Political Blogs, News & Views

Someone’s Having a Party

I’m not a frequent visitor to The Huffington Post. Much of the reporting and blogging being done there is top rate, but I tend to get put off by the majority of the commenting that takes place by the community. I’m just not into the bickering and finger pointing that many of my political junky peers enjoy. I think it’s counter-productive and ultimately only serves to weaken our nation.

We are supposed to be the United States after all, and while we don’t have to see eye to eye on every idea or issue, and in-fact it’s better that we don’t, we should be able to debate and discuss our moral and principal differences with civility and respect towards one another. At-least, that’s what I believe.

But I did come across a piece by Ryan Grim over at HuffPo today that I really enjoyed and thought was worth commenting on briefly. It’s a well written piece that looks at how the Tea Party movement is being (mistakenly?) viewed as a danger by some members of the GOP. Original story link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/cornyn-teabaggers-forming_n_446417.html

As the report shows, it is evident that some members of the GOP fear the Tea Party movement. We democrats can understand that fear, we held the same over the Green Party’s rise.

The fact is, any new organized party will build it’s membership from the rank and file of other parties. Sure, some members of a new party will have been registered Independents, but many will have been republicans and possibly even democrats; so a new party’s growth must come from membership depletion of the established parties. But is that really a bad thing?

Are we the “Partisan” or “United” States?

Or maybe the real question should be worded: “which do we want to be, the Partisan or United States?”

At the end of the day, political parties do very little to help enrich or improve the lives of Americans. In-fact, in many ways they weaken the strength of “We the People”, and give false strength and authority to a select few individuals who often use it to protect their own positions rather than to better the positions of their constituents.

And the worst condition is when only two strong parties exist, because it allows them to keep We the People at odds, focused on ideological battles, and not watchful over what our elected officials are really getting away with.

So, from time to time when a group of folks decides that the “main” two parties aren’t serving their needs in Washington and they get a little momentum going to organize a new party which can challenge the entrenched power of the established, you always see the republicans and democrats act in the same way.

They circle the wagons and look for every opportunity to block that momentum and assimilate the unhappy back into their folds. And they do it for one single purpose, to protect their locked hold of power in America.

“I think it’s important that we try to channel these relative newcomers to the political process through our primaries so that they can have an impact on who’s nominated. And hopefully they’ll unite behind that nominee after the primary,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), talking to reporters in the Capitol about the Tea Party movement.

Those very words sum up my point. Cornyn isn’t asking why so many people might feel unrepresented by the established republican party, or how republicans could be doing better to serve the needs of all Americans…No, he just wants to get those activist voters into the republican folds to strengthen his party’s status quo.

Democrats made the same mistakes in the earliest days of the Green Party’s rise as well. There was a window of opportunity for democrats then, to reflect on their own short comings and ask how they could be better, and they missed it–just as republicans are missing it now with the Tea Party movement.

But maybe that’s really a good thing

Or, maybe I’m really just an anarchist at heart, but I like to see organized challenges to the established status quo rise up like this. It gives voice to important beliefs and ideas that have been long ignored in Washington, and it fuels more engagement by We the People in what our elected officials are actually doing with their time and our money.

So, while I disagree with almost everything I’ve ever heard anyone from the Tea Party movement say, I fully support their efforts and encourage them to stand strong on their principals and beliefs against the established party powers–and defend against all attempts to quell their political rebellion.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is the Tea Party movement “showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties”? (althouse.blogspot.com)
• Tea party movement hit by infighting ahead of first convention (guardian.co.uk)
• David Brody: Dick Armey Discusses the State of the Nation, and the GOP (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tea Party More Popular Than Republican Party (politicalwire.com)

Technorati Tags: Tea Party

Posted in Tea Party | No Comments »

Clintonomics 2.0?

Regardless of party affiliations, there are few who can keep a straight face while arguing that the American economy didn’t flourish during President Clinton’s time in office. And rightly so, because it was 2 Presidential terms of upwards economic growth. From an era of outrageous deficit spending and unimaginable national debt to a balanced budget and a surplus in Washington; not to mention nearly nonexistent unemployment rates among those of working age who wanted a job.

