to Bob Dole. Even then 84 million people stayed away, giving Bill Clinton a plurality of 27 percent, a lower plurality than Ronald Reagan who also had a three-way race.
Even if you don’t like any of the presidential candidates, vote. You don’t have to mark a vote for every office. A lot of people skip voting for judges or conservation district commissioners, why not skip voting for president? Leaving a blank presidential ballot shows you care enough to show up, and you get counted in the vote totals.
Many people blame Ralph Nader for Bush winning in Florida in 2000. Nader got 97,588 votes and the difference between Bush’s and Gore’s totals was 537 votes (3). However, over three million of Florida’s eligible voters did not even show up at the polls (4). That is, more people stayed away than voted for either Bush or Gore.
In no midterm election since 1974 have more than forty percent of the adult population voted (2). Midterm congresses aren’t the best money can buy; they are the result of extreme voter apathy.
You can vote strategically, you can vote tactically, but vote. You can vote because of an overall result you want; say you want one party to dominate in Congress. Therefore you wouldn’t vote for a third party candidate you respect. Or, you can vote because you want a specific person in Congress. Therefore you would vote for a third party candidate or a “major” party candidate in a party different than the party you want to dominate in Congress. Either way, vote
You think Bush should be punished for the mess he made and that Kerry shouldn’t get the blame when he tries to fix it. So vote for Bush, but vote.
You think that Bush has done a marvelous job, then especially in Minnesota you should vote.
You think Bush should not be rewarded for the mess he made and that Kerry can clean it up. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should be president in 2008. If so, Kerry should not be president. But don’t stay away, vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should not be president in 2008. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
Do you think the make up of the Supreme Court is important?
Do you consider yourself patriotic?
Do you think the country is on the right track?
Do you think the country is on the wrong track?
For any of these reasons, vote.
You can’t get time off from work to vote? Wrong, by law (in Minnesota) your employer must allow you paid time off to vote. It’s your future, vote.
You can’t get a ride to the polls to vote? Call for a ride. (Sorry, I have no current phone numbers for these, but you can probably find some party info on facebook. Look for your party of choice at the municipal or Congressional district level.)
OK Northlanders! Let’s show we care about our country. Let’s have over 90% turnout of the voting age population on November 2, 2004 (as of this re-posting, November 8, 2016).
VOTE!
(1) World Almanac 1998
(2) "National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996", Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm)
(3) “Nader Has Impact on Presidency”, Associated Press, posted at http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/123100/nad_nader.shtml (The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.)
(4) “Who took votes from whom?” http://magree.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-took-votes-from-whom.html
©2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2016 Melvyn D. Magree
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Is Donald Trump the ISIS candidate?
No, I don't mean that Donald Trump is a supporter of ISIS. But he is certainly doing just what ISIS wants. His attacks on Muslims bolsters ISIS's claim that the West is at war with Islam. The more Trump rails against Muslims in general, he helps recruit disillusioned or disaffected Muslims to join ISIS or to carry out attacks in the West. The more attacks, the more people like Donald Trump will over-react. The more over-reaction, the more recruits and the more attacks.
The only counter to a vicious cycle is a virtuous cycle. Probably the best tactic is to out-Qur'an ISIS, especially considering some of their camps don't even have copies of the Qur-an. Consider that few in ISIS even know "...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you?” (Qur’an: Surah 24, v. 22)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)