Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Friday, November 07, 2008

Stardate 62850.60 - Busy, Busy, Busy


Things have been crazy these past couple of weeks. I was very busy with preparations for the General Election and then I worked a 20-hour day on Tuesday. I'm finally getting a chance to catch my breath and realized that we haven't posted anything in over a week, including the photos from our trip to Arkansas (the photo above is one from that trip).

I'm quite happy that Palin...I mean McCain...lost the election. It made the long, long day bearable. I won't get into a long political rant or anything, but I think this country has been on the wrong path for a while and it really is time for a change. And McCain can claim to be a maverick all he wants, but by picking Palin as his running mate the Republicans have proven once again that they pander, pander, pander to the religious right. If only they would focus on fiscal conservatism and leave the social issues alone they'd be a party I might like. Back in April I wrote about political parties and my beliefs, so I won't repeat them here. Regardless, I was pleased with the outcome.

Now I have to get Loren ready for school and me ready for work. TGIF. We'll try to get the Arkansas pictures up on Sunday.

NYC

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Stardate 62310.51 - Political Parties


With the election nearing, I've been thinking about politics lately--especially political parties. Since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats completely match what I believe, I started doing some third party research and ran across this site. Who knew we had so many political parties? Looking through the list I found several that at first glance, seemed to match my views better than either of the two main parties:
  • AMERICAN REFORM PARTY
  • GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES (GREEN PARTY)
  • INDEPENDENCE PARTY
  • LIBERTARIAN PARTY
  • MODERATE PARTY
I voted for Ross Perot (once) of the Reform Party, but Buchanan seized control of the organization in 2000 and it became too conservative for me. If there was ever an opportunity to establish a true, viable third party it was early in the history of the Reform Party but Ross squandered his political capitol by turning out to be a nut job.

I am a fan of environmentalism, and so the Green Party also appeals to me, although I'm pretty sure Ralph Nader lost the election for Gore and so we've ended up with this horrific 8-year period where the current administration continues to shred the constitution, run up huge deficits, and engage in an un-winnable war. And I'm about more than just environmentalism.

The Independence Party's mantra of "Socially Inclusive and Fiscally Responsible" is appealing, as they are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun rights, and fiscally moderate. That pretty much sums up my beliefs. But they have been pretty limited to just Minnesota, and are not really national in scale.

The Libertarian Party also seems matches several of my beliefs. The Libertarians are neither left nor right, believing in total individual liberty (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun control) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-income tax, and pro-free trade). They espouse a classical laissez faire ideology which, they argue, means "more freedom, less government and lower taxes." But they seem to always support the Republican candidates, and in doing so are picking (supposed) economic freedom over individual liberty.

I've been a fan of the Moderate Party for some time, but they only have a single candidate in Illinois and they don't really seem to be making any traction on a national level. But I like their platform, and I feel it comes the closest to matching my personal beliefs:

  • Government Spending and Taxes - Supports lowering federal spending and paying down the national debt without compromise to individuals, families, and seniors of American citizenship currently in need of Federal assistance. Supports a simplified tax code, including the Fair Tax or Flat Tax. Supports closing tax loopholes for corporations.
  • International Relations -Believes that the United States must return to its primary role as international peacekeeper. Believes that although the United States may disagree with other nations' politically and/or socially inhumane ideologies, where those nations have not directly threatened American security, we do not have the right to preemptory invasion. Believes that the United States must seek economic and diplomatic recourse in bringing corrupt and inhumane governments to justice before the world court, resorting to military recourse only in coalition with other nations in an action sanctioned by an international governing body.
  • Defense -Supports a strong national defense. The safety and security of the United States is of utmost importance, including securing our borders. Supports sensibility with regards to defense spending, including, but not limited to, the following:
    • Maintaining a balanced defense budget.
    • Auditing federal contracts as necessary to ensure proper billing.
    • Avoiding conflicts of interests in awarding government contracts.
  • Environment - Supports protection of our environment to ensure clean land, fresh air, and pure water for ourselves and for future generations. Opposes sprawl development by encouraging smart planning, livable neighborhoods, and historic preservation. Supports alternative sources of energy that can individually or collectively meet demand and are also environmentally responsible. Supports public transportation to lessen dependence on the automobile and improve the quality of our land, air, and water.
  • Religious Freedom - Supports the separation of church and state as the guiding principle that truly guarantees and enables religious liberty for all Americans.
  • Firearm Responsibility - Supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Recognizes that any firearm ownership requires responsibility for the same. Supports the enforcement of those laws currently in existence that penalize citizens who use firearms in the commission of a crime. Believes:
    • That education in the proper and safe use of firearms is fundamental for all new and underage firearm owners. We therefore support legislation that encourages citizen education in firearm safety and use.
    • That both firearms dealers and gun owners have a responsibility to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals. We therefore support legislation requiring background checks on all firearm purchases.
    • That firearms dealers and private individuals who distribute arms to those citizens deemed unfit for ownership because of prior felony conviction, declared mental incompetence, or deficiency in education on proper firearm safety and use, are in effect acting irresponsibly. We therefore support legislation penalizing those firearms dealers and private citizens who act in such an irresponsible manner.
    • That parents, as the primary role models and shaping forces in the lives of their minor children, are accountable for the actions of their minor children. We therefore support legislation that holds responsible any parent or guardian who allows their minor children illegal access to their firearms.
  • Women's Reproductive Rights -Supports a woman’s right to choose, but is hopeful that the decision to go forward with the termination of pregnancy would be made only under the most extreme circumstances such as rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is otherwise in danger. Does not support the termination of pregnancy in the third trimester except under circumstances in which the life of the mother is otherwise in danger. Supports the minimization of pregnancy terminations through education (to include birth control and abstinence) and through greater access to birth control.
  • Recognition of Unmarried Partners - Supports the creation of civil unions to provide economic and familial benefits to mutually consenting adult couples. Opposes any Constitutional Amendment which sacrifices legal recognition of the committed relationships of consenting adult couples on political, economic, or religious grounds. Although we understand that the federal government must at times, in the interest of the American people, pass legislation limiting our personal liberties, we feel this legislation should only be passed through laws and the government should never use the constitution of the United States to restrict personal liberties.
Too bad we're stuck with only 2 parties capable of actually winning a national, Presidental election, neither of whom represent me. How about you? If there really were more than 2 people who could win, would you stick with Republicans and Democrats or shop around?

