Sunday, August 30, 2009

Edward Moore Kennedy

I've been quiet on the passing of a great politician, allowing the mainstream media to write their glowing commentaries on his passing.


As I see it two distinct individuals died with his passing.  The public view of Senator Ted Kennedy and the private family man of Edward Kennedy a member of what many call the 1st family in America.


There is too much to post on either one of these two men here.  I suggest that you visit his official website at: http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/index.cfm to read of his amazing contributions to the American people.


But I would be remiss to not mention a few of his more public gaffes: 

  1. The 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne, viewable here at wikipedia's site: The Chappaquiddick incident.  After reading the article, and several others, myself I must admit my dismay at his not reporting the accident immediately.  I will not comment on the rumors surrounding his silence.  What I will say is that it seems ironical that a man that was so pro-equality of the races and gender that he did not have to serve any part of his sentence as it was suspended by Judge James Boyle after a joint recommendation by both Kennedy's attorney and the State prosecutor.
  2.  Another major snafu was in his response to a question by Roger Mudd on CBS while he was running in the primary for the 1980 Presidential Election.  At that time he was unable to answer the question, "Why do you want to run for President?"  Unfortunately here there was a plethora of possible answers he could have given.  In my opinion he was a man of singular moral turpitude and would have made an amazing President.  

As to his political life I would like to highlight a few of his more well known iniatives in legislation:

  • Health Care Reform
  • Civil Rights
  • Immigration Reform &
  • Education
Just to name a few.  So Senator Kennedy, a grateful nation thanks you for your service.  And we look forward to the next generation of Kennedy's, we hope that they follow the legacy of your distinguished family.





Sunday, August 23, 2009

my thoughts on Sarah Palin

Okay, so I was asked on what I thought of Sarah Palin.  And here it is:

I don't agree with most of what she says or does.  In fact I think a lot of the time she could do with a bit more fact checking.  She should also make some of her views a bit more clear (Bridge to Nowhere).  But I am gladdened that she is willing to go out there and say it.  Anyone who is able to spark debate and garner interest on political topics is a good thing.

Express your views, if you think she's a quack (or me for that matter) then feel free to shout it from the roof tops (or better yet post it here or somewhere else for the public to see). Don't be afraid to insult others get Americans out of their couch potato state and into the discussion and debate.

The only serious problem is that many people take what she, and other spokespersons, say as 100% the truth.  People don't blindly follow anyone.  Question everything even your beliefs, following orders is a poor excuse for a bad outcome.  

food for thought: why should I vote?

A quick post here regarding why you should vote.

You are not governed by a selection of the populace.  Rather you're politicians are elected by a majority of those that VOTE.

Is your neighbor the type that puts election posters on their lawn for every election?  You know the type, the one that wears the pro deforestation button to make room for a big box store... Well if you don't vote then they get to choose your next leader, whether it be for your city, park district, state or federal election get out there!  Your opinion can only count if you go to your election polling station and make your voice heard.

Think about it, if you don't vote you are giving the activist neighbor the right to choose for you.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Town Hall Meetings

A surprising statement: The presence of a politician at Town Hall meetings is counter productive. What's even worse are the shipped in protesters, not saying that all of them are transients but a good number of them (on both sides) undoubtedly are.

What's distressing is the name calling and mud slinging that's taking place. Calling someone a Nazi for their views on health care is counterproductive. Attack policies, offer new ideas, but don't attack a person for supporting a view.

To curb this I suggest asking politicians not to come. Allow citizens and experts to really have a Q and A where we can be educated on the bill and its possible repercussions. A friend of mine, who will rename nameless unless he posts a comment here, will argue that this is hampering free speech. And I would disagree, although his comment that my idea of disallowing mass media advertisements by politicians is well on point.

By taking out the actual decision makers on this proposed legislation we allow true thoughts to be expressed calmly and clearly. They simply act as a flash point by which anger can be directed to.

To help this idea I am currently trying to organize a true Town Hall Meeting at my Alma Mater Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire Illinois. When the date and time is finalized I will publish it here and in the local papers. I would respectfully ask for Congressman Mark Kirk not to attend, although I recognize that it is his right to be there. Further I will try to limit participation to constituents of the 10th Congressional district. A full audio recording will be provided on this site so that all those interested can hear what took place.

Of course I will arrange for a panel of experts to be present to help field questions along with those in favor and against the current bill.

More to follow later.

Image taken from http://technologyinprevention.wikispaces.com/THM+meets+TWC (under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License).

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Robert Novak

The world has lost an amazing individual today. For those of you who don't know Robert Novak I am going to publish several posts to his biography below. While his life is gone, the contributions he made can not ever be forgotten nor can his follies including the outing of a CIA agent in the field.

