This election campaign has felt almost like a liberation. The prison walls – the stultifying, spirit-crushing assumptions of the long era of two-party politics – have crumbled. The surge in support for the Liberal Democrats has unlocked something precious: a feeling among the public that, for the first time in a generation, a radical overhaul of our political settlement could be possible.
That feeling – combined with the enduring uncertainty over the result of the election – is a tonic for our democracy. The public sense that their vote matters. When one considers that this campaign began against a backdrop of rampant cynicism and apathy, stirred up by MPs' abuse of their expenses, this transformation looks all the more remarkable. And welcome.
But while this is a moment of hope and freedom, it is also a moment of danger for the popular movement for change that has been set free in recent weeks. Nick Clegg's party has made an astonishing breakthrough. But though the mould of British politics is fractured, it is not yet broken. And the vested interest of the "old politics" could still preserve it. Despite the drama of recent weeks, there remains a considerable risk that Britain could wake up on Friday morning to discover we are in for four or five more years of "business as usual" politics under a Conservative government.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Keynesian Spending Has Zilch Effect on Recovery
Stubbornness is a bad trait in politics and policy, one that will be punished at the polls this November.
The Obama administration continues to argue that its massive federal-spending campaign is essential to economic recovery. Yet the latest GDP report from the U.S. Department of Commerce shows that the 3.2 percent first-quarter economic growth rate got no help from government spending.
In fact, combined federal, state, and local spending actually fell 1.8 percent. What’s more, over the last three quarters of a mild V-shaped recovery, with an average quarterly rebound of 3.7 percent, government spending actually exerted a small net drag (-0.03%) on growth.
I guess it’s time to ask our Keynesian friends in and out of government what exactly happened to those vaunted multiplier effects they so loudly proclaimed. So far, there is zilch effect.
Turns out that all those entitlement transfers of income borrowed and taxed from Peter to pay Paul have made no direct contribution to the nation’s production of goods and services. This, however, comes after $318 billion of spending through April 23, according to the website recovery.org.
Pretty expensive fiscal habit, wouldn’t you say? But for what?
And who can blame taxpayers for saying, “Show me the money that was supposed to generate growth.” In the winter quarter, consumer spending increased 3.6 percent and business equipment investment rose 13.4 percent, all while inventories were rebuilt by $31 billion. But the G in the GDP equation C+I+G+(X-M) actually dropped. (That is, consumption + investment + government spending + the net exports/imports trade.) That’s right, dropped.
That failed G for federal, state, and local spending may cost untold trillions of dollars of future tax and debt burdens. Rather than stimulate growth, this will depress it in the years to come — unless we do something about it.
How about stopping the madness right now? How about “de-stimulating” the remaining $500 billion of unspent Keynesianism?
And how about some truth-telling about the big pick-up in business profits that is really behind the recovery — profits that have fueled a stock market boom which has created trillions of dollars of new wealth through capital gains that are being spent and invested in the private sector?
The only temporarily effective government-stimulus effect is coming from the Fed’s free-money, zero-interest-rate policy. And here, too, is stubbornness. For the economic emergency has long passed; the recession ended in last year’s second quarter. Yet the Fed — now controlled by Obama doves — stubbornly persists in maintaining an emergency pump-priming policy that surely will drive up inflation in the years ahead.
The Obama administration continues to argue that its massive federal-spending campaign is essential to economic recovery. Yet the latest GDP report from the U.S. Department of Commerce shows that the 3.2 percent first-quarter economic growth rate got no help from government spending.
In fact, combined federal, state, and local spending actually fell 1.8 percent. What’s more, over the last three quarters of a mild V-shaped recovery, with an average quarterly rebound of 3.7 percent, government spending actually exerted a small net drag (-0.03%) on growth.
I guess it’s time to ask our Keynesian friends in and out of government what exactly happened to those vaunted multiplier effects they so loudly proclaimed. So far, there is zilch effect.
Turns out that all those entitlement transfers of income borrowed and taxed from Peter to pay Paul have made no direct contribution to the nation’s production of goods and services. This, however, comes after $318 billion of spending through April 23, according to the website recovery.org.
Pretty expensive fiscal habit, wouldn’t you say? But for what?
And who can blame taxpayers for saying, “Show me the money that was supposed to generate growth.” In the winter quarter, consumer spending increased 3.6 percent and business equipment investment rose 13.4 percent, all while inventories were rebuilt by $31 billion. But the G in the GDP equation C+I+G+(X-M) actually dropped. (That is, consumption + investment + government spending + the net exports/imports trade.) That’s right, dropped.
That failed G for federal, state, and local spending may cost untold trillions of dollars of future tax and debt burdens. Rather than stimulate growth, this will depress it in the years to come — unless we do something about it.
How about stopping the madness right now? How about “de-stimulating” the remaining $500 billion of unspent Keynesianism?
And how about some truth-telling about the big pick-up in business profits that is really behind the recovery — profits that have fueled a stock market boom which has created trillions of dollars of new wealth through capital gains that are being spent and invested in the private sector?
The only temporarily effective government-stimulus effect is coming from the Fed’s free-money, zero-interest-rate policy. And here, too, is stubbornness. For the economic emergency has long passed; the recession ended in last year’s second quarter. Yet the Fed — now controlled by Obama doves — stubbornly persists in maintaining an emergency pump-priming policy that surely will drive up inflation in the years ahead.
Body Politic Main Street Boutique
A new eco chic shopping boutique, body politic in south main (208 E 12 Ave (SE corner of 12th and Main) has on showcase some great eco fashion finds. They are one of the only boutiques in Vancouver that showcases a number of higher end eco and sustainable designers from LA, NYC and of course, locally.
Situated in the newest trendy neighborhood of South Main in Vancouver, sustainable style shop, body politic, is engineering a greener future in shopping. Destination shopping has come full circle. Not only does body politic carry the hottest independent eco and sustainable labels from coast to coast, but the true reason to travel to South Main is the urban design oriented aesthetic.
Owner Nicole Ritchie-Oseen edits her showcased collections to include a fresh mix of LA’s most well known green designers, like Stewart + Brown and Perfectly Imperfect, to the upcoming fresh faces of Vancouver’s eco scene, including Elroy and Noir bonbon. One thing is for sure, at body politic shoppers know they are not only making a conscious ecological choice to support local North American manufacturing, but also have confidence that all their purchases represent the sustainable, limitless design philosophy her shop was built upon. When asked why Nicole was inspired to start body politic, she says, “I did really want to be able to indulge my love of fashion but I couldn't be naive about the potential impact. I knew of the brutal consequences "fast fashion" has on our environment as well as the social costs of unethical production and manufacturing.” It’s clear that she has created a movement.
Situated in the newest trendy neighborhood of South Main in Vancouver, sustainable style shop, body politic, is engineering a greener future in shopping. Destination shopping has come full circle. Not only does body politic carry the hottest independent eco and sustainable labels from coast to coast, but the true reason to travel to South Main is the urban design oriented aesthetic.
Owner Nicole Ritchie-Oseen edits her showcased collections to include a fresh mix of LA’s most well known green designers, like Stewart + Brown and Perfectly Imperfect, to the upcoming fresh faces of Vancouver’s eco scene, including Elroy and Noir bonbon. One thing is for sure, at body politic shoppers know they are not only making a conscious ecological choice to support local North American manufacturing, but also have confidence that all their purchases represent the sustainable, limitless design philosophy her shop was built upon. When asked why Nicole was inspired to start body politic, she says, “I did really want to be able to indulge my love of fashion but I couldn't be naive about the potential impact. I knew of the brutal consequences "fast fashion" has on our environment as well as the social costs of unethical production and manufacturing.” It’s clear that she has created a movement.
Pennsylvania Calls Special Session to Resolve Transportation Funding Crisis
Today, Pennsylvania state legislators will meet to fill a massive $472 million gap in the transportation budget — almost ten percent of the overall $6.1 billion in road and transit spending planned for this year. Governor Ed Rendell called the session after his plan to toll Interstate 80 fell apart due to a federal law that makes it illegal to use revenues gained from a Washington-funded road on something else. The I-80 tolls would have generated up to $950 million in annual revenue once the infrastructure was put into place by 2011 as originally planned.
The need to assemble a special legislative session comes at a terrible time for the state. Pennsylvania’s road and transit systems need $3 billion more a year, a 50% increase, just to remain in a state of good repair — and that estimate includes only $500 million for transit, arguably not enough. Meanwhile, the state’s ambitions for improved intercity rail services and better local transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh need billions more to be implemented.
Pennsylvania has a number of potential funding options from which to choose: Easiest would be raising its already relatively high 32.3¢/gallon fuel tax. A 10¢/gallon increase would raise an estimated $620 million a year. But other possibilities include tolling state-funded roads, encouraging public-private partnerships, establishing local option sales taxes (currently mostly forbidden in the state), and introducing a vehicle-miles traveled fee (VMT). Wanting to avoid hurting too much of an already weak economy, the state is likely to select some combination of these options.
With inadequate federal aid, Pennsylvania’s situation is likely to become more and more familiar for states throughout the country, all of which are having trouble maintaining planned expenditures because of a decline in tax revenues. But the need to raise revenues locally opens up a number of opportunities that are denied by relying on Washington to fund transportation.
Conservatives frequently make the argument that federal fuel taxes should simply be reassigned to states based on the source of those funds because locals “know better” than Washington when it comes to choosing how to spend the money.
I’m no proponent of lessened federal involvement in choosing how those funds are spent; immediately reapportioning national funds to the states would inevitably mean fewer funds for transit just about everywhere because most state legislatures are dominated by rural factions. And state DOTs are too frequently highway-oriented to take seriously their claims that they would treat all modes equally.
Yet with a need to find increasing revenues to maintain roads and transit in usable condition, states may have no choice but to increase their local funding commitment above and beyond the federal contribution. Pennsylvania’s special session demonstrates that there is a desire on the part of states to make that happen — they’re not going to simply let their infrastructure resources fall apart.
This requires states and their leaders to take a bigger political role in setting transportation priorities. If states raise their own revenues, they will be able to choose how funds are spent, and it’s up to the legislatures and governors to make those decisions. The specter of even more power for state DOTs should encourage advocates of transportation alternatives to push for increased spending on transit, bike lanes, and pedestrian resources at the state capital, not just in Washington.
This is not an impossible dream; since the Bush Administration, the federal DOT has altered its vision of transportation priorities dramatically — it’s quite clear that the Obama Administration is making a point to emphasize livable communities and alternative forms of transport, a complete turnaround from former Secretary Mary Peters’ road obsession. This kind of change did not come randomly but after years of lobbying from advocates and the resulting decision of the mainline Democratic Party to place itself on the side of those who want alternatives to private automobiles. We need to see similar transformations at the state level, and when we do, there will be nothing to fear from getting the states more involved in raising revenue and spending on transportation.
A funding crisis may thus encourage everyone to think differently about the role states play in choosing what to fund. There is no requirement that states prioritize highway spending. But cities and metropolitan regions need to demonstrate their importance in every state’s economy and show how alternative transportation is an important player in ensuring the viability of those places.
