Political Blueprint

Sold SNDY

2012-02-13T07:53:00.001-08:00

Sold my SNDY for a 50% gain.

Question of the Week - June 7, 2010

2010-06-07T15:24:00.000-07:00

Is it a fair assessment for pundits to still be issuing warnings that President Obama could become a lame duck or comparing him to the Carter administration?

So building a mosque near Ground Zero is politically correct?

2010-06-06T10:09:00.000-07:00

Political correctness has infected America. It's been this way for some time now, but every once in a while something happens that makes it obvious. A mosque and Islamic cultural center is planned to be built near Ground Zero, and in all our American political correctness, a New York City community board voted 29-1 in favor of allowing the construction. If the location is not insensitive enough, the scheduled start of construction is September 11th, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks. So it's politically correct to be insensitive now? The board does not want to upset the Muslim community, but is apparently just fine with upsetting the families who lost loved ones in the name of Islam. Yes, the terrorists may not necessarily represent the billions of people in the Muslim community, but you have to ask if the Muslims who are opening a mosque near Ground Zero on September 11th do? My guess would be that most Muslims would understand that opening a mosque there is insensitive. Opening a mosque near Ground Zero is not just practicing the right to religious freedom in this country, it is a political statement. And if it's not, what is the explanation? There just happens to be a need for a mosque and Islamic cultural center right where the terrorist attack occurred? Doubtful. Christians, Jews, and atheists realize how insensitive it is, so don't tell me the Muslims don't. It's not surprising a political statement would be made though, since Islam is intertwined with national political systems across the world.

So has our political correctness and desire to be tolerant muzzled us to the point where disagreeing with a mosque being built near a sacred ground is labeled bigotry? It appears so. Our country has taught us to assume that people have the best intentions, and when it happens that a group of people do bad things, they are nothing more than an anomaly. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. What is the motivation to build a hundred million dollar mosque so close to Ground Zero, knowing there would be such an uproar? I don't know, only the people planning it know. Though with all of this said, do the Muslims have the right to build a mosque there? Yes, of course they do. This is America after all. But in the age of political correctness, how is it more politically correct to build the mosque than not to build it?

Question of the Week - May 30, 2010

2010-06-02T05:32:00.000-07:00

Is it unpatriotic to boo/heckle the president?

Why is the Military Allowed to Be Anti-Gay?

2010-05-28T07:03:00.000-07:00

It looks like the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for military service may be repealed soon. On Thursday, congress voted for an amendment that would end the DADT policy. DADT does not allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. I know there are many Americans who are anti-gay or homophobic, so obviously it would not be expected to hear much outrage from a large percentage of Americans, and actually you would expect support of DADT. But wouldn't you expect the government to to recognize blatant discriminatory actions, especially given our past?

Although, it can be said that the government is just being representative of the people, because it seems that democrats are against DADT, and the republicans are for it. Most of the opposition to gays serving in the military, obviously comes from conservatives, but it really comes from a place of homophobia and a non-understanding of homosexuality. It is anyone's right to feel that homosexuality is immoral, and the US is largely Christian, so it's understandable that many people would feel that way since this concept is taught in churches. But the Christian laws do not govern this country, or at least they should not, because what is considered immoral by Christianity is not considered immoral by everyone. Immorality should be judged by whether an action intentionally hurts someone, and being gay obviously does not fall in this category. But that is really besides the point, because how being gay affects whether these people can serve in the military is what should be examined.

How does being gay affects anyone's ability to strategize, fire a weapon, or show compassion for others? It doesn't, and I think the military realizes this, because otherwise they would be actively conducting investigations to determine whether people enlisted in the military are gay. But they do not, so why even have the law at all? I guess congress has realized this, but the policy still has to go through more barriers before being repealed. According to Reuters.com, "...repeal also would require certification from Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that the new law would not have a negative impact on readiness, unit cohesion, recruitment and troop retention." Any one of these things could allow the discrimination to continue, which is absurb, since none of these factors would allow for discrimination in any other work environment. Knowing that, it should hopefully be an easy repeal. If people want to fight and defend their country, they should be allowed to without worrying about discrimination.

The Cost of War

2010-05-27T12:13:00.000-07:00

What is the price of defense? Sure, we know the world has spent combined total of about 1.2 trillion last year on defense and the US was responsible for 623 billion of that amount (not including funding for the wars she currently finds herself in). When you see a list like this, it tends to be very self serving to one degree or another, like saying you could hire 200 baseball players at X dollars. What I wanted to do here is to first give some perspective in terms of what the US brings in vs. what it spends on more humanitarian programs. Secondly I wanted to show the cost of some actual initiatives, and thirdly I wanted to compare costs with some world wide problems. Below is a list of of various amounts to compare the defense spending to.