That isn’t to suggest there weren’t bumps in the road now and then. With the complex intricacies of such a large economy and private sector there will always be some adverse and unintended effects for a few from every action taken. And President Clinton shouldn’t get all of the credit or blame for the highs and lows during his terms, a Republican controlled congress played a large part in much of it as well.

Fast forward to President Obama taking office, once again we were faced with horrific deficits and debt, no surplus, and an economy spiraling out of control and on the edge of collapse. This isn’t a placing of blame for those conditions, I only list them to frame the circumstances at the moment Obama was sworn in.

Now, 1 year later, as the media and pundits scream “Holy hell!!!” like the prophets of doom they’ve become, the facts show a largely different picture that I think is worth looking at seriously.

While unemployment–traditionally the last area to notice recovery from a recession–has remained uncomfortably high, the fact is that our economy grew at the fastest rate in almost 7 years during the last quarter of 2009.

Our Gross Domestic Product expanded at a rate of 5.7% during that same quarter, nearly 3 times the rate it had grown in the previous quarter and well in excess of what expert analysts were predicting and expecting.

Across the board businesses plugged the inventory depletion faucets in the last quarter, no longer allowing inventories to run down as a cost cutting measure. And some have even begun to increase production to refill empty warehouses and stockrooms.

Consumer spending in the 4th quarter of 2009 also exceeded most expectations, growing at a rate of 2% and giving retailers and other businesses reason to look forward with a more positive eye.

Imports and exports were up for the quarter, with exports increasing at nearly twice the rate of imports, a very good sign for us. Businesses increased investments in software and equipment from a low of 1.5% in the 3rd quarter of 2009 to 13.3% in the 4th quarter. An even better sign for us, because businesses that purchase software and equipment tend to follow up with increased hiring as well.

In other words, while jobs are naturally the last thing to return after a recession and many people are still struggling to make ends meet, it would appear that we truly have turned the corner and are on our way back up.

So, while it’s easy populism for talking heads to keep screaming in outrage and pointing fingers of failure at Washington while keeping viewers tuned in with alarming prophesies of unavoidable doom–the fact is that once again a Democratic President seems to have gotten our economy moving along the right track towards national prosperity.

Related articles from around the web:

• U.S. GDP Grows Faster Than Expected (econotwist.wordpress.com)
• US growth reaches six-year high (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Economic recovery becoming more entrenched: BoC (ctv.ca)
• Dollar gains against yen (money.cnn.com)
• World’s Largest Economy Roars Back Into Life (news.sky.com)
• Economy in U.S. Probably Accelerated as Manufacturing Rebounded (businessweek.com)

Technorati Tags: Economic growth, economy, Gross Domestic Product

Posted in economy | No Comments »

The State of the Union - We’re Doomed!

Yes, we’re doomed, and it may just be Steve Jobs’s fault.

Like many of my fellow news and political junkie friends, I watched President Obama give his State of the Union Address last night with my eyes and ears focused on every syllable he uttered. I watched for every scripted, “spontaneous applause” moment. I counted the number of times that he received a standing ovation, and also how many of those were partisan ovations and how many were bipartisan.

And like many of my peers I was simultaneously on Twitter, exchanging tweets about the text and subtext of the President’s words, as well as a few quick-witted remarks on parts of the speech or people’s actions and reactions in the hall.

And through the hour and a half speech I realized that many of the people I follow on Twitter weren’t tweeting about the State of the Union with me and others, but rather continuing their all-day love affairs with Apple’s launch of the newest “must have” gadget, the Ipad.

That wasn’t too surprising to me, after all I am a part-time Geek and follow a lot of folks from the Tech community on Twitter, and it’s understandable to me that some of them were more captivated by Jobs’s speech yesterday than they could be over Obama’s.

