Romney would make a poor US president. He is basically a rerun of Obama, but a little less so. It would have been better if he had been elected president rather than Obama six years ago, but not much better.
The problems are multiple. Let's start with the fact that he introduced socialized medicine to Massachusetts, which then became a model for Obamacare. This means that he originally had no faith in American citizens being able to choose health care programs which would be satisfactory to them and that this should rather be done by big government through a mandate.
Romney is remaking recent noises that he may run again for president in the 2016 elections. According to the Washington Times, Romney gave a speech during a luncheon aboard the drydocked USS Midway museum in San Diego. During that speech, Rodney made the statement that he wanted "to lift people out of poverty” and “to make the world safe.” Taken as an open statement, it's not a bad idealism, but in historical and current terms, it carries a lot of baggage. It was a favorite of Pres. Franklin D Roosevelt, Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson and Pres. Obama through his redistribution of wealth program. All such socialistic programs were unsuccessful
The problems are mostly in the considerations of how these two things would be done. Liberal Democrats believe you lift people out of poverty by giving them money and goods, whereas a more practical approach is that people in poverty must lift themselves out of poverty. The way that non-poverty people and government can help is by giving the poverty people opportunities and incentives to do their own lifting. Think about the European immigrants who came to the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s for the land of opportunity, not for the land of free school lunches, food stamps, and the like.
With respect to making the world safe, we've been using six years of "be nice and talk sweet" to our foreign adversaries. The result has been obvious. We have more adversaries than we ever had before. The disadvantage of this is that American citizens are now exposed to more physical danger from foreign military activities than previously. I consider foreign military activities as terrorist actions, whether those terrorists were foreign-born or foreign indoctrinated American citizens. In addition, we have the massive threat of major destruction and death from the use of atomic weapons by rogue nations, such as North Korea and the developing atomic weapons of Iran weapon. This does not only affect American citizens but also the lives of humans around the world.
I used to be a semi-isolationist, to the extent that I felt we should have a good defensive posture against any foreign military attacks. I felt that the safety of foreign citizens with their own business, resulting in how they conducted themselves with respect to choosing their leadership and what they did about abuses of power within their own spheres.
However, I have somewhat modified my position through the years, now feeling that I do have a greater responsibility for the livelihood of foreign citizens unrelated to my personal involvement. I still do not believe in nationbuilding. I believe that other people of the world have the right to choose their own forms of government, even socialism/communism, monarchies and dictatorships. I am somewhat ambivalent about government forces killing several thousand people in Rwanda, but I now think that we should be using some of our military power to avoid these kinds of actions. I've come to this change primarily from reading the essays of Dr. Charles Krauthammer, which he wrote some years ago. His main point is that whether we like to were not, we have an obligation to maintain peace within the world. This came about after World War II, when America was the only adversaries left standing and had the responsibility to help the world recover. Krauthammer suggests that if we do not fulfill our obligation as world policeman, a vacuum ensues, which then leads to degradation of peace, the development of more atrocities, and a general feeling of unrest among the peoples of the world who are not even directly affected. We have the power to perform this obligation as well. The only question is a matter of degree. This could be regarded by some as being arrogant and even militarily aggressive. But, like anything else moderate use avoidS the abuse of power.
Romney will not do this. He tipped his hand in his USS Midway speech. His mode of action will be very similar to Obama's. He will try to lift people out of poverty by giving people additional benefits supported by taxpayers and debt through a government of ever increasing size and power.. He will talk sweet to foreign adversaries and assume he has no responsibility for world leadership through military use. He will be all talk; much like Obama.
It is interesting to speculate on how he and Obama could be so similar while arriving at positions of power from such dissimilar circumstances. Obama is antagonistic to the US and the American way of life, because he was taught so in his upbringing by his grandfather on basically foreign soil. Romney is an American having risen to a position of economic strength, presumably through his own capability. The likelihood is that he now has a guilt feeling, and with that feeling of guilt comes an attitude of super compassion for the poor. He does not remember how he achieved his position of financial superiority through his greater efforts. He probably feels lucky, which leads to compassion for people who he considers are less lucky.
The bottom line is that we need in a new president with an attitude that Americans are intelligent human beings, with the need to determine their own destiny and a right to use any means to achieve their goals, without government interference, but with the provision that they're not going to do obvious harm to other people. Romney doesn't fit.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Police Training
The Washington Times reports that Obama says police training is needed to reduce their racial ‘bias’. As usual, I disagree with almost everything that Obama says. However to give him some benefit of doubt, there is always at least a partial element of truth in his statements.