1.2 trillion was last years deficit
1.06 trillion the amount paid in taxes by US taxpayers
222 billion the amount paid in taxes by US corporations
695 billion the amount spent on Social Security
453 billion is the amount spent on Medicare
290 billion is the amount spent on Medicaid
47 billion is the amount spent on Education
100 billion is the amount spent on building the International Space Station
44 billion is needed to modernize the US air traffic control system
2.2 trillion is needed to upgrade the US infrastructure to 'fair' conditions
1 trillion is needed to upgrade the US power system to smart grid technology
100 billion is needed to be able to return to the moon in a new spaceship
600 billion is needed for a manned mission to mars
71 billion would allow for for the relieving of debt for the Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC)
100 billion a year would allow for the funding of the Millennium development goals
100 billion a year would allow for the education of the worlds poor
195 billion a year would allow for ending world hunger
27 billion a year would help eradicate AIDS from the world by 2050

I am not here to say all spending needs to stop and that world peace is right around the corner. Those are unrealistic expectations. What this shows is that a lot of the problems that seem monumental in task and scope are a reality if the world could redirect some spending habits. If the US were able to cut spending in half we would be able to fund much needed upgrades, and it would be even faster if you calculate in the costs of the wars. Lets just make it easy and say the two wars average out to about 100billion, that 400billion total could be used to upgrade the infrastructure, the power grid , the traffic control system, and double the education budget as well as possible help NASA get back to the moon. In the next decade if the world worked together we could end world hunger, poverty and cut down drastically the many forms of diseases that run rampant through the 3rd world.

These initiative could spur trillions of dollars worth of economic growth. The projects as well would give hope to billions of people and very well could help remove some of recruiting pools and tools for extremist groups. They also have the added benefits of helping regions fraught with famine and war stabilize. These expenditures are only recent yearly spending and the potential that this money could have if applied to more humanitarian means. Sadly the tens of trillions of dollars spent in the last 60 years on various weapons and wars, while some have helped with everyday life, mostly have been wasted.To give an idea of that cost, the US has spent over 20trillion dollars on defense spending since 1940 while almost all other government spending during this time totals closer to 25trillion (I have been unable to find similar numbers for the entire world as of yet). Maybe if we had spent even half of that money on trying to help those in need and taking care of what we had we would not be in such dire times.

Does it make sense to take away freedom, in the name of freedom?

2010-05-26T10:51:00.000-07:00

Did the terrorists win when we implemented the Patriot Act? Americans' freedoms were greatly affected, all in the name of security. In the name of fear. We are surrendering the things that make this country the best country in the world. And besides the death of America, isn't that what the terrorists want? If they affect our daily lives where our freedoms are the not same, and our privacy is not the same, then maybe they are winning the battle. The Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Police will soon have the right to ask for proof of citizenship, and if you do not have it you can be considered an illegal immigrant. The security at some airports are allowed to do revealing full body scans, which we found out recently are much more revealing that we were led to believe after a TSA employee attacked his colleagues after they made fun of how endowed he is. The government wanted the right to take away citizenship rights for suspected terrorists. It has become a common occurrence lately that freedoms are taken away in order to make us safer. Religious extremists are here to stay, so does that mean some of our freedoms are gone for good? A war on terror may keep the terrorists down, and somewhat control their power, but it won't eliminate them. So should we live in a police state for the rest of our days, where the government apparently has the right to take away any freedoms and privacies that they justify as necessary to protect us? The government will take what we give them, and more unfortunately, because it makes their job easier.

I don't want to understate the threat that terrorists pose to the US, but everyone should not be punished for the actions of few. I understand why the actions were taken, but I don't agree with them. The problem is, it seems every time we give up freedoms in the name of safety, we do not get them back. And with some of these laws aimed at terrorism, if a loose definition of terrorism is applied, then those powers can be used on citizens unjustly. Authority to presume guilt without a trial. Guilty until proven innocent. Some of these laws will never affect the average citizen, but it's still important not to become complacent about freedom. Today it's someone else's freedoms being taken away, but tomorrow it could be your's. Stand up for freedom, because it's what makes life worth living.

Question of the Week - May 23, 2010

2010-05-24T20:38:00.001-07:00

Is one political party better than the other?