Wikipedia's brief biography on Robert Novak

Answer.com's biograghy

Chicago Sun Times, one of his syndication, biographies of the man.

His contributions were great, and while I might not agree with all of his positions he wasn't afraid to make his views clear.

There's a lesson to be learned in this, stay true to your beliefs

Monday, August 17, 2009

What political party are you?

Republican or Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? I'm asked that often. My answer is more akin to a cliche, what does it matter? As if a political party that I assign to myself defines who I am on every facet of the political spectrum. The real question you should ask: where do you stand on X (fill in the blank with what matters to you).

What's one of the worst things to threaten democracy? Straight ballot voting. If you don't know the politicians on a ballot then don't vote. WHAT!?!?!? Am I suggesting that you give up your right to elect officials? No, I'm saying be an informed voter. It doesn't take much, simply pick up a paper and read, view the candidates websites or position pages.

I remember in the 2004 campaign that there were masses of people voting for John Kerry simply because he wasn't George Bush. Yet if you stopped to ask some of the most ardent supporters why they could simply tell you what they didn't like about the then current administration. Just as some Republican supporters couldn't site their own reasons for their positions.

Political action is great, getting involved is what America was built on (literally for the ideal of self-governance). Change is good when there's a legitimate reason behind it.

campaign contributions

Where have we gone wrong? When did running for political office require big corporate donations, or fundraisers aimed at $500 a plate dinners? I'm not saying that its wrong or immoral to seek out support. But come on... Read these figures that I got from GovTrack (click on the link for the whole congressional report entered by by Rep. Kaptur)
"Campaign finance authority Herbert Alexander estimated that $540 million was spent during the 1976 period on all elections in the United States. By 2000, that figure had risen to over $4 billion. To run for this job in the House in 1976 cost on average $87,000. Today, the average Member has to spend nearly $1 million, and some $2 million, 10 times what was spent just 30 years ago, and the population hasn't gone up by 10 times."
This is insane, how can the normal American ever hope to run for office unless they are backed by a political party with an established contribution program or aligning with private interest groups.

Why were political groups started? To band together like minded individuals in support of specific legislative goals. But today it seems that if you want to get elected you have no choice but to join one of the two establishments. Is the answer to follow the old Republican ideal of the creme rising to the top, so that only the rich and successful can lead the nation? Bluntly, no.

The remedy in my mind is to offer a means for the average John or Jane to enter the race. Am I in favor of public funding? Again no. Maybe by prohibiting mass advertising. What a shocking idea, why allow paid commercials by candidates or tv commercials? Now I'm not attacking the Sierra club or other philanthropic organizations from running ads supporting one candidate or another. Rather to bar the direct advertising by political parties or candidates themselves.

Got a better idea? let me know, write a response on how we can help more individuals enter the political arena.

right and wrong way to get attention

Read this article first: Men tote assault rifles at Obama event

Okay protests are great, don't get me wrong, and since the media often pays as much attention to the protesters as the actual program its a successful way to get your message across. BUT bringing assault rifles, even in open carry states like Arizona, is a dangerous way at getting attention.

You don't need to go to these extreme measures to show your point of view. If anything it makes you, and your message, seem less legitimate. Instead try organizing, pass out leaflets, use word of mouth, but not publicity stunts.

bumper sticker

I read a great bumper sticker yesterday while driving home from the Chicago Air and Water show. To paraphrase it:

"Liberty is having the ability to express unpopular views while being safe doing so."

The exact words or language used not be right but the point is clear. What we have in America is the amazing ability to say what we want about any topic imaginable without fear of a government official taking us away in the middle of the night. In many parts of the world this just isn't the case. Look at Burma, China, and even Russia for examples of this.

Even Iran, which with its many faults has generally had a freedom to express opinions, has cracked down on protesters over the recent elections. So don't take this freedom for granted use it and express yourself. March in a demonstration you feel passionate about, write your Congressman, start a petition, and get others motivated about something.

Empathy is not only dangerous in the fact that you blindly follow what others lay out, but it is also the basis for reducing your rights and stripping from the public the ability to voice dissent.

Friday, August 14, 2009

political opinions

This post starts out awkwardly, my apologies for that. It's a result of an exchange I overheard at work where one colleague shot down another for asking a question regarding the new health reform. As it turns out I thought their question, regarding the coverage of illegal aliens under the bill, was right on point.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "[a]ll tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." The point he was making is simple: voice your opinion. Unfortunately this point needs to be resounded. Never allow someone to say that you are unqualified to make comments on your government. The right to free speech and the expression of ideas are the cornerstones that our country was founded on.

Rather ask what gives them the right to censure you; to question your free expression in what you think is right or wrong in our society.

One's ideas might be unpopular or even uneducated, but by sharing your thoughts you afford others the opportunity to render theirs, thereby fostering healthy discussions and debates.