But as the State of the Union Address was ending, I noticed in Twitter’s sidebar–where Twitter displays the top trending topics being discussed on the network in real time–that Apple’s iPad held 4 of the top 5 spots in the United States, with the lone exception being “now that’s ghetto”, and including a #1 seed for a parody of the iPad being discussed, the iTampon.

U.S. trending Twitter topics as State of the Union Address ended

Could it really be that outside of my small circle nobody was really watching or discussing such an important event in our nation? I even felt the need to tweet about it in the moment; nobody watching bothered to respond.

A tweet of astonishment...

Twitter also allows you to see what topics are “hot” among their global users in addition to just among U.S. users of the service, so I switched my view to see what was being discussed around the world at that moment, and there I found that 4 of the top 5 trending topics were all about the State of the Union Address, with the lone exception being “now playing”.

World-wide trending Twitter topics as State of the Union Address ended

So obviously lots of people felt that the speech, goals, and plans being set forth by our President were important enough to watch and discuss, unfortunately it appears most of those people don’t live in the United States however.

From this snapshot of real-time data, all I could deduce is that it’s Steve Jobs’s fault, and until he creates the iDemocracy it seems that we Americans will refuse to care enough to self govern as our Founding Fathers intended us to.

There’s plenty that’s wrong and broken in America right now, and lots of reason to be frustrated and disgusted by Washington politics. But a government that’s designed to be of the people and for the people will never work better so long as it’s ignored by the people.

I’m not sure if it would be more productive to challenge Americans to become more concerned and involved, or just challenge Steve Jobs to fix it for us. What I am sure of is that so long as so many of us continue to sit in the bleachers rather than participate the State of the Union will not truly be strong.

Technorati Tags: President Obama, State of the Union, twitter

Posted in On The Home Front | 1 Comment »

A Clear and Present Danger to Freedom and Democracy: The News?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Those who study American history know that there was a lot of early opposition to our original Constitution, based largely on the fact that it did not contain adequate protections and guarantees for civil liberties.

To address these concerns, the Bill of Rights, which begin with the farthest reaching guarantee of civil liberties in the First Amendment, was introduced for ratification by the states in 1789.

In other words, our founding fathers realized that after just winning our Independence in a costly fight for our civil liberties from English rule, it was vital to our nation’s future that we constitute protections for those very same liberties and protections for our houses of worship and the free exchange of information by news and other publication means from government intrusion.

The notion that a free society depends upon a free and impartial exchange of information and ideas was their belief, and throughout any history book we can see the truth in that belief. Citizens who have been conquered and oppressed have little to no access to free information exchange and candid news journalism. Citizens who live free do. It’s that simple.

The reasoning is easy. If Citizens are free to congregate and exchange information and ideas without government control, then government officials must always fear the outcomes of those gatherings and exchanges. Elected officials must work hard to remain favorable, or risk their positions. But when government controls the flow of information, that fear is removed and politicians are free to act in whatever manner they please without repercussion or consequence.

Sadly, the one thing our founding fathers never envisioned nor safeguarded against was the idea that one day a small handful of people from the private sector would gain overwhelming control over all of the news and periodicals, giving these never-elected few the power to shape and change our country almost at will, and with no reasoning beyond bottom-line profit margins by simply controlling the flow of information to the citizenry.

But that is what we have today. Through mega-mergers and acquisitions, the vast majority of all information being reported, and the slants with which it is getting reported in America, all comes down from the desktop of a small number of people who can freely base their decisions on corporation profits over accuracy or integrity, and with nearly no fear of consequence or repercussion.

There are a ton of debates and arguments to be had on various points of this topic, it is far reaching, but there is no denying that corporate control over news and information exchange has already had a devastating hand in altering our country’s course.

There was a time when most Americans, regardless of political party affiliations, agreed that the federal government was like having an unruly teenage child. You couldn’t just abandon it on the streets when it acted up, so you had to remain diligent and aware of what it was doing and punish it when appropriate. — Anyone remember “trust, but verify”? As in trust your 17 year old son that he’s going to a friend’s to study, but verify that he’s not driving straight to the Keg party at the neighborhood park.