United We Stand, Divided We Are No Longer the Greatest Country in the World

2010-05-22T22:24:00.001-07:00

It has been said that Barack Obama is the most polarizing president in American history. But think back to just the president before him, and he was also called polarizing. It's an alarming trend, and it's showing up more than just with the supreme leaders of politics. Many of today's most popular political players encourage extreme views, and if you don't see it their way then you are labeled un-American. It's divisive politics, and its making people want to choose sides. The left says the right is nothing more than a bunch of racists who are stuck in the past. The right says anything the left does is leading the country towards socialism and eventually communism. Both extremes make it seem as if the other side will be the destruction of America.

Is any of this actually close to the truth? Not really, especially if both parties continue to work together and make compromises. But if the only approach both parties take is to create laws that appeal to one extreme and then the other side smears the other side for doing it, then the country will become more and more divided. Take Arizona for example; a law appealing to an extreme view was passed, then other states respond by boycotting Arizona, then Arizona responds by saying boycott energy too. It’s very divisive and very disturbing.

It can be hard to believe that divisive politics works as well as it does, considering the wide range of political beliefs that Americans have. It would also seem that with all of the things one party stands for, that no one could identify with just one party. But with political critics continually painting viewpoints that don't align with theirs as evil, and people not wanting to identify themselves as evil, it is understandable that divisive politics works. And because of this, a line has been drawn in the sand, and that's a bad thing. The way to fight against this political extremism is for people to stay informed and to read news from multiple sources. People should know if they are getting news from only one source, then the information is likely biased. An easy way to get news from multiple sources is to use Google News. People don't have to agree with everything they read, but being exposed to multiple viewpoints is important, because then they can at least try to understand where the other side is coming from. Understanding is far from agreeing, but it’s better than dividing.

Brainwashing America's Youth

2010-05-22T00:09:00.000-07:00

One of the big lies of education system is that it is liberally biased; this may be true to some degree when you look at colleges depending where you look, but not so much when you look at grade schools. In fact, multiple studies have shown that schools not at the university level tend to lean right, and this is especially true in the south. This trend is ever more obvious with the current passing of the new curriculum guide by the Texas board of education.

This current move is one of the most blatant attacks on US history by self identified Christian fundamentalists. Admittedly, some of the proposed changes are relatively minor, like describing the United States as a constitutional republic vs a democracy. These minor changes are a matter of semantics and some even bring a healthy discourse to the classroom. Any benefit that this change may bring to children's education is offset by the more radical changes. This is cause for serious concern, as it leads to a curriculum based on personal politics as opposed to historical facts. Listed below are some of the more heinous attacks.

Thomas Jefferson will no longer be on a list of enlightened thinkers in the world history curriculum due to his views on the separation of church and state.
Giving the traitor Jefferson Davis, short lived president of the Confederacy, equal credence to that of Abraham Lincoln
Requiring that conservative movements like the Moral Majority, NRA, and the Contract with America be shown in a positive light with no liberal counter balance.
Giving more space to conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

There were also attempts by the board to rename the slave trade the “Atlantic triangular trade” as well as to “honor” President Obama by requiring his full middle name be used, even though this honor would not be bestowed on any other president in the history books. The latter was no doubt and attempt to brainwash the youth of Texas into believing the ever persistent lie that President Obama is a Muslim. The board claimed that these changes were needed to help balance the liberal bias in history books.

It is clear though, that the board is only interested in indoctrinating the children of Texas into believing in a far right agenda, if this were not true they would not be afraid of allowing a liberal counter balance. They remove the writer of the declaration of independence and 3^rd president of the United State from importance based solely on the fact that he advocated the separation of church and state. My guess is the section on Newt Gingrich will not include how he was the first speaker in the history of the house to be reprimanded for ethical violations and ordered to pay a $300k penalty. I am sure they will also keep quiet on the fact he had an affair while his wife was undergoing cancer treatment, a testament to his family values no doubt. I could go through and debunk and bring to light each of the points they hope to change, but that would be silly as most people already see this for what it is. Sadly, I fear this is just the first of many moves by both sides that will involve our children. I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