This reminds me of another famous saying "the only bad question is the one that wasn't asked," don't feel ashamed to say what you think and then ask questions. How can anyone expect you to grow as a person without questions.

This seems obvious but if you look at the comments being registered on CNN articles or the like you would be amazed at how many of them are attacking others for their sheer audacity at voicing another opinion.

ground rules for my posts

If you're reading these posts then might wonder how I post so many in such a short time span. The answer is that I write what I feel. I do not go back, reread, and edit them to fit a popular opinion; nor will I. From time to time I will clarify them, but when I do I will put the edits in red so that you know that this is either a change or simply further development.

Rewriting history, or in this case posts, to make you seem right doesn't add value to society. If I am wrong on something I will admit it.

That is where the readers come in. Leaving comments allow me to review and reflect like an ongoing discussion. No person has all the answers (a common theme in my posts) nor can they be right all the time. Society at large helps to form what we think, feel and learn.

Politicians minimum and maximum age requirements

As most people know in the US we have minimum age requirements for elected officials. Clearly this is a beneficial idea to only allow those with sufficient experience and education (not necessarily through formal institutions) to help shape and guide our democracy.

But too often age is used as a weapon against those who seek to aid the public in an elected post. During last years elections I was appalled to hear quips from both sides regarding the political contenders.

Frankly speaking any individual with competent mental facilities is a valid candidate. McCain was not too old to run for President just as Obama was not too young. Rather these two prominent citizens should have been praised for their decisions to run for the highest post in our land. What possible attack can be made on the decision making skills of a younger citizen or older. I've spoken with people my grandparents age (90's +) and that of my youngest cousin (11) who have valid concerns for our country. Yet these are extremes of the principle of the arguments. Too young, too old what does it matter? If an educated decision can be made by the person then they are in the right stage of their lives to run for office.

National debt

I am a 26 year old Highland Park Illinois resident who is concerned about this country's future.

We are allowing ourselves to let partisan differences tear away what truly unites us all together, a hope that our children will have it better then we do now. In that we need to look at our financial obligations both on a personal level and as a nation. Deficit spending is not sustainable, if you doubt this try continuously running up your credit card bills.

Eventually a time comes when the tab must be settled. By continuing in our current fashion we simply delay this time to future generations. The idea that trillions of dollars can be spent that we simply don't have is not possible.

Keynesian economics, the idea behind economic stimulus packages, has a place and a time. Unfortunately that time is now, but it is not an ongoing practice. I am not against actions designed to spur the economy into growth. What I am against are programs that continuously drain money from the public's coffers in exchange for minimal or negative results.

At the bottom of every economic plan must be consideration for how can this be paid for. The mindset behind a stimulus is that the eventual growth will cause an increase in the size of the economy and therein tax collections that will offset the cost associated with it. If this is impossible then the plan by definition fails.

I liken the idea to Adjustable Rate Mortgages, there is nothing dirty or wrong with ARM's. Simply that people must consider what the long term costs are of over extending themselves. If you know that in 5 years your income will be able to sustain the house you are stretching to buy now then it makes sense. If your thought is that simply by buying more now you will reap greater benefits when a house increases in value later then it is a bad decision. Too many outside variables affect this outcome, there is nothing you can do to change the eventuality and you might as well gamble your money.

I've been questioned by friends how this is different then investing in a stock market portfolio. There your capital is combined with countless others to provide companies with the means necessary for future products or offerings. By buying stock in a new company you allow its officers to expand a production line or commit to research and development with tangible results. If you choose wisely and do your homework on the management team and their vision then you are investing for the right reasons.

The same approaches should be put in Federal Deficit Spending. By now you should be asking yourselves "what is the solution? How can we turn the tide in the growing debt?" The answer is a difficult one but the beginning must be made by reviewing programs that under perform and perhaps changing the way they are administered. More to come on these ideas in a later post.

Health Care Reform

There has been a lot of information and misinformation being reported about President Obama's health care reforms. Call me a bit old fashioned but I think this is getting out of hand. Here's a couple points I would like to make:
  1. Reform of any kind, especially one as important and impacts as many as insurance, is not something that should be rushed through.
  2. Interest groups on both sides should come out with their views publicly instead of hiding behind 'concerned citizens' at town hall meetings.
  3. America needs to change the way it funds and spends medical treatments.
  4. Medical bills have gotten out of control. Period. Families shouldn't have to choose between putting food on the table and life saving, or even life enhancing, medications.
Now do I or anyone else have all the answers? NO, but action is necessary and now not later.

Comprehensive Universal Medical Care is practical, if not in its current rendition then in some yet unseen form.

I welcome comments but be constructive. It sounds like a cliche but it is easier to tear down the to build.