In this particular case, I agree completely that police need training, but they don't need training with respect to bias. Most police forces are multiracial, which means that there are a number of blacks included in the force. It is highly unlikely that a black would have a racial bias against another black, although it may be possible. Similarly, while there may be some whites who have racial bias against blacks, that is not a common occurrence.
The usual attitude of most people, including police, and probably with the exception of the black community, is that the record shows that most crimes of assault, murder, robbery, burglary, drug dealing and the like are committed at a higher per capita rate by blacks. In spite of any attempted teaching to the contrary by government, common sense always prevails among people that track record is an important consideration. If I have known that a person has been committed for embezzlement, I would be less likely to hire him as my financial officer. This is not to say that the world is not full of do-gooders and forgivers to the extent that they might even show preference to hiring such person to show what I believe would be an unwarranted trust. The fact remains that there is such a factor as recidivism, which is a chronic tendency toward repetition of criminal or antisocial behavior.
I have said previously the police need additional training; not to remove racial bias but rather to improve their relationship with the general public. Those police officers who demonstrate an officious attitude in their conversation with witnesses and suspected offenders must be either retrained or eliminated from duty. Gestapo attitudes are not appropriate in our current society. Information can be collected in a semi-friendly manner without any attempt to generate fear in the person being interrogated. Witnesses should be treated with respect, even if their contributions do not seem particularly relevant to the situation at hand. Officers need to be taught how to smile and use such phrases as "please and thank you". Those that continue to demonstrate Gestapo attitudes and actions need to be eliminated. Such training will over time bring greater respect to police forces and in all likelihood a better working cooperation with the public. Considerable damage has been done to the black community, and a lot of this damage has been self-imposed. It will take longer for the black community to accept the police as an organization with intention to help the community develop along positive productive lines, rather than constantly looking for deficiencies and efforts to jail individuals.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Russian Satellite System
You have probably seen the Suddenlink or similar TV commercias involving a woman calling 911 in an emergency. The 911 operator says to the distraught woman that the communication from her cell phone is distorted and asks the woman if she can phone back on a landline so that the distraught woman's location can be determined.
Suddenlink is trying to sell landline phone service on the basis that the location of a landline phone can be determined easily by a 911 operator, while it cannot for a cell phone.
You are likely also aware of the existence of a device known as a GPS, which stands for Global Positioning satellite. The device, which you carry, can communicate with satellites and report back to the device its location anywhere on earth, within a few meters.
Smart cell phones are usually equipped with GPS, which the cell phone can use to determine its position, but this does not automatically report the position to another party calling the smart phone. The smart phone operator would have to verbally advise the other person where he is located. The problem with that is smart cell phones are wireless and are not always within range of a wireless system, such as Wi-Fi.
To overcome this deficiency, suppliers of cell phone service have proposed that a Russian satellite system be used to identify the location of a cell phone to any third party. I'm not familiar how this would be done, but I'll take the word of the phone companies that it is possible.
The key question here is why a Russian satellite system is sophisticated enough to supply this service outside of Russia, when an American satellite system cannot do the same thing for its own territory.
Satellite systems can have many functions besides locating position of a cell phone. Many of its applications are of military significance. The implication of the whole cell phone location matter should be more properly considered as a question of whether the United States has ceded technological superiority to the Russians in the application of satellites for any purpose.
Fortunately, the Washington Times says that the U.S. Congress is on this. Congress will be considering and probably opposing use of the Russian satellite system for correcting the deficiency of cell phone location. However, the more obvious problem is whether Russian satellite technology use is superior to our own. If that is true, we better get on the ball and do something about it. We need to be technologically superior to any country in the world, in order to properly defend ourselves. In the case of satellite usage, we may need more and better satellites. Whatever is necessary, we should do it. It already galls me that we have to rent space from the Russians in the space station, but that's an emotional reaction, not specifically based on military considerations. The satellite situation is completely different. We should not be dependent on the Russians to allow us to use their system.
Suddenlink is trying to sell landline phone service on the basis that the location of a landline phone can be determined easily by a 911 operator, while it cannot for a cell phone.
You are likely also aware of the existence of a device known as a GPS, which stands for Global Positioning satellite. The device, which you carry, can communicate with satellites and report back to the device its location anywhere on earth, within a few meters.
Smart cell phones are usually equipped with GPS, which the cell phone can use to determine its position, but this does not automatically report the position to another party calling the smart phone. The smart phone operator would have to verbally advise the other person where he is located. The problem with that is smart cell phones are wireless and are not always within range of a wireless system, such as Wi-Fi.
To overcome this deficiency, suppliers of cell phone service have proposed that a Russian satellite system be used to identify the location of a cell phone to any third party. I'm not familiar how this would be done, but I'll take the word of the phone companies that it is possible.
The key question here is why a Russian satellite system is sophisticated enough to supply this service outside of Russia, when an American satellite system cannot do the same thing for its own territory.