The dream of some livable city advocates that states be “abolished” is immature and completely unrealistic. State DOTs will continue to play the predominant role in determining how transportation spending is distributed in the United States, so we might as well work to get them on our side.
The need to assemble a special legislative session comes at a terrible time for the state. Pennsylvania’s road and transit systems need $3 billion more a year, a 50% increase, just to remain in a state of good repair — and that estimate includes only $500 million for transit, arguably not enough. Meanwhile, the state’s ambitions for improved intercity rail services and better local transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh need billions more to be implemented.
Pennsylvania has a number of potential funding options from which to choose: Easiest would be raising its already relatively high 32.3¢/gallon fuel tax. A 10¢/gallon increase would raise an estimated $620 million a year. But other possibilities include tolling state-funded roads, encouraging public-private partnerships, establishing local option sales taxes (currently mostly forbidden in the state), and introducing a vehicle-miles traveled fee (VMT). Wanting to avoid hurting too much of an already weak economy, the state is likely to select some combination of these options.
With inadequate federal aid, Pennsylvania’s situation is likely to become more and more familiar for states throughout the country, all of which are having trouble maintaining planned expenditures because of a decline in tax revenues. But the need to raise revenues locally opens up a number of opportunities that are denied by relying on Washington to fund transportation.
Conservatives frequently make the argument that federal fuel taxes should simply be reassigned to states based on the source of those funds because locals “know better” than Washington when it comes to choosing how to spend the money.
I’m no proponent of lessened federal involvement in choosing how those funds are spent; immediately reapportioning national funds to the states would inevitably mean fewer funds for transit just about everywhere because most state legislatures are dominated by rural factions. And state DOTs are too frequently highway-oriented to take seriously their claims that they would treat all modes equally.
Yet with a need to find increasing revenues to maintain roads and transit in usable condition, states may have no choice but to increase their local funding commitment above and beyond the federal contribution. Pennsylvania’s special session demonstrates that there is a desire on the part of states to make that happen — they’re not going to simply let their infrastructure resources fall apart.
This requires states and their leaders to take a bigger political role in setting transportation priorities. If states raise their own revenues, they will be able to choose how funds are spent, and it’s up to the legislatures and governors to make those decisions. The specter of even more power for state DOTs should encourage advocates of transportation alternatives to push for increased spending on transit, bike lanes, and pedestrian resources at the state capital, not just in Washington.
This is not an impossible dream; since the Bush Administration, the federal DOT has altered its vision of transportation priorities dramatically — it’s quite clear that the Obama Administration is making a point to emphasize livable communities and alternative forms of transport, a complete turnaround from former Secretary Mary Peters’ road obsession. This kind of change did not come randomly but after years of lobbying from advocates and the resulting decision of the mainline Democratic Party to place itself on the side of those who want alternatives to private automobiles. We need to see similar transformations at the state level, and when we do, there will be nothing to fear from getting the states more involved in raising revenue and spending on transportation.
A funding crisis may thus encourage everyone to think differently about the role states play in choosing what to fund. There is no requirement that states prioritize highway spending. But cities and metropolitan regions need to demonstrate their importance in every state’s economy and show how alternative transportation is an important player in ensuring the viability of those places.
The dream of some livable city advocates that states be “abolished” is immature and completely unrealistic. State DOTs will continue to play the predominant role in determining how transportation spending is distributed in the United States, so we might as well work to get them on our side.
'Son of God'
MANILA - A SELF-PROCLAIMED 'son of God' in the Philippines has thrown his influential support behind outgoing President Gloria Arroyo's chosen successor in next week's election.
Television evangelist Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, whose Kingdom of Jesus Christ sect boasts six million followers, endorsed ex-defence secretary Gilbert Teodoro during the group's annual thanksgiving concert on Sunday night.
'Tonight let it be known, and to all Filipinos, that the Almighty Father has appointed the president for this nation. He is no other than Gilbert 'Gibo' Teodoro,' Quiboloy said in comments screened on GMA television. 'With this proclamation, I may either sink or swim, but I know this decision is best for the nation.'
Quiboloy is a controversial political power-player in the Roman Catholic nation, where religion plays a huge role in the daily life of its impoverished population. He and other leaders of sects instruct their followers to vote as a bloc, ensuring that politicians respect them.
Presidential candidates in recent weeks have sought Quiboloy's endorsement by visiting him at his sprawling Kingdom of Heaven base on a picturesque hill just outside of Davao city on southern Mindanao island. He was to have originally announced his decision on his 60th birthday on April 25, but deferred it to Sunday, saying God had yet to give him an answer.
A statement from his sect said Quiboloy finally arrived at his choice after sleepless nights of praying to God, according to press reports. Divine approval, however, could be too little too late for Teodoro, who according to surveys is virtually out of contention with only seven percent of the country's 50 million voters supporting him. The leading presidential candidate, Benigno Aquino, has nearly 40 per cent support. -- AFP
Television evangelist Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, whose Kingdom of Jesus Christ sect boasts six million followers, endorsed ex-defence secretary Gilbert Teodoro during the group's annual thanksgiving concert on Sunday night.
'Tonight let it be known, and to all Filipinos, that the Almighty Father has appointed the president for this nation. He is no other than Gilbert 'Gibo' Teodoro,' Quiboloy said in comments screened on GMA television. 'With this proclamation, I may either sink or swim, but I know this decision is best for the nation.'
Quiboloy is a controversial political power-player in the Roman Catholic nation, where religion plays a huge role in the daily life of its impoverished population. He and other leaders of sects instruct their followers to vote as a bloc, ensuring that politicians respect them.
Presidential candidates in recent weeks have sought Quiboloy's endorsement by visiting him at his sprawling Kingdom of Heaven base on a picturesque hill just outside of Davao city on southern Mindanao island. He was to have originally announced his decision on his 60th birthday on April 25, but deferred it to Sunday, saying God had yet to give him an answer.
A statement from his sect said Quiboloy finally arrived at his choice after sleepless nights of praying to God, according to press reports. Divine approval, however, could be too little too late for Teodoro, who according to surveys is virtually out of contention with only seven percent of the country's 50 million voters supporting him. The leading presidential candidate, Benigno Aquino, has nearly 40 per cent support. -- AFP
Simon Schama: Three-Way Race for the UK's Top Slot
Once upon a time, almost two and a half centuries ago, there lived two systems of representative government, separated by an ocean. English was their common language, and talk of law and liberty their common habit, but there the resemblance stopped, for one was fair and one foul. On the eastern shore, the body politic was engorged with money. Venal interests bought the services of legislators and rewarded them once their dirty work was done. Swarms of lobbyists battened on the body politic. Election rhetoric was disingenuous cant punctuated by maddened rant. But in the west, baptized by revolutionary fire, there unfolded something fresh: a democratic politics that (though averting its gaze from the enslaved) was open in manner, radical in utterance, mistrustful of the moneyed interest, and fruitfully unstable in party allegiance.
How times have changed! Fast forward to the present and behold Hanoverian America, while eastward, look! The land is bright! The phlegmatic British, infuriated by revelations of the serial abuse of parliamentary expenses, have bestirred themselves to threaten the domination of the Labour and Conservative Parties, and could be on the brink of ushering in something that looks suspiciously like democratic rebirth. Unless all polls are deluded, a third party, the centrist Liberal Democrats, may win enough seats in the May 6th general election to deny either of what its young leader, Nick Clegg, calls “the old parties” a working majority in the House of Commons. More dramatically, the price for Liberal Democrat support will be a referendum on radically altering the way legislators are elected. In place of the first-past-the-post system, which has made it impossible for third parties to break through in significant numbers, some sort of proportional representation could be put to a national referendum....
In the runup to the final debate, Brown was struggling to shift the campaign from a charisma contest to a more traditional battle of policy. Too bad then, that, after an I-really-care doorstep conversation with a Labour voter, an open mike caught him sounding off about the “bigoted” woman he had just been talking to. Heartfelt apologies and a rueful confession of his shortcomings at the start of the third debate may have limited the damage, but, shaking his head theatrically, Brown still managed to exude a gloomy fatalism. Cameron, on the other hand, no longer the brittle tyro of the first debate, projected the manner of a very British kind of conservative—eager to berate bankers for their wicked bonuses. Though early signs of Clegg fatigue may be showing, and though in the debate he, unlike the others, refused to stoop to the popular immigrant bashing, his party seems on course to gain a bigger share of the popular vote than Labour and enough seats to deny the Conservatives a parliamentary majority.
If that holds, we will find out whether Clegg—whose party, under the current system, will be awarded proportionately far fewer seats than either of the others—has the stuff of the revolutionary parliamentarian Oliver Cromwell in him (minus the disagreeable beheading of the monarch). Cameron has recently been hedging his responses when asked if, to get to Downing Street, he would pay Clegg’s price of a referendum on electoral reforms. That’s because if such reforms—which have already been adopted in elections for the Scottish and Welsh legislatures—were extended to Westminster it would almost certainly mean the end of the two-party system. The really shocking, really thrilling thing is that many Britons, faced with this prospect, seem ready to say, Goodbye. And good riddance.
How times have changed! Fast forward to the present and behold Hanoverian America, while eastward, look! The land is bright! The phlegmatic British, infuriated by revelations of the serial abuse of parliamentary expenses, have bestirred themselves to threaten the domination of the Labour and Conservative Parties, and could be on the brink of ushering in something that looks suspiciously like democratic rebirth. Unless all polls are deluded, a third party, the centrist Liberal Democrats, may win enough seats in the May 6th general election to deny either of what its young leader, Nick Clegg, calls “the old parties” a working majority in the House of Commons. More dramatically, the price for Liberal Democrat support will be a referendum on radically altering the way legislators are elected. In place of the first-past-the-post system, which has made it impossible for third parties to break through in significant numbers, some sort of proportional representation could be put to a national referendum....
In the runup to the final debate, Brown was struggling to shift the campaign from a charisma contest to a more traditional battle of policy. Too bad then, that, after an I-really-care doorstep conversation with a Labour voter, an open mike caught him sounding off about the “bigoted” woman he had just been talking to. Heartfelt apologies and a rueful confession of his shortcomings at the start of the third debate may have limited the damage, but, shaking his head theatrically, Brown still managed to exude a gloomy fatalism. Cameron, on the other hand, no longer the brittle tyro of the first debate, projected the manner of a very British kind of conservative—eager to berate bankers for their wicked bonuses. Though early signs of Clegg fatigue may be showing, and though in the debate he, unlike the others, refused to stoop to the popular immigrant bashing, his party seems on course to gain a bigger share of the popular vote than Labour and enough seats to deny the Conservatives a parliamentary majority.