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
—John Adams

NYC

Monday, March 10, 2008

Stardate 62191.05 - Spitzer Must Resign

In case you missed it, our Governor was just caught up in a prostitution sting. Eliot Spitzer, a former state attorney general who was elected on a platform of cleaning up Albany, has been charged with a Federal Crime (violating the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910 to address prostitution) for arranging for the transportation of a prostitute across state lines.

It is bad enough that he now looks like a complete and total hypocrite, but he has probably just cost the Democrats control over the NY State Senate, which they were poised to win this fall. Even worse, "as attorney general Mr. Spitzer also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force" (NY Times). If he were a Republican I would be demanding that he resign, and it would be hypocritical of me to not do so now. (For the record, I am an Independent/Moderate, but I think most people know I tend to tilt Democratic.)

Mr. Spitzer, you have disgraced yourself, your party, your family, and your state. Resign immediately so we can get on with business.

NYC

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Stardate 62102.88 - Where's the Boat?

Cheryl voted in the New York primary on Tuesday, since she is a member of an official political party. As a registered independent, I cannot vote in the New York primary as you must be a member of the political party in whose primary you wish to vote. I was out of town on Tuesday and was unable to watch Loren at home, for example, while Cheryl went to vote so she had to handle Loren in the morning, get her ready for school, and get out the door with her early enough to vote. In order to get Loren out of the apartment early enough, Cheryl bribed Loren by promising that she could get a muffin after "Mommy went to vote".

Cheryl voted first, but after they stopped for muffins Loren said "Next we're going to the boat."

Guess she didn't quite understand what "vote" means and was wondering why they hadn't gone to the boat yet!

NYC

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Stardate 61034.85 - Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees - New York Times

Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees - New York Times

I try to keep my politics out of these posts for the most part, but I read this article this morning and it really made me angry. Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

WTF?

The administration failed to deny access to lawyers for the prisoners, so they attempt an end-run-around by essentially blackballing the law firms whose attorneys are representing some prisoners. He has told corporate America to sever ties with any firm representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. McCarthyism is apparently alive and well and actively practiced by the current administration.

Never mind the fact that our entire legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Stimson also implied in the interview that they are being paid to represent these individuals by terrorist organizations stating that they "are receiving moneys from who knows where." Never mind that the great majority of attorneys and firms are not being paid for their efforts, and those who are paid are they are donating the money to 9-11 charities.

Are there bad people in Guantanamo? Undoubtedly. But there are also people for whom the burden of proof has been lacking and they have been let free, some after long incarcerations.

I don't know if the administration put him up to this or if he said this on this own. Someone who recently said that he was learning “to choose my words carefully because I am a public figure on a very, very controversial topic” had clearly not done so here. Was he told to do so by the White House, or did he do this on his own?

Even though the US Attorney General (not exactly a bastion of civil rights) has said he disagrees with Mr. Stimson's position, the damage has been done. The insinuations have been made; the list of firms has been published. So I therefore think that Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who wrote to President Bush on Friday asking him to disavow Mr. Stimson’s remarks did not go far enough.

Let me therefore be the first to call for Mr. Stimson's resignation. Trying to deny representation to prisoners is un-American, unethical, and illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the detainees "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control." Therefore, the detainees have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Mr Stimson has sought to overturn the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure he has overstepped his authority, and if his comments were truly not sanctioned by the White House then he should resign on his own, or the President should ask for his resignation.

Have you no decency, sir?

NYC