Satellite systems can have many functions besides locating position of a cell phone. Many of its applications are of military significance. The implication of the whole cell phone location matter should be more properly considered as a question of whether the United States has ceded technological superiority to the Russians in the application of satellites for any purpose.
Fortunately, the Washington Times says that the U.S. Congress is on this. Congress will be considering and probably opposing use of the Russian satellite system for correcting the deficiency of cell phone location. However, the more obvious problem is whether Russian satellite technology use is superior to our own. If that is true, we better get on the ball and do something about it. We need to be technologically superior to any country in the world, in order to properly defend ourselves. In the case of satellite usage, we may need more and better satellites. Whatever is necessary, we should do it. It already galls me that we have to rent space from the Russians in the space station, but that's an emotional reaction, not specifically based on military considerations. The satellite situation is completely different. We should not be dependent on the Russians to allow us to use their system.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Iran: Threat of Nuclear War
Let's start with a little prelim on atomic weapons.
During World War II, the US-dropped uranium bomb killed 166,000 people. The later plutonium bomb on Nagasaki killed 80,000 people. US atomic weaponry has been later improved to include hydrogen bombs, which are said to have 10 times the explosive force of either uranium or plutonium bombs.
New York City has a population of 8 million people. One hydrogen bomb on New York City would kill almost 1/4 of the population.
Who has hydrogen bombs? The US, Russia, and probably China
Why are they not used? Primarily because of the philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). For example, if Russia were to unleash atomic weapons against the United States, the US would immediately retaliate in time to rain at least equivalent destruction on Russia. MAD works only when there are rational leaders. Insane or irrational leader for other reasons, such as religious fanatics would not be a deterrent.
What about countries having atomic weapon capability lesser than hydrogen bombs. In this case, we mean the old uranium and plutonium bombs. There is primarily one; North Korea, and Iran may be on its way. Leaders of these small countries may not be as rational as those of the larger powers and may be willing to take a chance that there would be no retaliation, if they used a uranium or plutonium bomb. Another possibility is a small group of religious fanatics, having no fear of death, purchasing enough fissionable uranium or plutonium to manufacture their own bomb and subsequently use it.
We can say without hesitation that the more fissionable uranium or plutonium available in the world, the greater the likelihood that it will find its way into an atomic weapon to be used to kill people; probably Americans.
The North Koreans already have an effective atomic weapon, having undertaken three tests. It is not known whether the test material involved enriched uranium or plutonium. Since the North Koreans already have the weaponry, it is impossible to backtrack and eliminate the threat. However, there is a greater chance that global major countries of greater economic power can control other countries, such as Iran, who have contemplated or are in only the initial stages of a nuclear program, probably also involving weaponry.
The Shah of Iran started a uranium enrichment program in the 1950s with the purchase and commissioning of a large number of centrifuges. That work of enriching uranium has been going on for more than 50 years, during which time the enrichment technology has undoubtedly been improved. Whether Iran is enriching uranium to a rather low state of enrichment for atomic power plant use or whether it is enriching uranium to a high degree of purity for atomic weaponry is unknown
The Obama Administration has for many years been attempting to convince the Iranians that they should not be enriching uranium past a certain high degree of purity, which would allow use in atomic weaponry. More recently, the British prime minister has sided with the Obama Administration in support of a program to let such negotiations proceed. Conversely, a number of US senators want to apply economic sanctions against Iran as a weapon to have them give up their enrichment program or at least be able to assure the negotiators that uranium enrichment would not take placed past a certain degree of purity, which would be less than required for atomic weaponry.
Since the Iranians have been working on uranium enrichment for more than 50 years, which during which time the US has and has had an on-off position on negotiation, it seems unreasonable that there is any hope that such negotiation will come to a reasonable conclusion without the introduction of additional factors; namely sanctions. It's somewhat surprising that the British, who are normally rather pragmatic, tend to side with the Obama administration in this pie-in-the-sky hope that Iran will comply with the request for reduced enrichment without such incentives.
The Washington Times has reported that Republican senators are brushing off Obama's warnings and avowing use of more sanctions. It is unclear to me what Obama's warnings are. Will additional sanctions anger the Iranian leadership, such that they would put more effort into uranium enrichment for an atomic weapon? Not likely. Iranian leadership already considers the US an enemy, as demonstrated by its promotion of terrorist action against the US. Does the Obama administration believe that the Iranians will sign an agreement not to enrich uranium past a certain purity, which would eliminate possibility of atomic weaponry? The Obama administration may believe that, but I believe that is not possible. There is no question that the Iranians will use every deceptive means possible to continue any program they desire on atomic weaponry, while trying to simultaneously convince the Obama Administration that they are cooperating. Let's remember that Iran is the land of liars, both in its people and its Administration.