If that holds, we will find out whether Clegg—whose party, under the current system, will be awarded proportionately far fewer seats than either of the others—has the stuff of the revolutionary parliamentarian Oliver Cromwell in him (minus the disagreeable beheading of the monarch). Cameron has recently been hedging his responses when asked if, to get to Downing Street, he would pay Clegg’s price of a referendum on electoral reforms. That’s because if such reforms—which have already been adopted in elections for the Scottish and Welsh legislatures—were extended to Westminster it would almost certainly mean the end of the two-party system. The really shocking, really thrilling thing is that many Britons, faced with this prospect, seem ready to say, Goodbye. And good riddance.
Sex Offender Laws
With the aerial acceleration in the cardinal of sex offenders who are additionally again offenders the federal government absitively to appoint laws acute all bedevilled animal offenders to annals with the states in which they live. Although this admeasurement is controversial, government admiral are claiming that it is an added able adjustment of alienated re-offending in some of the best austere criminals. Is this an aggression of aloofness that the states and politicians acquire imposed aloft addition who has served their sentence, or is this a accepted admeasurement of ascendancy for some of society's best alarming offenders?
At some point in time, it became adequate for the government to clue above criminals; in acute them to annals as an offender, they are about tracking the criminal. They do annihilation added than adviser carefully their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc. How this came to be is absolutely scary, while it has occurred for a abomination that fits the punishment, afterwards all our accouchement should be protected. It additionally comes with a price. Many bodies see this as an acute aggression of aloofness and animal rights, and in Europe beneath the banderole of the European Convention on Animal Rights, such procedures would about absolutely not be allowed.
Since alpha this and acute that all animal offenders annals with their corresponding states, it opens the aperture for abyss of added crimes to be adapted to register. Already that occurs, it allows the governments to alpha acute boring that anybody be registered for one acumen or another. Is this article that the bodies are accommodating to let happen? Should the government acquire abounding ability and ascendancy over area you go, who your accompany are and area you work?
Many feel that the laws for the animal offenders are not annealed enough; they alarm for stricter punishments and added penalties for these best abject of criminals. This comes from the ancillary of bodies that ambition to seek annihilation added than revenge. At the aforementioned time, if addition commits a abomination whom is beatific for brainy help, instead of bastille they are not adapted to register. Their offenses are recorded differently, and their abuse is abundant easier.
This can account austere problems in agreement of bodies not actuality registered that absolutely should be registered as an offender. The capital ambition of the affairs is to assure the absorption of the children; afterwards all, they are the capital ability account attention in society. Nevertheless, how far is too far? Some acquire adapted implanting the offenders with a chip that would accredit law administration agencies to clue the offenders' movements continuously. Is this article that the American accessible is accommodating to accept?
With this actuality talked about, what are the affairs of this occurring for added crimes as well? What is the point of absolution addition from the administrative arrangement if they are so alarming that they charge be continuously tracked? As a woman, or a adolescent how safe do you feel alive that there are bodies surrounding you whom acquire been bedevilled of austere crimes adjoin others? What about as a man, does this change your opinion? The claim for allotment causes amusing problems and abuse for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who acquire apparent themselves to be dangerous. This has the beating on aftereffect of altering the advance of justice, accustomed that these bodies will acquire served the adapted book for their crime, and hopefully acquire progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.
How do you anticipate it should be handled? There are some bodies who absolutely accept that the registrations processes should be removed, that already their time is served the offenders should be accustomed to abandon aback into the woodwork and chargeless to alive their lives after actuality beneath the accessible scrutiny. These are the bodies who are attractive to acquire yet addition law changed, that could acquire some actual adverse furnishings on society, decidedly for our accouchement in the advancing generations.
At some point in time, it became adequate for the government to clue above criminals; in acute them to annals as an offender, they are about tracking the criminal. They do annihilation added than adviser carefully their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc. How this came to be is absolutely scary, while it has occurred for a abomination that fits the punishment, afterwards all our accouchement should be protected. It additionally comes with a price. Many bodies see this as an acute aggression of aloofness and animal rights, and in Europe beneath the banderole of the European Convention on Animal Rights, such procedures would about absolutely not be allowed.
Since alpha this and acute that all animal offenders annals with their corresponding states, it opens the aperture for abyss of added crimes to be adapted to register. Already that occurs, it allows the governments to alpha acute boring that anybody be registered for one acumen or another. Is this article that the bodies are accommodating to let happen? Should the government acquire abounding ability and ascendancy over area you go, who your accompany are and area you work?
Many feel that the laws for the animal offenders are not annealed enough; they alarm for stricter punishments and added penalties for these best abject of criminals. This comes from the ancillary of bodies that ambition to seek annihilation added than revenge. At the aforementioned time, if addition commits a abomination whom is beatific for brainy help, instead of bastille they are not adapted to register. Their offenses are recorded differently, and their abuse is abundant easier.
This can account austere problems in agreement of bodies not actuality registered that absolutely should be registered as an offender. The capital ambition of the affairs is to assure the absorption of the children; afterwards all, they are the capital ability account attention in society. Nevertheless, how far is too far? Some acquire adapted implanting the offenders with a chip that would accredit law administration agencies to clue the offenders' movements continuously. Is this article that the American accessible is accommodating to accept?
With this actuality talked about, what are the affairs of this occurring for added crimes as well? What is the point of absolution addition from the administrative arrangement if they are so alarming that they charge be continuously tracked? As a woman, or a adolescent how safe do you feel alive that there are bodies surrounding you whom acquire been bedevilled of austere crimes adjoin others? What about as a man, does this change your opinion? The claim for allotment causes amusing problems and abuse for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who acquire apparent themselves to be dangerous. This has the beating on aftereffect of altering the advance of justice, accustomed that these bodies will acquire served the adapted book for their crime, and hopefully acquire progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.
How do you anticipate it should be handled? There are some bodies who absolutely accept that the registrations processes should be removed, that already their time is served the offenders should be accustomed to abandon aback into the woodwork and chargeless to alive their lives after actuality beneath the accessible scrutiny. These are the bodies who are attractive to acquire yet addition law changed, that could acquire some actual adverse furnishings on society, decidedly for our accouchement in the advancing generations.
Is War Brewing In The Middle East?
According to some senior Israeli officials, Syria has passed Scud missiles to the Hezbollah group in Lebanon; if true, the source of the missiles would almost certainly be Iran. That represents a serious potential escalation in the arming of Hezbollah, giving the Islamic group the capability to strike any Israeli city. As pressure mounts on Tehran from the United States and Europe to curb its uranium enrichment, history suggests Iranian leaders will be looking for a means to change the subject and deflect the pressure. Conflict between Israel and any of its neighbors, or with terrorist proxies of Iran such as Hezbollah and Hamas, does the job nicely by inciting anti-Western outrage on the Arab street and forcing the United States to stand with Israel and against its regional Arab allies.
So, are we seeing the early signs of another looming conflict in the Middle East? What other signs should the U.S. administration be on the watch for? What impact might such a conflict have on U.S.-Arab relations, on U.S. attempts to raise pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, on U.S. interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the war against Al Qaeda? Or are these reports overblown, and this is just another spike of rhetoric and empty threats?
So, are we seeing the early signs of another looming conflict in the Middle East? What other signs should the U.S. administration be on the watch for? What impact might such a conflict have on U.S.-Arab relations, on U.S. attempts to raise pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, on U.S. interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the war against Al Qaeda? Or are these reports overblown, and this is just another spike of rhetoric and empty threats?
Burma on the brink of civil war: the politics
Ethnic groups’ calls for peace are met with further threats from the country’s military rulers
The month of April saw Burma draw severely close to widespread civil war. Continued demands from the country’s dictators on all non-state armed groups to join the national forces continue to be rejected, leaving over a dozen decades-old ceasefires perilously under threat. In a country where civilians are routinely targeted by the government as part of military strategy, the expected outcomes are nothing short of horrific.
Ceasefire Zones of Northern Burma
On April 28th, the final deadline passed for all of Burma’s ceasefire armies to accept the junta’s Border Guard Force plan, a process that aims to bring them under direct state control and work to eradicate all remaining insurgents. Determined to stay autonomous until their people are given the rights to civil, political and humane justice, almost all groups have rejected the plan calling for a political dialogue to achieve national reconciliation.
During the month of April, numerous statements were made by ethnic leaders calling for peaceful solutions to the nation’s protracted military and political tensions. However these requests have been met with persistent threats of violence from the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) forcing the groups to prepare for battle. This was seen most recently on April 30th in Kachin State following 2-day talks between the Kachin Independence Organsiation (KIO) and the SPDC. A statement made by KIO leaders stating that they would like to“continue with the ceasefire and work for a genuine federal union with equal rights between majority and minorities in the country”, was shortly followed by a public threat to eliminate the group for rejecting the SPDC’s plan.
Meanwhile, SPDC troops are being deployed across the country close to regions administered by ceasefire armies and a number of clashes have already taken place, some of which it has claimed were accidental.
While the SPDC’s demands have brought some non-state armed groups closer together, others have become divided leading to speculation about conflict worsening within various ethnic groups. The Shan State Army- North (SSA-North) which signed a ceasefire agreement in 1989 has become divided over whether to accede to SPDC demands. While its headquarters announced that around 700 troops would transform to become a Border Guard Force, its strongest faction, 1st brigade remains defiant and has already been accused of launching an attack on SPDC troops en route to its territory.
The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), which has been aligned with the SPDC for over 15 years, has also become divided over the plan, with some generals strongly opposed and others ready to sign . On Tuesday 27th, a sort bout of fighting broke out between the two armies, leading to the arrival of 10 more SPDC battalions to the region and a mass exodus of civilians. While no high-ranking generals have publicly denounced the plan, hundreds of soldiers are said to have defected and sought refuge with the Karen National Union, an insurgent groups that remains at war with the SPDC.
Leading the pro-agreement faction is General Chit Htu, leader of the notorious 999 Brigade. Chit Htu has become one the SPDCs closest allies in recent years, making vast profits from natural resources while terrorizing ans exploiting tens of thousands of civilians under his jurisdiction.
For years ethnic regions in Burma have been divided by armed forces which align themselves with the SPDC and those that continue to fight the regime. In many of these regions, such armies have been able to keep conflict to a minimum by purposely avoiding each other. However, as the SPDC has increased pressure to force groups to work for or against them, this has become increasingly difficult. Such practices will become impossible if the Border Guard Force plan moves forward as SPDC commanders will be implemented in each battalion, giving the regime far greater control over its proxy forces.
After almost a year of threats from the SPDC, speculation that conflict would reignite appears to be becoming a reality. Everyday seems to take Burma a step closer to widespread civil war and it is fast becoming a question of not if but when.
The month of April saw Burma draw severely close to widespread civil war. Continued demands from the country’s dictators on all non-state armed groups to join the national forces continue to be rejected, leaving over a dozen decades-old ceasefires perilously under threat. In a country where civilians are routinely targeted by the government as part of military strategy, the expected outcomes are nothing short of horrific.
Ceasefire Zones of Northern Burma
On April 28th, the final deadline passed for all of Burma’s ceasefire armies to accept the junta’s Border Guard Force plan, a process that aims to bring them under direct state control and work to eradicate all remaining insurgents. Determined to stay autonomous until their people are given the rights to civil, political and humane justice, almost all groups have rejected the plan calling for a political dialogue to achieve national reconciliation.