The Current State of Political Discourse

2010-05-20T22:56:00.000-07:00

Hi all, this is the obligatory first post in which you get to know a little bit about me. To start, I am married and a father of three, and I have BA in Political Science and Economics. As well, I have taken various graduate level courses in economics and international relations. I want to use this first post to talk about the state of political discourse in the country as I see it. Currently, the country seems to be heading down a path of extremism seemingly caused by Newton’s 3^rd law of motion. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You just have to turn on the TV to see the words Nazi, communist, and anti-American being applied to some political opponent. Check out the message boards on the news sites, they are filled with vitriol and hate. While there is a need for discourse in a democracy, and these outbursts are protected by the 1^st amendment of the constitution, there must be civility. Individuals should be able to support a cause like health care without being labeled an anti-American, communist or believe in the 2^nd amendment without being labeled a Nazi. By using such harsh and strong language, people are intimidated into not participating in our democracy. In essence by using such language we are only hurting our country and at the same time condoning politicians who want to be the next Joe Wilson or Alan Grayson. This is something that must stop.

I have been told that it is the extreme left and right that allow for change, and that moderates like myself accomplish very little. The fact is, moderates make up the majority of citizens; I know plenty of people who consider themselves socially liberal and economically conservative or vice versa. Moderates tend to be delegated to a diplomatic role in the chambers of our representatives trying to bring together the opposing sides, while extremists write the bills, would it not be better for the bills to be written by the moderates to start with, one would think this could save a lot of time. The sad fact is that Americans need drama in their lives; no one wants to hear a sane and rational point of view that gives credence to the other side. They want to see why the opposing side is wrong; they need reassurance that they are right.

Don’t believe me, look at the cable news landscape. CNN is losing badly while the MSNBC and FOX are growing in viewership. This divide has lead us to treat politics as a war, one which we must support our side 100% and 100% oppose the other side. Anything less is traitorous. We disallow room for moderation based on the belief that one party or the other has all the answers for every question and that the other party is in a conspiratorial plot to destroy America.

This extremism invariably leads to a cyclical justification of extremism. Reference back to Newton’s 3^rd law again, each side claiming their inappropriate behavior is justified by the other side’s same behavior. Remember that in the land of an eye for an eye, everyone is blind. It is time to step back and have a real conversation without all the hate vitriol and talking points. It is time for the people to discover what they believe, and not what some charismatic politician tells us to believe. I hope that this blog becomes a place for all to have real conversations of meaning and if that is not the case, it will at least be interesting.

Are Republicans Burning Their Bridges By Supporting the Illegal Immigration Law in Arizona?

2010-05-19T21:17:00.000-07:00

It seems with all of the uproar lately about the illegal immigration law in Arizona, that republicans would be taking a different approach than they are presently. Many republicans are supporting the law, because the law in spirit, is only in place to target illegal immigrants. So essentially the law is only a reinforcement of prior laws, right? If that was the case, then the new law would not even be necessary. One of the biggest changes in my opinion is that people who do not have proof of citizenship can be considered suspect of being in the country illegally. The law does not require that people possess identification for proof of citizenship, but it is considered reasonable suspicion if they do not have any. While this is a far cry from Nazism like some who are in opposition of the law have claimed, it still takes freedoms away from US citizens. Of course, the citizens whose rights will be most affected are those who appear to be of Mexican descent. Arizona's solution to this problem was to prohibit the use of racial profiling as reasonable suspicion. All this accomplishes in my opinion, is affect everyone's rights.

It surprises me how many people support the current law(a majority of Americans), including republican incumbents. Though I believe the support the law for the law comes from most people just wanting prior laws to be enforced, the concerns of people opposing the law should be respected. If the concerns of people objecting to the law are not legitimate, then it should be stated why, especially when there are different interpretations of the law. The republicans who support the law should address the concerns of people, or risk alienating people who currently support them for other reasons. And it surprises me that many republicans would risk this, especially when it seems that the benefit of the law is minimal, since there are already laws in place that address many of the objectives. These concerns are not absent to all republicans, as Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Karl Rove are among some of the republicans who have spoken out against the law. Mainly their concerns echo my own. The law just goes too far. People don't want to live in a country where you have to carry proof of citizenship in order to not be suspected of being here illegally. People do not want to feel like prisoners in their own neighborhoods. And the consequence of supporting the law could be that they lose loyal supporters who do not want their freedoms affected. Why would they take that chance, when the benefits just don't seem worth it? The republicans are risking the elections in November, which they currently have a perceived advantage in. Not only that, but if the law turns out as bad as many expect it to be, they could lose the support of a lot of people for the foreseeable future. When a certain demographic of people are affected by a law, and they see a specific party supporting that law, then its obvious what their reaction to that type of support would be. And people who support freedom will also be turned away. I don't know what else to say except it's just not worth it.