Sen. Lindsey Graham is on the right track, but needs to go further. Economic sanctions should be immediately applied; not threatened.. Sanctions would then only be lifted as the Iranians completely give up the process of uranium enrichment or plutonium generation. The Iranians must also give completely open inspections to UN and US atomic energy inspectors. All equipment for uranium enrichment and plutonium generation must be dismantled and scrapped, so that it will not be available for start up at some future date. As the Iranians comply with these requirements, the economic sanctions can be slowly lifted and then reestablished if the Iranians deviate in any way from the accepted program.
The Iranians have claimed previously that the only interest they have in enriching uranium and generating plutonium is for use in atomic power plants, but any uranium enriching equipment could continue to enrich to levels suitable for atomic weaponry. For that reason, all uranium enrichment equipment must be dismantled and scrapped. Similarly, there should be no production of plutonium. Any materials necessary for atomic power plants could be purchased from major producers using funds available from oil exports.
During World War II, the US-dropped uranium bomb killed 166,000 people. The later plutonium bomb on Nagasaki killed 80,000 people. US atomic weaponry has been later improved to include hydrogen bombs, which are said to have 10 times the explosive force of either uranium or plutonium bombs.
New York City has a population of 8 million people. One hydrogen bomb on New York City would kill almost 1/4 of the population.
Who has hydrogen bombs? The US, Russia, and probably China
Why are they not used? Primarily because of the philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). For example, if Russia were to unleash atomic weapons against the United States, the US would immediately retaliate in time to rain at least equivalent destruction on Russia. MAD works only when there are rational leaders. Insane or irrational leader for other reasons, such as religious fanatics would not be a deterrent.
What about countries having atomic weapon capability lesser than hydrogen bombs. In this case, we mean the old uranium and plutonium bombs. There is primarily one; North Korea, and Iran may be on its way. Leaders of these small countries may not be as rational as those of the larger powers and may be willing to take a chance that there would be no retaliation, if they used a uranium or plutonium bomb. Another possibility is a small group of religious fanatics, having no fear of death, purchasing enough fissionable uranium or plutonium to manufacture their own bomb and subsequently use it.
We can say without hesitation that the more fissionable uranium or plutonium available in the world, the greater the likelihood that it will find its way into an atomic weapon to be used to kill people; probably Americans.
The North Koreans already have an effective atomic weapon, having undertaken three tests. It is not known whether the test material involved enriched uranium or plutonium. Since the North Koreans already have the weaponry, it is impossible to backtrack and eliminate the threat. However, there is a greater chance that global major countries of greater economic power can control other countries, such as Iran, who have contemplated or are in only the initial stages of a nuclear program, probably also involving weaponry.
The Shah of Iran started a uranium enrichment program in the 1950s with the purchase and commissioning of a large number of centrifuges. That work of enriching uranium has been going on for more than 50 years, during which time the enrichment technology has undoubtedly been improved. Whether Iran is enriching uranium to a rather low state of enrichment for atomic power plant use or whether it is enriching uranium to a high degree of purity for atomic weaponry is unknown
The Obama Administration has for many years been attempting to convince the Iranians that they should not be enriching uranium past a certain high degree of purity, which would allow use in atomic weaponry. More recently, the British prime minister has sided with the Obama Administration in support of a program to let such negotiations proceed. Conversely, a number of US senators want to apply economic sanctions against Iran as a weapon to have them give up their enrichment program or at least be able to assure the negotiators that uranium enrichment would not take placed past a certain degree of purity, which would be less than required for atomic weaponry.
Since the Iranians have been working on uranium enrichment for more than 50 years, which during which time the US has and has had an on-off position on negotiation, it seems unreasonable that there is any hope that such negotiation will come to a reasonable conclusion without the introduction of additional factors; namely sanctions. It's somewhat surprising that the British, who are normally rather pragmatic, tend to side with the Obama administration in this pie-in-the-sky hope that Iran will comply with the request for reduced enrichment without such incentives.
The Washington Times has reported that Republican senators are brushing off Obama's warnings and avowing use of more sanctions. It is unclear to me what Obama's warnings are. Will additional sanctions anger the Iranian leadership, such that they would put more effort into uranium enrichment for an atomic weapon? Not likely. Iranian leadership already considers the US an enemy, as demonstrated by its promotion of terrorist action against the US. Does the Obama administration believe that the Iranians will sign an agreement not to enrich uranium past a certain purity, which would eliminate possibility of atomic weaponry? The Obama administration may believe that, but I believe that is not possible. There is no question that the Iranians will use every deceptive means possible to continue any program they desire on atomic weaponry, while trying to simultaneously convince the Obama Administration that they are cooperating. Let's remember that Iran is the land of liars, both in its people and its Administration.