During the month of April, numerous statements were made by ethnic leaders calling for peaceful solutions to the nation’s protracted military and political tensions. However these requests have been met with persistent threats of violence from the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) forcing the groups to prepare for battle. This was seen most recently on April 30th in Kachin State following 2-day talks between the Kachin Independence Organsiation (KIO) and the SPDC. A statement made by KIO leaders stating that they would like to“continue with the ceasefire and work for a genuine federal union with equal rights between majority and minorities in the country”, was shortly followed by a public threat to eliminate the group for rejecting the SPDC’s plan.
Meanwhile, SPDC troops are being deployed across the country close to regions administered by ceasefire armies and a number of clashes have already taken place, some of which it has claimed were accidental.
While the SPDC’s demands have brought some non-state armed groups closer together, others have become divided leading to speculation about conflict worsening within various ethnic groups. The Shan State Army- North (SSA-North) which signed a ceasefire agreement in 1989 has become divided over whether to accede to SPDC demands. While its headquarters announced that around 700 troops would transform to become a Border Guard Force, its strongest faction, 1st brigade remains defiant and has already been accused of launching an attack on SPDC troops en route to its territory.
The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), which has been aligned with the SPDC for over 15 years, has also become divided over the plan, with some generals strongly opposed and others ready to sign . On Tuesday 27th, a sort bout of fighting broke out between the two armies, leading to the arrival of 10 more SPDC battalions to the region and a mass exodus of civilians. While no high-ranking generals have publicly denounced the plan, hundreds of soldiers are said to have defected and sought refuge with the Karen National Union, an insurgent groups that remains at war with the SPDC.
Leading the pro-agreement faction is General Chit Htu, leader of the notorious 999 Brigade. Chit Htu has become one the SPDCs closest allies in recent years, making vast profits from natural resources while terrorizing ans exploiting tens of thousands of civilians under his jurisdiction.
For years ethnic regions in Burma have been divided by armed forces which align themselves with the SPDC and those that continue to fight the regime. In many of these regions, such armies have been able to keep conflict to a minimum by purposely avoiding each other. However, as the SPDC has increased pressure to force groups to work for or against them, this has become increasingly difficult. Such practices will become impossible if the Border Guard Force plan moves forward as SPDC commanders will be implemented in each battalion, giving the regime far greater control over its proxy forces.
After almost a year of threats from the SPDC, speculation that conflict would reignite appears to be becoming a reality. Everyday seems to take Burma a step closer to widespread civil war and it is fast becoming a question of not if but when.
GOP candidate hopes to outrun the ghost of her voting past
A piece of good news for Meg Whitman regarding her years of avoiding voting: She has eight months for the disclosure to become old and boring – eight months until the primary to prove to Republican voters that her assets outweigh her late coming to the electoral process.
The former eBay CEO is the early GOP frontrunner for governor. But the revelation that she didn't vote until she was 46 gave pause to some who were considering jumping aboard her bandwagon and who would've help pad her lead.
A Sacramento Bee investigation found no evidence of Whitman voting until 2002 and that she didn't register as a Republican until 2007. She later acknowledged that she didn't become politically engaged and start voting until recent years.
"Republidemotaria," who wrote on the Total Buzz blog of the hope that Whitman would be a "fresh and invigorating" candidate, was among those disillusioned by the news.
"The fact that for practically her entire adult life she didn't think voting was important saddens me," Republidemotaria wrote.
"Registering to vote is simple and actually voting, even by absentee ballot, doesn't take much time. She is basically saying that she didn't have an hour to spare to read about the issues and vote her conscience because she moved frequently and was too focused on other aspects of her life. That is pitiful."
I read that to Whitman when we had coffee Thursday in San Juan Capistrano. She said she didn't disagree with the statement. "Voting is a precious right, everyone should take time to vote, and I should have voted," she said.
Do-overs
Whitman's approach to damage control backfired at the Sept. 26 state GOP convention in Indian Wells. She apologized for her poor voting record at a press conference, and then was pressed extensively and repeatedly for an explanation for why she didn't vote. Her refusal to offer any explanation beyond the apology can be heard in its agonizing duration on an audio recording on YouTube.
After the convention, she realized she should have offered some insight into the candidate who steered clear of the polls for most of her life. So she then explained to reporters that there was no excuse for not voting, but that she'd been busy raising kids, working and being the wife of a neurosurgeon. But further damage had been done by the two or three days of stonewalling.
"It was a tough press conference and I don't think I did my very best job," she told me. "So, yeah, I'd have done it differently if I could."
The field
Democrat Jerry Brown sits high atop the polls for the governor's race – and he hasn't yet officially declared his candidacy, held a public campaign event or outlined a platform. Fellow Democrat Gavin Newsom, along with Republicans Whitman, Tom Campbell, and Steve Poizner, meanwhile, are relentlessly cruising the state, fighting for every leftover scrap of support they can get.
In polling, Campbell typically trails Whitman but stays close to the statistical margin of error. However, he has the noble but un-politic habit of thinking deeply about issues and proposing his best solution, regardless of how it will play with voters or how it might be used against him. He also lacks the nearly boundless personal wealth that both Whitman and Poizner can pour into their campaigns.
Poizner, the state's insurance commissioner, trails Whitman by double digits in some polls, and his foothold among grassroots Republicans seems tenuous.
"Whitman may have only been a voter since 2002," quipped Jack Pitney, political scientist at Claremont McKenna College and a former GOP staffer. "But Poizner's only been a conservative since 2006."
The former eBay CEO is the early GOP frontrunner for governor. But the revelation that she didn't vote until she was 46 gave pause to some who were considering jumping aboard her bandwagon and who would've help pad her lead.
A Sacramento Bee investigation found no evidence of Whitman voting until 2002 and that she didn't register as a Republican until 2007. She later acknowledged that she didn't become politically engaged and start voting until recent years.
"Republidemotaria," who wrote on the Total Buzz blog of the hope that Whitman would be a "fresh and invigorating" candidate, was among those disillusioned by the news.
"The fact that for practically her entire adult life she didn't think voting was important saddens me," Republidemotaria wrote.
"Registering to vote is simple and actually voting, even by absentee ballot, doesn't take much time. She is basically saying that she didn't have an hour to spare to read about the issues and vote her conscience because she moved frequently and was too focused on other aspects of her life. That is pitiful."
I read that to Whitman when we had coffee Thursday in San Juan Capistrano. She said she didn't disagree with the statement. "Voting is a precious right, everyone should take time to vote, and I should have voted," she said.
Do-overs
Whitman's approach to damage control backfired at the Sept. 26 state GOP convention in Indian Wells. She apologized for her poor voting record at a press conference, and then was pressed extensively and repeatedly for an explanation for why she didn't vote. Her refusal to offer any explanation beyond the apology can be heard in its agonizing duration on an audio recording on YouTube.
After the convention, she realized she should have offered some insight into the candidate who steered clear of the polls for most of her life. So she then explained to reporters that there was no excuse for not voting, but that she'd been busy raising kids, working and being the wife of a neurosurgeon. But further damage had been done by the two or three days of stonewalling.
"It was a tough press conference and I don't think I did my very best job," she told me. "So, yeah, I'd have done it differently if I could."
The field
Democrat Jerry Brown sits high atop the polls for the governor's race – and he hasn't yet officially declared his candidacy, held a public campaign event or outlined a platform. Fellow Democrat Gavin Newsom, along with Republicans Whitman, Tom Campbell, and Steve Poizner, meanwhile, are relentlessly cruising the state, fighting for every leftover scrap of support they can get.
In polling, Campbell typically trails Whitman but stays close to the statistical margin of error. However, he has the noble but un-politic habit of thinking deeply about issues and proposing his best solution, regardless of how it will play with voters or how it might be used against him. He also lacks the nearly boundless personal wealth that both Whitman and Poizner can pour into their campaigns.
Poizner, the state's insurance commissioner, trails Whitman by double digits in some polls, and his foothold among grassroots Republicans seems tenuous.
"Whitman may have only been a voter since 2002," quipped Jack Pitney, political scientist at Claremont McKenna College and a former GOP staffer. "But Poizner's only been a conservative since 2006."
Larry Summers: Cashing Out Big Time
“Larry Summers, dear reader, is part of the problem. There is always an undeniable connection between banking, the elite world of ivory tower Ivy League academia, the government and Wall Street. Summers, who was president of Harvard University until 2006, is former Treasury Secretary of the United States under Bill Clinton, where he worked with now regulators Gary Gensler, Timothy Geithner and Robert Rubin. The last year at Harvard Summers got a $1,000,000 interest only mortgage from Harvard, on top of a $580 thousand salary, which included $30 thousand for benefits and $143 thousand in expense reimbursements–whatever those are…over $11K a month. While at Harvard, he oversaw their endowment, recommending interest rate swap derivatives. Pushed endowment money into a toxic hedge fund Old Lane Partners from Rubin’s Citigroup…Harvard ultimately lost $9.9 billion from its endowment, and at Summers urging, Harvard invested its cash in its exotic investments…losing another $1.8 billion.
After leaving Harvard, in 2008, Summers went to work as a part time advisor for the unregulated hedge fund world…making $5.2 million from hedge fund D.E. Shaw. He made baskets of dough on the speaking to the elite financial institutions he seeks to regulate, for three speeches by Skagen funds in Jan 2008 he made $180 thousand, $67.5 thousand by JPMorgan Chase, $62.8 thousand to the Itinera Institute, Citigroup $99 thousand (discount for Bob Rubin), Goldman Sachs $202.5 thousand, Bank Association of Mexico $90 thousand, Lehman Brothers (remember them) $ 135 thousand, State Street Corp $157.5 thousand, Siguler & Gulf $67.5, Citigroup another $54 thousand, Investec Bank (who are they?) $157.5 thousand, Teta Consultants $67.5 thousand, McKinsey & Company $135 thousand, Charles River Ventures $67.5, Pricewaterhouse Coopers $67.5, The Chamber of Commerce of Argentia $135 thousand and lastly $67.5 thousand to American Express.”
After leaving Harvard, in 2008, Summers went to work as a part time advisor for the unregulated hedge fund world…making $5.2 million from hedge fund D.E. Shaw. He made baskets of dough on the speaking to the elite financial institutions he seeks to regulate, for three speeches by Skagen funds in Jan 2008 he made $180 thousand, $67.5 thousand by JPMorgan Chase, $62.8 thousand to the Itinera Institute, Citigroup $99 thousand (discount for Bob Rubin), Goldman Sachs $202.5 thousand, Bank Association of Mexico $90 thousand, Lehman Brothers (remember them) $ 135 thousand, State Street Corp $157.5 thousand, Siguler & Gulf $67.5, Citigroup another $54 thousand, Investec Bank (who are they?) $157.5 thousand, Teta Consultants $67.5 thousand, McKinsey & Company $135 thousand, Charles River Ventures $67.5, Pricewaterhouse Coopers $67.5, The Chamber of Commerce of Argentia $135 thousand and lastly $67.5 thousand to American Express.”