Yet today heated debates rage on because people have become ensconced in false positions of attacking or defending the very existence and role of our federal government on countless issues that should never have been part of it’s domain, such as who sleeps with whom and what ceremonies can or can not be performed in any local church.

Where and when did this happen? I don’t know for sure, it’s hard to pinpoint any single moment or incident, but why it happened is the real question we should be asking; and the answer is fairly obvious: the federal government holds regulatory power over corporate America, so for corporations the easiest way to gain leverage against elected officials would be to buy up the media outlets and gain control over the flow of information to the constituents of those elected officials. Suddenly politicians need to please Corporate masters in order to reach voters with their message.

As a child in the 1970’s I can remember the rivers around Pittsburgh flooding every 2 or 3 years after the spring thaw would come. Back then the local news reporting was always focused mostly on how the floods affected people, typically the poorer residents of low-lying areas who saw their homes and meager possessions washed away with the waters and had no insurance to rely on for getting through the disasters. I remember this because I was among them in those years. Our family home was on the edge of the Ohio river, just feet above the normal crest level. Luckily, the river never quite rose to our house in my time their, but it did wash out the street our house was on numerous times.

In recent years I’ve noticed, we still have those spring floods, though not quite as frequently and usually less disastrous because we’ve become better at managing the water flows over the years, but when the rivers do flood today, it isn’t the human tragedy that’s being reported on like I remember from my childhood as much as it is the affect the floods will have on businesses and yes, even daily parking in the city.

From telling the truths of the human tragedy among the poor who could only afford housing in flood prone areas where insurance companies won’t offer flooding insurance, to blurbs on how dozens of suburbanites who drive to the city for their job will see their normal parking spots displaced…that’s one instance of how the approach to reporting coverage has been altered.

It’s a serious shift in how the same type of stories are covered today from just a few years ago, and due to a slow moving shift has been almost unnoticeable unless you’re looking for it, but then it’s plain to see.

And it brings up a vital question to my position, have we as a people become less caring about the hardships and sufferings of our neighbors so as to steer the reporting away from telling stories from that humane perspective? Or, have bottom-line influences driven the coverage away from the human tolls to give more importance to the business community?

And if you think I’m just spouting off baseless conspiracy theories about Corporate America trying to control and reshape the free exchange of information, take a look at what’s happening online recently. Major battles are taking place between information producers and web site owners and services over where information can and can’t be shared; not to mention which information is being shared and with whom.

Just today I read about a subsidiary arm of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch’s baby, blocking 3rd party sites from even linking to information on their own web sites. This isn’t an issue over intellectual property rights or even advertising profits, it isn’t a case of News Corp protecting their content, it’s News Corp wanting so much control over what information people get and when, that they don’t even want others to point to their content and tell surfers online to go to News Corp’s site to read it. That’s “control freaking” with a capital “F.U.” to the very freedoms that the First Amendment–which News Corp often hides behind–was written to protect.

I don’t want this to seem like I’ve set out to specifically bash News Corp or Murdoch in any way, the chilling state of journalism and honest investigative reporting is equally poor and jaded across the board. CNN, MSNBC, print news, the list goes on and on…all owned by large corporations that have a bottom-line interest in swaying public opinion on everything from politics to sports teams and everything in between. How far they’ll go in using their ability to shape public opinion isn’t the point nor the question, but should the publishers of news hold such conflicts of interest to begin with is.

The bottom line is that the free exchange of information and ideas has become a bottom-line business controlled by a select few in Corporate America, and that represents a clear and present danger to our democracy. Owning a news outlet, print or broadcast, is no longer about fulfilling the service to keep a well-informed public, the news has become a tool for the elite to wield against the public, and at times against government as well, when it’s in their own special interests.