Sen. Lindsey Graham is on the right track, but needs to go further. Economic sanctions should be immediately applied; not threatened.. Sanctions would then only be lifted as the Iranians completely give up the process of uranium enrichment or plutonium generation. The Iranians must also give completely open inspections to UN and US atomic energy inspectors. All equipment for uranium enrichment and plutonium generation must be dismantled and scrapped, so that it will not be available for start up at some future date. As the Iranians comply with these requirements, the economic sanctions can be slowly lifted and then reestablished if the Iranians deviate in any way from the accepted program.
The Iranians have claimed previously that the only interest they have in enriching uranium and generating plutonium is for use in atomic power plants, but any uranium enriching equipment could continue to enrich to levels suitable for atomic weaponry. For that reason, all uranium enrichment equipment must be dismantled and scrapped. Similarly, there should be no production of plutonium. Any materials necessary for atomic power plants could be purchased from major producers using funds available from oil exports.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Sen. Cruz at NASA
Open email to Sen. (TX) Ted Cruz:
Dear Sen. Cruz,
On Monday, you spoke at Heritage Action’s 2015 Conservative Policy Summit outlining 10 critical priorities for Congress, focusing on jobs, liberty, and national security. They are:
Embrace a big pro-jobs, growth Agenda
Pursue all means possible to repeal Obamacare
Secure the border and stop illegal amnesty
Hold government accountable and rein in judicial activism
Stop the culture of corruption
Pass fundamental tax reform, making taxes flatter, simpler, and fairer
Audit the Federal Reserve
Pass a strong balanced budget amendment
Champion school choice and repeal common core
Deal seriously with the twin threats of ISIL and a nuclear Iran
I agree with all 10 of these.
On Thursday, you announced in your newsletter that you have accepted an appointment to chair the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Competitiveness.
As a scientist with some ambivalence concerning NASA, I also wonder what connection your Subcommittee Chairmanship has to do with any of the 10 points you previously listed as critical priorities for Congress.
Have your associates shifted you off to a siding of insignificance, or am I missing something?
Dear Sen. Cruz,
On Monday, you spoke at Heritage Action’s 2015 Conservative Policy Summit outlining 10 critical priorities for Congress, focusing on jobs, liberty, and national security. They are:
Embrace a big pro-jobs, growth Agenda
Pursue all means possible to repeal Obamacare
Secure the border and stop illegal amnesty
Hold government accountable and rein in judicial activism
Stop the culture of corruption
Pass fundamental tax reform, making taxes flatter, simpler, and fairer
Audit the Federal Reserve
Pass a strong balanced budget amendment
Champion school choice and repeal common core
Deal seriously with the twin threats of ISIL and a nuclear Iran
I agree with all 10 of these.
On Thursday, you announced in your newsletter that you have accepted an appointment to chair the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Competitiveness.
As a scientist with some ambivalence concerning NASA, I also wonder what connection your Subcommittee Chairmanship has to do with any of the 10 points you previously listed as critical priorities for Congress.
Have your associates shifted you off to a siding of insignificance, or am I missing something?
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Keystone Pipeline and Oil Exports
Open Email to Texas Representative Michael McCaul:
Dear Representative McCaul,
I have read your latest newsletter.
You join most Republicans in the House passage of installing the Keystone oil pipeline. In your discussion, you have assumed that Pres. Obama will veto such bill if passed also by the Senate and gets to him for signing. On that assumption, you suggested Pres. Obama will have to explain to the American public why he is vetoing the bill. In fact, he does not need to explain.
You and other Republicans should only be pursuing this pipeline issue if you feel you have enough votes to override the two thirds requirement for presidential veto. If not, you should go on with something else of value to the Republicans and the American people, wherein Pres. Obama will prove or you will be able to override his veto.
Your introduction of the Crude Oil Export Act, which ends 1970s era restrictions on the free trade of American crude oil is laudable, but also falls into the same category. Unless you think Pres. Obama will not veto the legislation, or you will be able to obtain a two-thirds majority to override such veto, you are spinning your wheels.
Dear Representative McCaul,
I have read your latest newsletter.
You join most Republicans in the House passage of installing the Keystone oil pipeline. In your discussion, you have assumed that Pres. Obama will veto such bill if passed also by the Senate and gets to him for signing. On that assumption, you suggested Pres. Obama will have to explain to the American public why he is vetoing the bill. In fact, he does not need to explain.
You and other Republicans should only be pursuing this pipeline issue if you feel you have enough votes to override the two thirds requirement for presidential veto. If not, you should go on with something else of value to the Republicans and the American people, wherein Pres. Obama will prove or you will be able to override his veto.