Charlie Christ : An independent production
What’s most peculiar about Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s (R) announcement that he’d be running as an independent in the state’s heated U.S. Senate race is not so much the decision as it is the reaction to it. The responses ranged from incredulity to ridicule, thereby cluing us in to the paradox that is our democracy. Despite an early lead of 33 percentage points compared to Republican Marco Rubio at 29 points and Democrat Kendrick Meek at 15 points in a recent McLaughlin and Associates Florida poll, the lead pollster Jim McLaughlin still clowns Crist in an Orlando Sentinel interview:
“I would make a pretty good bet he not only will not win, he will run an embarrassing third,’’ says McLaughlin. “I think he’s done politically.’’
While we may laud our system as open, transparent and flexible, in reality … it’s probably not – based on our knee-jerk twisting of the face whenever a candidate or group rocks the “Third Party” tune. There is a considerable degree of social anathema and rigidly imposed political exile when that happens, as if the dominant two-party system were this nation’s foundation rather than the other way around.
United promoters of the free world extol the democratic virtues of our political system, yet prognosticators collectively shun the brave few who exercise political chutzpah. Do you want your eggs scrambled or sunny side-up? The body politic can’t seem to make up its mind on this question. Regardless of the self-centered motives, Crist gets a few props for the display of intestinal fortitude. Says Crist:
“I know this is uncharted territory… and I am aware after this ends I don’t have either party helping me… But I’m counting on you. I think we need a new tone in Washington. I know we’re doing the right thing.”
True: we can infer from his new path that the Governor’s nerves were near raw over the sudden ascendancy of former state House Speaker and Tea Party personality Marco Rubio (R). But, let’s go ahead and give the Governor due on engineering a Lieberman/Specter hybrid in the Southern battleground state. Little wonder that, apparently, Connecticut Independent and thorn-in-the-Democratic-Caucus-eye Senator Joe Lieberman (I) convinced Crist to do it. Those of us sick of what President Obama himself repeatedly rotates in every speech as “politics as usual” should enjoy this unusual poke in the machine’s eye, right? Could it lead to the emergence of a “Third Party” movement? Not anytime in the near future considering how wedded we are to the party Matrix. But, it’s worthwhile considering there is something in the air.
Any shake-up rattling the stale, suited, left v. right sameness characterizing contemporary American politics is always welcome. Not to say Crist’s announcement amounts to an earth-tipping-off-its-axis game changer that will forever alter the political landscape. No … Not really … Forget about it. Despite the Orange state executive’s brazen move, one can’t ignore the dynamics of an old head politico like Crist putting on new school kicks. Obviously, Crist is a longtime career political professional seeking to retire in good standing with his trade. Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) is pretty much on point: “This decision is not about policy or principles. It is about what he believes is in his political self-interest.” And there’s a bubbling pit of spite in his newfound political religion that may rub Florida voters the wrong way. Rubio’s dust-kicking rise as young and stubborn conservative upstart more than likely riles the Governor on a personal level, leading to the risky business of running an independent bid. His righteous diatribe against “The Man” rings hollow to folks who’ve known nothing but Charlie Crist as Florida’s personification of “The Man.” That perception could severely hamper his ability to galvanize grassroots fundraising to offset the lack of party apparatus.
Crist might avoid the costly and pernicious primary, but there isn’t anything unique about that at the moment given the sudden lack of opposition to Rubio in the GOP primary and Rep. Kendrick Meek’s (D-FL) coasting on the Democratic side. Unless Crist can somehow muster some sort of new, Congressional mid-term voter’s revolution, Rubio now has the advantage of rallying the GOP state party machine and national conservative activists to his side. The problem for Crist is identifying an active, enthusiastic core of supporters that can outperform Rubio’s base. Judging from the muted vibe present at Crist’s independent announcement rally, he’s got a tough road ahead.
It’s not a simple game of former Republican candidate with statewide name recognition suddenly redraws the map by siphoning GOP voters come general election. The math may, ultimately, contradict Meek’s cocky public pronouncement that Crist’s indy bid favors the Democratic candidate as GOP voters are scattered across the winds of a Crist/Rubio cage match. Meek’s open punditry – especially as the Black candidate – can attract unwanted attention once GOP voters (savvy enough to realize the implications of that analysis) rush to Rubio in an effort to permanently forestall that prediction.
“I would make a pretty good bet he not only will not win, he will run an embarrassing third,’’ says McLaughlin. “I think he’s done politically.’’
While we may laud our system as open, transparent and flexible, in reality … it’s probably not – based on our knee-jerk twisting of the face whenever a candidate or group rocks the “Third Party” tune. There is a considerable degree of social anathema and rigidly imposed political exile when that happens, as if the dominant two-party system were this nation’s foundation rather than the other way around.
United promoters of the free world extol the democratic virtues of our political system, yet prognosticators collectively shun the brave few who exercise political chutzpah. Do you want your eggs scrambled or sunny side-up? The body politic can’t seem to make up its mind on this question. Regardless of the self-centered motives, Crist gets a few props for the display of intestinal fortitude. Says Crist:
“I know this is uncharted territory… and I am aware after this ends I don’t have either party helping me… But I’m counting on you. I think we need a new tone in Washington. I know we’re doing the right thing.”
True: we can infer from his new path that the Governor’s nerves were near raw over the sudden ascendancy of former state House Speaker and Tea Party personality Marco Rubio (R). But, let’s go ahead and give the Governor due on engineering a Lieberman/Specter hybrid in the Southern battleground state. Little wonder that, apparently, Connecticut Independent and thorn-in-the-Democratic-Caucus-eye Senator Joe Lieberman (I) convinced Crist to do it. Those of us sick of what President Obama himself repeatedly rotates in every speech as “politics as usual” should enjoy this unusual poke in the machine’s eye, right? Could it lead to the emergence of a “Third Party” movement? Not anytime in the near future considering how wedded we are to the party Matrix. But, it’s worthwhile considering there is something in the air.
Any shake-up rattling the stale, suited, left v. right sameness characterizing contemporary American politics is always welcome. Not to say Crist’s announcement amounts to an earth-tipping-off-its-axis game changer that will forever alter the political landscape. No … Not really … Forget about it. Despite the Orange state executive’s brazen move, one can’t ignore the dynamics of an old head politico like Crist putting on new school kicks. Obviously, Crist is a longtime career political professional seeking to retire in good standing with his trade. Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) is pretty much on point: “This decision is not about policy or principles. It is about what he believes is in his political self-interest.” And there’s a bubbling pit of spite in his newfound political religion that may rub Florida voters the wrong way. Rubio’s dust-kicking rise as young and stubborn conservative upstart more than likely riles the Governor on a personal level, leading to the risky business of running an independent bid. His righteous diatribe against “The Man” rings hollow to folks who’ve known nothing but Charlie Crist as Florida’s personification of “The Man.” That perception could severely hamper his ability to galvanize grassroots fundraising to offset the lack of party apparatus.
Crist might avoid the costly and pernicious primary, but there isn’t anything unique about that at the moment given the sudden lack of opposition to Rubio in the GOP primary and Rep. Kendrick Meek’s (D-FL) coasting on the Democratic side. Unless Crist can somehow muster some sort of new, Congressional mid-term voter’s revolution, Rubio now has the advantage of rallying the GOP state party machine and national conservative activists to his side. The problem for Crist is identifying an active, enthusiastic core of supporters that can outperform Rubio’s base. Judging from the muted vibe present at Crist’s independent announcement rally, he’s got a tough road ahead.
It’s not a simple game of former Republican candidate with statewide name recognition suddenly redraws the map by siphoning GOP voters come general election. The math may, ultimately, contradict Meek’s cocky public pronouncement that Crist’s indy bid favors the Democratic candidate as GOP voters are scattered across the winds of a Crist/Rubio cage match. Meek’s open punditry – especially as the Black candidate – can attract unwanted attention once GOP voters (savvy enough to realize the implications of that analysis) rush to Rubio in an effort to permanently forestall that prediction.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Republicans' Southern Comforts
NEW ORLEANS -- Last weekend's Southern Republican Leadership Conference presented a pair of contrasts.
Though the city has been coming back economically since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans Saints' Super Bowl win gave the city a huge psychological shot in the arm, and the impending departure of the much and appropriately maligned Mayor Ray Nagin can't seem to happen soon enough to suit the city's residents. Mayor-elect Mitch Landrieu hasn't been sworn into office yet, but one can't help but get the feeling when talking to residents that they have turned the corner emotionally.
Though the SRLC technically covered a 16-state footprint, reports said Republicans from 41 states gathered at the event. Attendees were largely state and local activists gathered for a party pep rally and a taste of 2012 politicking. And compared with the previous SRLC, held in Memphis in March 2006, the Republicans' mindset couldn't have been more different.
No single Republican presidential contender commanded immediate attention. Republicans seem to be perfectly willing to let that stuff wait until after November.
The Democratic wave had not hit at the time of that gathering four years ago, nor was it even apparent. But President George W. Bush's job approval numbers were at 36 percent, and it was pretty obvious things weren't going well for the GOP -- and they knew it.
But this past weekend, Republicans were energized and ready to storm the ramparts. And interestingly, they seemed to be unusually focused on the midterm elections. Often at such functions, many party activists pay perfunctory attention to the midterm but, like politicians looking past whomever they are shaking hands with, their minds are on someone else. Not this year. November commanded nearly full attention, establishing the importance in their minds of scoring big gains and containing Democratic power.
It also seems to say something that no single Republican presidential contender commanded immediate attention. Republicans seem to be perfectly willing to let that stuff wait until after November.
The straw poll conducted during the event seemed almost an afterthought; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney prevailed over Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by a single vote, 439-438. Romney didn't come, but he sent plenty of backers. Indeed, Saturday he was appearing in Minnesota with another potential Republican contender. Gov. Tim Pawlenty remained in his state to greet a large contingent of Minnesota National Guard troops returning from Iraq.
Three speakers commanded the most attention: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.
Gingrich, who is clearly eyeing a 2012 bid, carries more baggage than a Mayflower moving van. But his speech, as most of his do, displayed a very smart guy who has been a sharp-eyed student of Republican politics and voters for over 30 years. He is someone who thinks big thoughts and communicates them exceedingly well, and he knows exactly how to stroke every erogenous zone in the Republican body politic.
His baggage might keep him out of the race or limit his ability to win the nomination, but watching him in action leaves a strong impression he has as much raw ability and political instincts as the rest of the field combined.
Sure, he delivers the gratuitous applause lines like every good politician, but Gingrich wants to appeal to the minds, not just the hearts, of Republicans.
Palin is catnip for the Republican base. Watching her flirt and tease with GOP audiences leaves the impression that she uses her femininity much the same way California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does his masculinity.