I’m not suggesting that news publication should be a not-for-profit business model, and I certainly don’t think it should be controlled by government, but for the first 125+ years of our nation information and news wasn’t under the control of mega-corporations either, and those were some pretty productive times in our history, so I’m just asking isn’t there some middle ground that would serve the public good; and isn’t there anybody (outside of Comedy Central) willing to take on that role today?

Related articles elsewhere online:

• News Corp is foolish to block linking (guardian.co.uk)
• Free Press Lays Down the Astroturf (and Exposes the Fake Grassroots) (takepart.com)

Technorati Tags: 4th estate, First Amendment, freedom and democracy, news

Posted in Media | 1 Comment »

Cherry-picking Smaller Government?

You can’t claim to be for small government if you support legislation which increases the size or scope of government, period.

I had a nice conversation today with one of my more conservative friends, centered around the Health Care Reform Bill that’s being tossed about the Senate over the weekend.

And while he and I rarely see eye-to-eye on many issues, he’s slightly further right than I can get to on most things, I was surprised to see that we agreed on one point in the conversation–that amendments like House approved Stupak-Pitts which seek to restrict access to currently legal medical procedures based on selective positions of morality–do not belong.

It’s not that my friend is pro-abortion, to be honest, I’m not pro-abortion either. I’m not even sure there is a such thing??? But I am for minimal government involvement in people’s personal and private lives, and fully against the legislation of selective moralities.

I’m all for those who wish to promote a culture of life that honestly persuades a pregnant woman to sincerely evaluate every alternative available to her prior to even considering an abortion. I believe in “well informed” decisions and that’s the only way to make one. But I oppose legislation that is based on the moral opinions of some, which is why I oppose legislation that would ban or outlaw abortion entirely; and I certainly oppose shady little amendments being tossed into major legislation which would also act to place the government between an individual and their doctor on medical decisions.

I never thought my friend would be on the same page as me about this though, and was shocked to find he is.

Like me, he agrees that changing people’s habits and choices by changing their thought processes and perspectives is the right path for the pro-life movement. That legislating the act of abortion ultimately does nothing to address the actual issue. It’s like treating a broken bone with a couple shots of rum, sure you may feel a little better in the short term, but when the rum wears off you’ve still got a broken bone.

If you want to change the way people think, you’ve got to do it in candid debate and discussion, not by legislation or shady tag-on amendments. Otherwise, we Americans are a persnickety bunch, and will revolt when we feel forced into a corner unfairly.

It appears that Senators Nelson and Hatch intend to introduce additional abortion restrictions to the Health Care Reform Bill as early as Monday or Tuesday, and from multiple sources it looks like the sane and rational members of the Senate may be several votes short of stopping them.

That will be a sad thing for all Americans I think, but especially so for conservatives, because it will mean their champions in Washington D.C. are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and willing to increase government’s size and role to invade and interfere in our private lives in an unprecedented manner.

It may not seem so bad right now, when the increase in government is to thwart an activity that most conservatives oppose anyway, but how will those same conservatives feel if some legislators used the same tactics to outlaw private and home schooling–under the guise of “fair and equal education for all”–down the road? Will conservatives feel then that shady tag-along legislating based on selective opinions is okay? That’s the problem with ringing a bell, once done you can’t un-ring it.

More related articles:

• Section 1803: Senate Health Care Bill Makes Planned Parenthood Quasi-Government Agency? (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• Health Care Bill Gets House Approval, Abortion Funding Battle Shifts to Senate (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• What Democrats Signed On To Re: Abortion (alan.com)
• Modest step in the reform journey shows the idiocy of our political system (thehealthcareblog.com)
• What the Stupak-Pitts Coathanger Amendment Does (dailykos.com)

Related Video

Sen. Durbin: Where Is The Republican Health Care Plan?

Sen. Dick Durbin today [December 05, 2009] addressed Republican requests to “slow down” with respect to the debate on the Senate health care reform bill.

Technorati Tags: Abortion, Health care, Pro-life, United States Senate

Posted in U.S. Senate | No Comments »