Your introduction of the Crude Oil Export Act, which ends 1970s era restrictions on the free trade of American crude oil is laudable, but also falls into the same category. Unless you think Pres. Obama will not veto the legislation, or you will be able to obtain a two-thirds majority to override such veto, you are spinning your wheels.
The Republic of the US
Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times reports that the Constitution was read at the opening session of the 113th Congress. Very laudable!.
The Times report goes on to quote you, among which is the statement, "This opportunity to debate and express opinions is one of the greatest strengths to our democracy."
I don't mean to be picayune, and I will assume that you are already familiar with my following comments, which I make primarily for consumption by my readers. You have made a fundamental, important error. The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic!
The distinction is important, because a republic takes into consideration the value of individual votes. A democracy does not. When the founding fathers set up the Constitution, it was based upon an intent that the government should be representative of the people, but also recognizing that some people, in casting their votes, do so without any particular knowledge of the issues or the credentials of the person to be elected. Rush Limbaugh has called these people low information voters.
For example contrary to popular belief, the president is chosen not by popular vote, but by an electoral college. The electoral college is composed of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, and the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.
The United States Electoral College is the institution that officially elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. The electors are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis. Electors are generally pledged to support the appointment of the candidate recommended by the political party of the elector. The point is that the system attempts to reduce the influence of low information voters. Unfortunately, federal practice has tended to ignore this opportunity and low information voters have more power than they would have if the founding fathers' system was more closely adhered to.
States are required, like the federal government, to be republican in form, and must be so in order to be part of the union..
I believe there are two actions we must take. First, we should eliminate the tendency to call the government of the United States a democracy. It is a republic, as defined by the Constitution. Second, we should further decrease the power of low information voters by using techniques allowable by the Constitution to reduce the power of those votes.
Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times reports that the Constitution was read at the opening session of the 113th Congress. Very laudable!.
The Times report goes on to quote you, among which is the statement, "This opportunity to debate and express opinions is one of the greatest strengths to our democracy."
I don't mean to be picayune, and I will assume that you are already familiar with my following comments, which I make primarily for consumption by my readers. You have made a fundamental, important error. The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic!
The distinction is important, because a republic takes into consideration the value of individual votes. A democracy does not. When the founding fathers set up the Constitution, it was based upon an intent that the government should be representative of the people, but also recognizing that some people, in casting their votes, do so without any particular knowledge of the issues or the credentials of the person to be elected. Rush Limbaugh has called these people low information voters.
For example contrary to popular belief, the president is chosen not by popular vote, but by an electoral college. The electoral college is composed of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, and the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.
The United States Electoral College is the institution that officially elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. The electors are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis. Electors are generally pledged to support the appointment of the candidate recommended by the political party of the elector. The point is that the system attempts to reduce the influence of low information voters. Unfortunately, federal practice has tended to ignore this opportunity and low information voters have more power than they would have if the founding fathers' system was more closely adhered to.
States are required, like the federal government, to be republican in form, and must be so in order to be part of the union..
I believe there are two actions we must take. First, we should eliminate the tendency to call the government of the United States a democracy. It is a republic, as defined by the Constitution. Second, we should further decrease the power of low information voters by using techniques allowable by the Constitution to reduce the power of those votes.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Federal Legislative Strategy
Open email to House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader McConnell:
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. Majority Leader McConnell,
What I'm about to say is undoubtedly already known to you, but the purpose of my reiteration is to strongly bring it to your attention, so that you will act on it
The recent federal election has put Republicans, of which you are part, in the majority at both the House and Senate. However, this is not the time to be grandstanding on trying to pass legislation concerning which you have long-standing emotional attachment.
The fact is that with the presidential veto and the support of Democrats in both the House and Senate, you are effectively stymied when trying to pass any significant legislation.
However, you have a choice, which will allow the probability of some success and the possibility of great success in some areas, without re-signing to temporary defeat and hoping for a better climate with the possibility of a Republican president in 2016. The only present possibilities for success lie in avoiding or overcoming a presidential veto.
Pres. Obama has said that he will veto any House/Senate legislation involving the Keystone pipeline, a 30 hour work week for Obama care, a defunding of Obama care, and tax breaks for businesses. You can be certain that he is serious about this. However, if your polling of House and Senate votes on any of these topics gives an indication that you can obtain enough Democrat support to overcome a veto two-thirds majority in both Houses, then I agree to push it. But, I doubt that this will happen.