Palin doesn't compete with Gingrich for the minds of GOP voters, but she sure goes after their hearts -- and she does it with a sassiness that is fun for even those who don't like her. She is good at what she does and is underestimated by too many. In terms of political correctness, she seems to revel in being just a little bit naughty, delighting the crowd by correcting herself after using the word "shoot" and having her PAC pass out Alaskan reindeer jerky.
Though it's more likely Barbour will stay on the sidelines in the 2012 presidential race, he, like Gingrich, has studied what makes Republican voters and activists tick for a very long time.
Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, played the role of adult here, giving the gathered party activists some advice they needed to hear. Noting that he couldn't win an election in Vermont, Barbour urged attendees to be mindful that it takes a broad-based party to win in all 50 states. And he warned them about demanding ideological purity, reminding them of the dictum of his "old boss" Ronald Reagan, who said that someone who votes with you 80 percent of the time is not a 20 percent traitor
Though the city has been coming back economically since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans Saints' Super Bowl win gave the city a huge psychological shot in the arm, and the impending departure of the much and appropriately maligned Mayor Ray Nagin can't seem to happen soon enough to suit the city's residents. Mayor-elect Mitch Landrieu hasn't been sworn into office yet, but one can't help but get the feeling when talking to residents that they have turned the corner emotionally.
Though the SRLC technically covered a 16-state footprint, reports said Republicans from 41 states gathered at the event. Attendees were largely state and local activists gathered for a party pep rally and a taste of 2012 politicking. And compared with the previous SRLC, held in Memphis in March 2006, the Republicans' mindset couldn't have been more different.
No single Republican presidential contender commanded immediate attention. Republicans seem to be perfectly willing to let that stuff wait until after November.
The Democratic wave had not hit at the time of that gathering four years ago, nor was it even apparent. But President George W. Bush's job approval numbers were at 36 percent, and it was pretty obvious things weren't going well for the GOP -- and they knew it.
But this past weekend, Republicans were energized and ready to storm the ramparts. And interestingly, they seemed to be unusually focused on the midterm elections. Often at such functions, many party activists pay perfunctory attention to the midterm but, like politicians looking past whomever they are shaking hands with, their minds are on someone else. Not this year. November commanded nearly full attention, establishing the importance in their minds of scoring big gains and containing Democratic power.
It also seems to say something that no single Republican presidential contender commanded immediate attention. Republicans seem to be perfectly willing to let that stuff wait until after November.
The straw poll conducted during the event seemed almost an afterthought; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney prevailed over Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by a single vote, 439-438. Romney didn't come, but he sent plenty of backers. Indeed, Saturday he was appearing in Minnesota with another potential Republican contender. Gov. Tim Pawlenty remained in his state to greet a large contingent of Minnesota National Guard troops returning from Iraq.
Three speakers commanded the most attention: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.
Gingrich, who is clearly eyeing a 2012 bid, carries more baggage than a Mayflower moving van. But his speech, as most of his do, displayed a very smart guy who has been a sharp-eyed student of Republican politics and voters for over 30 years. He is someone who thinks big thoughts and communicates them exceedingly well, and he knows exactly how to stroke every erogenous zone in the Republican body politic.
His baggage might keep him out of the race or limit his ability to win the nomination, but watching him in action leaves a strong impression he has as much raw ability and political instincts as the rest of the field combined.
Sure, he delivers the gratuitous applause lines like every good politician, but Gingrich wants to appeal to the minds, not just the hearts, of Republicans.
Palin is catnip for the Republican base. Watching her flirt and tease with GOP audiences leaves the impression that she uses her femininity much the same way California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does his masculinity.
Palin doesn't compete with Gingrich for the minds of GOP voters, but she sure goes after their hearts -- and she does it with a sassiness that is fun for even those who don't like her. She is good at what she does and is underestimated by too many. In terms of political correctness, she seems to revel in being just a little bit naughty, delighting the crowd by correcting herself after using the word "shoot" and having her PAC pass out Alaskan reindeer jerky.
Though it's more likely Barbour will stay on the sidelines in the 2012 presidential race, he, like Gingrich, has studied what makes Republican voters and activists tick for a very long time.
Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, played the role of adult here, giving the gathered party activists some advice they needed to hear. Noting that he couldn't win an election in Vermont, Barbour urged attendees to be mindful that it takes a broad-based party to win in all 50 states. And he warned them about demanding ideological purity, reminding them of the dictum of his "old boss" Ronald Reagan, who said that someone who votes with you 80 percent of the time is not a 20 percent traitor
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Reforming the User Fee Approach for Funding Transportation
After a year spent lobbying states to develop “alternative” revenue sources for replacing the federal government’s rapidly shrinking budget for roads and transit, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood rejected Pennsylvania’s request to implement tolls on I-80, citing a law that prevents such funds from being used for anything but the roads where they’re raised. The ruling puts the state in a $500 million fiscal hole and will significantly affect transit agencies from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, all of which had been hoping to take advantage of the new financing source.
The government’s interpretation of the law suggests that it will be difficult for any state to implement tolls on existing Interstate highways without a promise that it will use all revenues for the sake of the maintenance and upgrade of the road where money is charged. In no way does this prevent future roads from being built and funded through tolls, but it certainly suggests that the chances of being allowed to charge users new fees to drive on existing roads are slim. The law will have to be changed if Mr. LaHood wants to continue pushing for “different” ways to fund transportation — or the Secretary will have to recant and begin advocating a gas tax increase to fulfill Washington’s obligation to pay for infrastructure maintenance and construction, a step the administration has repeatedly said it is unwilling to do.
I’ll refrain from commenting here on the merits of tolls; I have suggested in the past that taking advantage of this revenue stream in metropolitan areas with poor public transportation links could result in a significant decline in mobility for the poor and lower middle class.
Nonetheless, today’s explicit vision of transportation funding, premised on the idea that “user fees” should pay for improvements and expansions, must be challenged. The assumption, promoted for years, that a gas tax-financed highway network “pays for itself,” is no longer accurate. Nor does it allow for society to transition easily from existing travel modes to more sustainable ones. Apart from the benefits and pitfalls of tolling, the idea that a new revenue source couldn’t be instituted in Pennsylvania because the funds raised won’t go directly back to those paying them is an antiquated manner of going about building future infrastructure.
The highway system that “pays for itself” — the foundation of the user fee concept — is the progeny of the federal government’s decision to use fuel taxes as the primary funding source for new roads. The system enforces the idea that people who drive should pay for the roads on which they travel by contributing every time they fill up. The problem with this idea is that it only applies to federally funded highways: All the other roads on which people travel to get to those highways are funded by state and local sources, often not user fees. So even in its heyday, the system didn’t “pay for itself.”
The gas tax system also cannot keep up with changing automobile propulsion technologies; people driving more fuel efficient or even zero emissions vehicles simply are not contributing to the costs of road construction. Thus not only the recent decline in federal government revenues but also the demand from Secretary LaHood for a new and different way to pay for projects, even while maintaining his insistence on the user fee approach.
More importantly for advocates of alternative transportation, the user fee system doesn’t work for transit and other non-automobile solutions because they are invariably subsidized by revenues originating from other sources. In other words, while some mass transit spending is user fee-based (the fares on buses and trains), most of it comes from elsewhere.
How can we continue to argue that the transportation system should be funded through user fees when a significant part of the network contributes nothing to the larger account? The fact that road users contribute all of the funds to Washington’s transportation account continues to be a political problem, since only 70% of overall spending goes back into roads. If the user fee theory is the guiding principle, how can that be justified?
I have argued previously that an expansion of income tax sourced general fund spending, already the money being used to shore up the federal transportation gap in the absence of a new transportation bill, would be the most appropriate, most socially equitable way to improve overall financing for all types of infrastructure spending.
But in order to move forward with a long-term reliance on such money, the political obsession with using user fees to pay for more roads and transit must come to an end. While the idea that roads “pay for themselves” may sound romantic, it results in a system that spends far too much on roads; it also provides the rationality for decisions such as the recent Pennsylvania one since based on user fees alone, it makes little since to transfer funds raised on I-80 to transit elsewhere.
We need a political shift: a new conception of how transportation is funded to meet new needs.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Plane Crash Boosts Polish Prime Minister Tusk
The plane crash that killed Poland's president and leading opposition politicians has removed in one stroke key opponents of Prime Minister Donald Tusk and his ruling centrist Civic Platform.
While a shocking blow to Poland's body politic, analysts say constitutional mechanisms will ensure that there is no power vacuum and there will not be any long-term impact on stability.
The crash will reinforce Tusk's already considerable dominance of Polish politics, and analysts say it may have relatively muted long-term consequences, although they also stress that it is too early to predict the full impact of such an unprecedented accident on the national psychology.
President Lech Kaczynski, his top aides, the central bank governor and seven lawmakers from the main opposition Law and Justice Party were among 96 people killed when their plane crashed in thick fog near Smolensk in western Russia.
"[The] plane crash will raise concerns about [Polish] political stability and relations with Russia, but the outlook is reassuring regarding the institutional transition for the presidency and the central bank," said Preston Keat, an analyst for Eurasia Group, a London-based political risk consultancy.
"The leading political and policy actors will move quickly to stabilize the situation," he said.
Kaczynski, 60, and his twin brother, Jaroslaw, who heads the Law and Justice Party, have spearheaded opposition to Tusk's pro-market economic policies, his embrace of the European Union and his push for early adoption of the euro.
Lech Kaczynski, known for his combative nationalism, his devout Roman Catholicism and deep distrust of both the EU and of Vladimir Putin's Russia, had been expected to seek a new five-year mandate in a presidential election due this fall.
Under Polish law, parliamentary speaker Bronislaw Komorowski is now acting president and the election will take place by the end of June. Komorowski, 58, is the candidate of Tusk's Civic Platform, and opinion polls have shown him winning the post.
The candidate of the small leftist opposition SLD, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, also died in Saturday's crash.
In Poland, the government holds most power, but the president has a say in foreign policy and can veto laws. Kaczynski irked Tusk's government by blocking media, health and pension reforms.
"When all the dust has settled, I don't think this tragedy will fundamentally change Poland's situation economically or in any other way," one government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.
"There are a lot of uncertainties at the moment. People are very upset, but the risks seem relatively limited. Poland's democracy should prove its resilience. The constitution states clearly what must happen," he said.
"The presidential election campaign will be difficult, but I expect people will show restraint in these circumstances," the government official said.
Many expect an upsurge of sympathy for Jaroslaw Kaczynski and the Law and Justice Party, a populist right-wing party, in coming weeks, but it is far from clear whether this will translate into votes.
The Law and Justice Party has been trailing Tusk's Civic Platform in opinion polls, with about 25 percent support against 50 percent for the ruling party. Poland is due to hold a national election next year.
"The point is that [Lech] Kaczynski was set to be voted out later this year and all the aides who died with him would have been out of power too," said Krzysztof Bobinski, head of the Unia & Polska Foundation, a pro-EU think tank.
"This disaster could provoke a generational change in PiS [Law and Justice Party] as Jaroslaw will be shattered," Bobinski said. "He was very close to his brother. He has completely dominated PiS, but this could now be an opportunity for younger party members to come forward."
The devastating blow to the Law and Justice Party is not confined to party politics. Among those killed in Saturday's crash were Kaczynski allies such as central bank chief Slawomir Skrzypek and Janusz Kurtyka, head of the National Remembrance Institute, which supervises Poland's communist-era archives.
Both Skrzypek and Kurtyka had been thorns in the Tusk government's side, on economic issues and on Poland's communist past, respectively.
Internationally, Kaczynski's death is unlikely to have much impact. After a long delay, Kaczynski had been forced to sign the EU's Lisbon Treaty, which was strongly backed by the Tusk government. The treaty revamps the bloc's institutions.
Kaczynski, a staunch defender of Ukraine and Georgia against what he called Russia's "new imperialism," also found himself largely sidelined by the Tusk government as it worked to build better economic and political relations with Moscow.
While a shocking blow to Poland's body politic, analysts say constitutional mechanisms will ensure that there is no power vacuum and there will not be any long-term impact on stability.
The crash will reinforce Tusk's already considerable dominance of Polish politics, and analysts say it may have relatively muted long-term consequences, although they also stress that it is too early to predict the full impact of such an unprecedented accident on the national psychology.
President Lech Kaczynski, his top aides, the central bank governor and seven lawmakers from the main opposition Law and Justice Party were among 96 people killed when their plane crashed in thick fog near Smolensk in western Russia.
"[The] plane crash will raise concerns about [Polish] political stability and relations with Russia, but the outlook is reassuring regarding the institutional transition for the presidency and the central bank," said Preston Keat, an analyst for Eurasia Group, a London-based political risk consultancy.
"The leading political and policy actors will move quickly to stabilize the situation," he said.
Kaczynski, 60, and his twin brother, Jaroslaw, who heads the Law and Justice Party, have spearheaded opposition to Tusk's pro-market economic policies, his embrace of the European Union and his push for early adoption of the euro.
Lech Kaczynski, known for his combative nationalism, his devout Roman Catholicism and deep distrust of both the EU and of Vladimir Putin's Russia, had been expected to seek a new five-year mandate in a presidential election due this fall.
Under Polish law, parliamentary speaker Bronislaw Komorowski is now acting president and the election will take place by the end of June. Komorowski, 58, is the candidate of Tusk's Civic Platform, and opinion polls have shown him winning the post.
The candidate of the small leftist opposition SLD, Jerzy Szmajdzinski, also died in Saturday's crash.
In Poland, the government holds most power, but the president has a say in foreign policy and can veto laws. Kaczynski irked Tusk's government by blocking media, health and pension reforms.
"When all the dust has settled, I don't think this tragedy will fundamentally change Poland's situation economically or in any other way," one government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.
"There are a lot of uncertainties at the moment. People are very upset, but the risks seem relatively limited. Poland's democracy should prove its resilience. The constitution states clearly what must happen," he said.
"The presidential election campaign will be difficult, but I expect people will show restraint in these circumstances," the government official said.
Many expect an upsurge of sympathy for Jaroslaw Kaczynski and the Law and Justice Party, a populist right-wing party, in coming weeks, but it is far from clear whether this will translate into votes.
The Law and Justice Party has been trailing Tusk's Civic Platform in opinion polls, with about 25 percent support against 50 percent for the ruling party. Poland is due to hold a national election next year.
"The point is that [Lech] Kaczynski was set to be voted out later this year and all the aides who died with him would have been out of power too," said Krzysztof Bobinski, head of the Unia & Polska Foundation, a pro-EU think tank.
"This disaster could provoke a generational change in PiS [Law and Justice Party] as Jaroslaw will be shattered," Bobinski said. "He was very close to his brother. He has completely dominated PiS, but this could now be an opportunity for younger party members to come forward."
The devastating blow to the Law and Justice Party is not confined to party politics. Among those killed in Saturday's crash were Kaczynski allies such as central bank chief Slawomir Skrzypek and Janusz Kurtyka, head of the National Remembrance Institute, which supervises Poland's communist-era archives.
Both Skrzypek and Kurtyka had been thorns in the Tusk government's side, on economic issues and on Poland's communist past, respectively.
Internationally, Kaczynski's death is unlikely to have much impact. After a long delay, Kaczynski had been forced to sign the EU's Lisbon Treaty, which was strongly backed by the Tusk government. The treaty revamps the bloc's institutions.
Kaczynski, a staunch defender of Ukraine and Georgia against what he called Russia's "new imperialism," also found himself largely sidelined by the Tusk government as it worked to build better economic and political relations with Moscow.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The role of the media in politics
I am not a US citizen; therefore I cannot vote. I am, however, very aware of the role the media plays in politics; mainly because as much as I try, I cannot get away from it. With the looming election and the scandals around it, it would be nearly impossible not to notice all the radio, television and newspaper ads that have been taking over the regular commercials (which I hated before, but now sorely miss!)
Don't get me wrong: I believe that the media is essential in politics. Nowadays when people are busy and don't have time to sit and watch show after show about whether Obama is a Muslim and whether Clinton really did go under sniper fire in Bosnia, they have many options to choose from to become politically educated.
For those of us who are not so up to date on the political campaigns, political news programs on stations such as CNN or FOX News can be very helpful. These programs often offer a variety of information about both sides of the political race, and can help you make your decision about who to vote for. Televised debates are also informational and entertaining. Many times those debates are the most helpful of all media forums because the candidates themselves speak and answer questions, as opposed to annoying commentary from political analysts who believe they know it all.
The Internet is also a great media source when looking for information about the political campaigns. Personally, it is my favorite, because I can pick and choose what I read or watch, and can make my searches very specific. Even though I cannot vote (yet), I like to learn about the candidates and educate people around me when I can. Still, I wish that there were stricter rules when it came to what can and cannot be shown by the media, simply because there are some people who will focus only on the scandals, and not on the issues that really matter.
What gets my attention the most in the media (for good or bad), are the negative ad campaigns. It is so rare to see a campaign ad that simply gives the positive aspects and the platform of a candidate. Instead, we are bombarded with "So and so believes in such and such. He has done this and that. Shame on him!" What have we learned about the candidate running the ad? That's right-nothing.
No-matter what our favorite (or least favorite) media source is, the truth is that politics would not be the same without the media. We may complain about how we cannot turn the television or radio on nowadays without being bombarded with campaign ads, but in the end, we come out more educated and informed. If we don't at least make an effort to learn more about politics in our country, we can only blame ourselves when the elections don't turn out the way we had hoped.
Don't get me wrong: I believe that the media is essential in politics. Nowadays when people are busy and don't have time to sit and watch show after show about whether Obama is a Muslim and whether Clinton really did go under sniper fire in Bosnia, they have many options to choose from to become politically educated.
For those of us who are not so up to date on the political campaigns, political news programs on stations such as CNN or FOX News can be very helpful. These programs often offer a variety of information about both sides of the political race, and can help you make your decision about who to vote for. Televised debates are also informational and entertaining. Many times those debates are the most helpful of all media forums because the candidates themselves speak and answer questions, as opposed to annoying commentary from political analysts who believe they know it all.
The Internet is also a great media source when looking for information about the political campaigns. Personally, it is my favorite, because I can pick and choose what I read or watch, and can make my searches very specific. Even though I cannot vote (yet), I like to learn about the candidates and educate people around me when I can. Still, I wish that there were stricter rules when it came to what can and cannot be shown by the media, simply because there are some people who will focus only on the scandals, and not on the issues that really matter.
What gets my attention the most in the media (for good or bad), are the negative ad campaigns. It is so rare to see a campaign ad that simply gives the positive aspects and the platform of a candidate. Instead, we are bombarded with "So and so believes in such and such. He has done this and that. Shame on him!" What have we learned about the candidate running the ad? That's right-nothing.
No-matter what our favorite (or least favorite) media source is, the truth is that politics would not be the same without the media. We may complain about how we cannot turn the television or radio on nowadays without being bombarded with campaign ads, but in the end, we come out more educated and informed. If we don't at least make an effort to learn more about politics in our country, we can only blame ourselves when the elections don't turn out the way we had hoped.
Love and Politics - Why Politicians Cheat
Humans need love
Human beings are naturally prone to seek love, nurturing and self-determination. They are born into love, are surrounded with loving entourages, and continually seek throughout their lives that dose of comfort and serenity that stems from the realization that they're loved, or more simply, admired. Humans need love, and love, as a social epiphenomenon, needs them. Love is, in this case, an epiphenomenon because it is a byproduct of other forms of human interaction, conciliation and reconciliation.
In seeking that utopian comfort of being permanently idolized, people are poised to act on their impulses and react instinctively to protect or maintain that status quo. At all stages of the human adventure, that need for particular attention is preeminent. Think about babies seeking frenetically their parents' attention or adults engaging in extraordinary expressions of feeling to show their jealousy.
Given that the need to be loved is natural, we are ready to accept the assertion that love can - and must be - eternal. Religions and other constructs of faith, beliefs and dogma fulfill that ethos in the sense that they permit us to start believing in an everlasting love, one that will smoothly transition from this terrestrial episode into an after-life occurrence.
Love and politics
Politicians, like most of us, have that intense striving for love and admiration. As any other human, they're willing to resort to arguably reprehensible means to get that admiration. The need for love, that is, the need for approval is peculiarly crucial for politicians because it conditions their electoral existence and survival. They must win votes, that is, they must be lovable enough for citizens to love them and grant them their votes.
Interestingly, those who have a heightened need of admiration are bold enough to utilize any means necessary to reach their goals. They need to manipulate. Politicians are in that category. Social scientists have long argued that politicians need to seduce the electorate continuously to safeguard their political capital. Politics is the science of managing the general good, and in handling that societal responsibility, people in power use various tools to provide law and order, which are pragmatic, down-to-earth, day-to-day necessities, but also idealism, and dreaming, which belong to the realm of imagination but are nonetheless critical.
Politicians mainly use their electoral clout as a catalyst or an advantage in seeking ways to satisfy their basic carnal drives. Sexual harassment procedures are not alien to that category of ways and means; other, less coercive initiatives, may include job promises and business deal preferences.
History shows us that there exists an eerily long panoply of infidelity cases involving politicians, and to a larger extent, people in power - the elite. Romans and Greeks were known to have very 'flexible' matrimonial laws, and historical accounts of European or African social evolutions indicate a propensity for aristocracy to engage in infidelity. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, is believed to have had an extramarital relationship with a slave at Monticello named Sally Hemings.
Careless cheating
Cheating politicians are not a scarce commodity; news commentators and journalists argue that the list of people in power and celebrities guilty of infidelity is longer than currently unveiled. In other words, the cheaters that have gotten caught are just an infinitesimal minority of the entire universe of elected officials.
Communication specialists and celebrity agents are always flabbergasted at the lack of care that some elected officials showcase in handling their affairs and dealing afterwards with infidelity matters, because that behavior is so diametrically opposed to the high sophistication these authorities maintain in managing their public image. Put simply, some politicians are willing to spend millions of dollars on PR campaigns just to get caught later like a teenager in their faithless proceedings.