The alternative is to start at the bottom, rather the top. Find some areas on any topic which you believe is even reasonably important to your overall strategy of jobs, business, etc., and test the White House on a prospective veto. If Obama indicates he will not be opposed to the proposed legislation, work on it. If Obama indicates he will veto the proposed legislation and you think you can garner enough votes in both houses to overcome the veto, also work on it. If it looks like the veto will hold, forget the proposal and go to something else.
If you start to achieve any kind of success in passing anything, you will be creating a favorable atmosphere, no matter how insignificant the legislation may be, and then you can slowly push your way up into higher relevancy items with a higher probability of either avoiding a presidential veto or obtaining enough votes to overcome the veto.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Sen. Majority Leader McConnell,
What I'm about to say is undoubtedly already known to you, but the purpose of my reiteration is to strongly bring it to your attention, so that you will act on it
The recent federal election has put Republicans, of which you are part, in the majority at both the House and Senate. However, this is not the time to be grandstanding on trying to pass legislation concerning which you have long-standing emotional attachment.
The fact is that with the presidential veto and the support of Democrats in both the House and Senate, you are effectively stymied when trying to pass any significant legislation.
However, you have a choice, which will allow the probability of some success and the possibility of great success in some areas, without re-signing to temporary defeat and hoping for a better climate with the possibility of a Republican president in 2016. The only present possibilities for success lie in avoiding or overcoming a presidential veto.
Pres. Obama has said that he will veto any House/Senate legislation involving the Keystone pipeline, a 30 hour work week for Obama care, a defunding of Obama care, and tax breaks for businesses. You can be certain that he is serious about this. However, if your polling of House and Senate votes on any of these topics gives an indication that you can obtain enough Democrat support to overcome a veto two-thirds majority in both Houses, then I agree to push it. But, I doubt that this will happen.
The alternative is to start at the bottom, rather the top. Find some areas on any topic which you believe is even reasonably important to your overall strategy of jobs, business, etc., and test the White House on a prospective veto. If Obama indicates he will not be opposed to the proposed legislation, work on it. If Obama indicates he will veto the proposed legislation and you think you can garner enough votes in both houses to overcome the veto, also work on it. If it looks like the veto will hold, forget the proposal and go to something else.
If you start to achieve any kind of success in passing anything, you will be creating a favorable atmosphere, no matter how insignificant the legislation may be, and then you can slowly push your way up into higher relevancy items with a higher probability of either avoiding a presidential veto or obtaining enough votes to overcome the veto.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Change Newspaper Reporting
When I was a young man about 50 years ago, we had newspaper reporters. It was their job to report news to the public through the newspapers through which they worked.. The editor of each each newspaper would also publish editorials, the primary purpose of which was to educate the newspaper readers on the significance of a particular news item.
Through the years, newspaper reporting became more sophisticated, primarily through teachings at liberal universities. Newspaper reporting became journalism. With the change in nomenclature also came a change in the fundamental position of the operator. Whereas a newspaper reporter previously reported the news, a journalist became a political activators to influence the news. In short, the input to our newspapers is no longer news reporting. Rather, it is news opinions, with intention to develop an attitude within the mind of the reader.
Some years ago, Islamic terrorists brought down two world trade center powers in New York City. The attack was based on the nebulous opinion of the terrorists that the US, and what it stood for, was a general enemy of the Islamic world. As nebulous as the idea was, the attack was realistic.
Yesterday Islamic terrorists killed 10 people in the Paris office of a newspaper. In this case, the attack seemed more justifiable from an Islamic terrorist point of view, in that the particular newspaper had previously published a derogatory caricature of the Prophet Mohammed and was continuing to verbally attack Islam.
With the change from news reporting to the political activism of journalism, the targets of the Western world have retaliated in their traditional way, which is to verbally defend their position. However, the targets of Islam respond in a completely different manner. They kill. Hence the attack on the Paris newspaper office.
There is now much in the news concerning freedom of the press and the attacks on journalists, but this has resulted in the change of ideology in newspaper reporting. A newspaper reporter was an enemy of no one. He merely reported the news. The current journalist is a political activist, who by his activism establishes enemies. In other words, the present physical danger danger to journalists arises from their own activism. In other words, physical danger goes with the territory of political activism in the Islamic world, if not in the Western world. If journalists want to reduce the probability of physical danger and the pursuit of their careers, they should seriously consider reducing their role of political activism and return to a more basic form of news reporting. Political activism can be left in the hands of career politicians.
Through the years, newspaper reporting became more sophisticated, primarily through teachings at liberal universities. Newspaper reporting became journalism. With the change in nomenclature also came a change in the fundamental position of the operator. Whereas a newspaper reporter previously reported the news, a journalist became a political activators to influence the news. In short, the input to our newspapers is no longer news reporting. Rather, it is news opinions, with intention to develop an attitude within the mind of the reader.