Nowadays, that question of adulterous carelessness remains open while puzzling political science students. Many social science specialists have contributed their expertise to a body of knowledge that may begin to explain the causal relationship of politician spousal disloyalty. One reason put forward is the intrinsic human instinct: lust. Just as any other human, a politician is driven to carnal desires outside his conjugal realm simply because he or she cannot hold these desires at bay. Simple as that.
Another factor explaining why an elected official is willing to risk all their career in return for a few minutes of romantic episode lies in the quintessential trait of all people in power: the sense of omnipotence. In other words, that feeling of invulnerability, irrespective of the sin committed. This can be seen in recent episodes with former US president's escapades in the White House Oval Office with intern Monica Lewinsky or former New York State governor Elliot Spitzer's interest in prostitute services even though he had been best known for his stern prosecution of those prostitution rings when he served as the state's Attorney General. Even strange was the revelation later that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who was pushing for Clinton's impeachment because of infidelity was also living an adulterous life at the same time!
Some specialists have also suggested that politicians are also prone to infidelity because either they are unhappy in their current relationship or they encounter a high number of solicitations by virtue of their office and the fact that some of these demands can be at times highly pressing. Even though that explanation seeks to discharge politicians from their guilt, it does not provide an explanation as to why they're willing to cede to something that risks destroying in a few minutes or hours an entire career built over decades.
In a modern world dominated by ubiquitous journalism and populated by a diverse cohort of players - bloggers, paparazzi, journalists, "cell-phone camera enabled citizens" - it remains puzzling to try to understand such degree of careless infidelity from these officials.
Cultural differences around the world
Contrary to the United States, England, and a few other countries, infidelity matters involving politicians are not "career-killers". The underlying factor of such a dichotomy is based on the social premise that different cultures view adultery as a private matter which does not necessarily fall into the political realm. Another cultural element also is the fact that some societies ingrained in polygamist or polyandrous traditions view infidelity as a lesser sin. An illustration of this trend is the saga surrounding current Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's private affairs and the indifference voters continuously show thereto in polls.
Do women also cheat?
Political commentators and historians agree that public infidelity of an elected official is mostly undertaken by men. Yet, they posit that women also have their fair share of adulterous affairs but are less likely to be exposed because of their minority in the political universe, the ambient social circumspection regarding female infidelity and the general discretion women are accustomed to in dealing with non-conjugal paramours. The recent case of former Ireland's prime minister's wife - Iris Robinson - involvement in an out-of-wedlock romance may start to debunk that myth.
Marquis Codjia is an MBA-degreed finance professional with a solid, varied risk management experience in the banking and capital markets arena. His areas of interest are geopolitics, the economy and social issues.
Of preeminent import to him are themes relating to North-South geostrategic affairs, the nature and the ability of social wealth to foster sustainable economic advance, the structural pedigree of poverty in (so termed) Third World countries, and lastly, the changing dynamics brought forward by the resurgent (so termed) emerging economies.
Human beings are naturally prone to seek love, nurturing and self-determination. They are born into love, are surrounded with loving entourages, and continually seek throughout their lives that dose of comfort and serenity that stems from the realization that they're loved, or more simply, admired. Humans need love, and love, as a social epiphenomenon, needs them. Love is, in this case, an epiphenomenon because it is a byproduct of other forms of human interaction, conciliation and reconciliation.
In seeking that utopian comfort of being permanently idolized, people are poised to act on their impulses and react instinctively to protect or maintain that status quo. At all stages of the human adventure, that need for particular attention is preeminent. Think about babies seeking frenetically their parents' attention or adults engaging in extraordinary expressions of feeling to show their jealousy.
Given that the need to be loved is natural, we are ready to accept the assertion that love can - and must be - eternal. Religions and other constructs of faith, beliefs and dogma fulfill that ethos in the sense that they permit us to start believing in an everlasting love, one that will smoothly transition from this terrestrial episode into an after-life occurrence.
Love and politics
Politicians, like most of us, have that intense striving for love and admiration. As any other human, they're willing to resort to arguably reprehensible means to get that admiration. The need for love, that is, the need for approval is peculiarly crucial for politicians because it conditions their electoral existence and survival. They must win votes, that is, they must be lovable enough for citizens to love them and grant them their votes.
Interestingly, those who have a heightened need of admiration are bold enough to utilize any means necessary to reach their goals. They need to manipulate. Politicians are in that category. Social scientists have long argued that politicians need to seduce the electorate continuously to safeguard their political capital. Politics is the science of managing the general good, and in handling that societal responsibility, people in power use various tools to provide law and order, which are pragmatic, down-to-earth, day-to-day necessities, but also idealism, and dreaming, which belong to the realm of imagination but are nonetheless critical.
Politicians mainly use their electoral clout as a catalyst or an advantage in seeking ways to satisfy their basic carnal drives. Sexual harassment procedures are not alien to that category of ways and means; other, less coercive initiatives, may include job promises and business deal preferences.
History shows us that there exists an eerily long panoply of infidelity cases involving politicians, and to a larger extent, people in power - the elite. Romans and Greeks were known to have very 'flexible' matrimonial laws, and historical accounts of European or African social evolutions indicate a propensity for aristocracy to engage in infidelity. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, is believed to have had an extramarital relationship with a slave at Monticello named Sally Hemings.
Careless cheating
Cheating politicians are not a scarce commodity; news commentators and journalists argue that the list of people in power and celebrities guilty of infidelity is longer than currently unveiled. In other words, the cheaters that have gotten caught are just an infinitesimal minority of the entire universe of elected officials.
Communication specialists and celebrity agents are always flabbergasted at the lack of care that some elected officials showcase in handling their affairs and dealing afterwards with infidelity matters, because that behavior is so diametrically opposed to the high sophistication these authorities maintain in managing their public image. Put simply, some politicians are willing to spend millions of dollars on PR campaigns just to get caught later like a teenager in their faithless proceedings.
Nowadays, that question of adulterous carelessness remains open while puzzling political science students. Many social science specialists have contributed their expertise to a body of knowledge that may begin to explain the causal relationship of politician spousal disloyalty. One reason put forward is the intrinsic human instinct: lust. Just as any other human, a politician is driven to carnal desires outside his conjugal realm simply because he or she cannot hold these desires at bay. Simple as that.
Another factor explaining why an elected official is willing to risk all their career in return for a few minutes of romantic episode lies in the quintessential trait of all people in power: the sense of omnipotence. In other words, that feeling of invulnerability, irrespective of the sin committed. This can be seen in recent episodes with former US president's escapades in the White House Oval Office with intern Monica Lewinsky or former New York State governor Elliot Spitzer's interest in prostitute services even though he had been best known for his stern prosecution of those prostitution rings when he served as the state's Attorney General. Even strange was the revelation later that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who was pushing for Clinton's impeachment because of infidelity was also living an adulterous life at the same time!
Some specialists have also suggested that politicians are also prone to infidelity because either they are unhappy in their current relationship or they encounter a high number of solicitations by virtue of their office and the fact that some of these demands can be at times highly pressing. Even though that explanation seeks to discharge politicians from their guilt, it does not provide an explanation as to why they're willing to cede to something that risks destroying in a few minutes or hours an entire career built over decades.
In a modern world dominated by ubiquitous journalism and populated by a diverse cohort of players - bloggers, paparazzi, journalists, "cell-phone camera enabled citizens" - it remains puzzling to try to understand such degree of careless infidelity from these officials.
Cultural differences around the world
Contrary to the United States, England, and a few other countries, infidelity matters involving politicians are not "career-killers". The underlying factor of such a dichotomy is based on the social premise that different cultures view adultery as a private matter which does not necessarily fall into the political realm. Another cultural element also is the fact that some societies ingrained in polygamist or polyandrous traditions view infidelity as a lesser sin. An illustration of this trend is the saga surrounding current Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's private affairs and the indifference voters continuously show thereto in polls.
Do women also cheat?
Political commentators and historians agree that public infidelity of an elected official is mostly undertaken by men. Yet, they posit that women also have their fair share of adulterous affairs but are less likely to be exposed because of their minority in the political universe, the ambient social circumspection regarding female infidelity and the general discretion women are accustomed to in dealing with non-conjugal paramours. The recent case of former Ireland's prime minister's wife - Iris Robinson - involvement in an out-of-wedlock romance may start to debunk that myth.
Marquis Codjia is an MBA-degreed finance professional with a solid, varied risk management experience in the banking and capital markets arena. His areas of interest are geopolitics, the economy and social issues.
Of preeminent import to him are themes relating to North-South geostrategic affairs, the nature and the ability of social wealth to foster sustainable economic advance, the structural pedigree of poverty in (so termed) Third World countries, and lastly, the changing dynamics brought forward by the resurgent (so termed) emerging economies.
The Irony of Evangelical Political Growth
Religious influence in politics is nothing new, either in world or American history. In fact, despite the demarcation our Constitution seeks to ensure, there has been a necessary, if uncomfortable, symbiosis between the two. Religion has, at times, been the voice of progress in a sluggish nation, as with the Civil Rights Movement. Religion has at other times been the voice of caution amid a world of uncertainty and violent change, such as in WWII and the Cold War.
Today, the dance has become more entangled and fevered. Nary a day passes without news of an assault by religion onto politics, or politics onto religion, depending upon your perspective. Yet, what makes the interactions between the two so unsettling today is that they seem to indicate something far greater. Something is going on. Skirmish after skirmish lend light to the fact that we are in the middle of something much bigger than ourselves.
Evangelical Christianity, the ubiquitous political voice, wants to tell our country that we are in a war over God. Preferring theocracy to democracy, or at least a church-driven state to the moral morass they believe our one-voice-one-vote system has birthed, evangelical Christianity has galvanized itself, creating a smooth-operating and many-tentacled organism that is powerfully steering the present and future of American politics.
Left-of-center folks scoff at the very mention of a God-war, desiring instead to keep their eye on the political ball. Naively believing that today's politics are just about politics, liberals and left-leaning moderates denounce all talk of God in political conversation.
Today, the dance has become more entangled and fevered. Nary a day passes without news of an assault by religion onto politics, or politics onto religion, depending upon your perspective. Yet, what makes the interactions between the two so unsettling today is that they seem to indicate something far greater. Something is going on. Skirmish after skirmish lend light to the fact that we are in the middle of something much bigger than ourselves.
Evangelical Christianity, the ubiquitous political voice, wants to tell our country that we are in a war over God. Preferring theocracy to democracy, or at least a church-driven state to the moral morass they believe our one-voice-one-vote system has birthed, evangelical Christianity has galvanized itself, creating a smooth-operating and many-tentacled organism that is powerfully steering the present and future of American politics.
Left-of-center folks scoff at the very mention of a God-war, desiring instead to keep their eye on the political ball. Naively believing that today's politics are just about politics, liberals and left-leaning moderates denounce all talk of God in political conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