Some years ago, Islamic terrorists brought down two world trade center powers in New York City. The attack was based on the nebulous opinion of the terrorists that the US, and what it stood for, was a general enemy of the Islamic world. As nebulous as the idea was, the attack was realistic.
Yesterday Islamic terrorists killed 10 people in the Paris office of a newspaper. In this case, the attack seemed more justifiable from an Islamic terrorist point of view, in that the particular newspaper had previously published a derogatory caricature of the Prophet Mohammed and was continuing to verbally attack Islam.
With the change from news reporting to the political activism of journalism, the targets of the Western world have retaliated in their traditional way, which is to verbally defend their position. However, the targets of Islam respond in a completely different manner. They kill. Hence the attack on the Paris newspaper office.
There is now much in the news concerning freedom of the press and the attacks on journalists, but this has resulted in the change of ideology in newspaper reporting. A newspaper reporter was an enemy of no one. He merely reported the news. The current journalist is a political activist, who by his activism establishes enemies. In other words, the present physical danger danger to journalists arises from their own activism. In other words, physical danger goes with the territory of political activism in the Islamic world, if not in the Western world. If journalists want to reduce the probability of physical danger and the pursuit of their careers, they should seriously consider reducing their role of political activism and return to a more basic form of news reporting. Political activism can be left in the hands of career politicians.
Friday, January 2, 2015
Religious Persecution by Military Leadership
Open Email to Pentagon Generals:
Dear Pentagon Generals,
I like to think of the US military as being on the alert and capable of defending me from any onslaught by foreign forces. For that purpose, I am quite willing to support the military in weapon development to achieve a weapon capability superior to any other world power, and always presuming that those weapons will be used in my defense; not in some sort of aggressive action of conquering another country.
However as I continue to see religious discrimination and persecution of certain religious groups within the rank-and-file of the military, I tend to hold the military in less regard. The latest instance was the rebuke of an Army chaplain (Washington Times) by his colonel for having mentioned Christianity in a program to reduce suicide. To me, it is an Army chaplain's responsibility to handle religious problems of enlisted men and officers in the military. The recent Army chaplain rebuke is only one of many examples indicating that Pentagon generals have either given orders or implications that religion in the military should be stamped out, unless it's perhaps Islamic. I believe you Pentagon generals have already gone much too far in this respect. You are not only operating in an anti-constitutional manner, with respect to the First Amendment, but also contrary to the emotional needs of the general public. In short, you are continuing to lose support of the general public, because of your anti-religious actions.
I have the impression that while you may not be following orders, you are following innuendos. Pres. Obama, your commander-in-chief, is obviously an Islamic sympathizer. He has continued to feign a position of Christianity, but we know from his background that he was raised as a Muslim and has the propensity to reduce the prevalence of Christianity. This carries through to his Secretary of Defense, either through secret order or innuendo, and then on down to you through the same process. But, it is not really working. These episodes only increase antagonism of the general public toward the military leadership and to you in particular.
I strongly suggest you get back on the original program which was to handle religious problems of enlistees as emotional issues and not as a political football.
Dear Pentagon Generals,
I like to think of the US military as being on the alert and capable of defending me from any onslaught by foreign forces. For that purpose, I am quite willing to support the military in weapon development to achieve a weapon capability superior to any other world power, and always presuming that those weapons will be used in my defense; not in some sort of aggressive action of conquering another country.
However as I continue to see religious discrimination and persecution of certain religious groups within the rank-and-file of the military, I tend to hold the military in less regard. The latest instance was the rebuke of an Army chaplain (Washington Times) by his colonel for having mentioned Christianity in a program to reduce suicide. To me, it is an Army chaplain's responsibility to handle religious problems of enlisted men and officers in the military. The recent Army chaplain rebuke is only one of many examples indicating that Pentagon generals have either given orders or implications that religion in the military should be stamped out, unless it's perhaps Islamic. I believe you Pentagon generals have already gone much too far in this respect. You are not only operating in an anti-constitutional manner, with respect to the First Amendment, but also contrary to the emotional needs of the general public. In short, you are continuing to lose support of the general public, because of your anti-religious actions.
I have the impression that while you may not be following orders, you are following innuendos. Pres. Obama, your commander-in-chief, is obviously an Islamic sympathizer. He has continued to feign a position of Christianity, but we know from his background that he was raised as a Muslim and has the propensity to reduce the prevalence of Christianity. This carries through to his Secretary of Defense, either through secret order or innuendo, and then on down to you through the same process. But, it is not really working. These episodes only increase antagonism of the general public toward the military leadership and to you in particular.
I strongly suggest you get back on the original program which was to handle religious problems of enlistees as emotional issues and not as a political football.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
