Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Moving to new site!

Effective immediately, this will be the blog's new home site:

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

On Tyranny of the Minority

I'm going to introduce another, slightly different, concept. If you know me online and on Facebook, then you've heard me mention it before. The Concept we are going to discuss is "Tyranny of the Minority." For purposes of this article, we are dealing with legislators, and not ordinary citizens.

The Founding Fathers envisioned, and rightfully so in my opinion, "Tyranny of the majority." Where I think they missed the boat is that the political minority (Democrats, Republicans, what have you) can be just as bad.

For starters, a little background and for comparing and contrasting. We'll start with the majority. Tyranny of the majority deals with 3 main components:
1) Pushing through something that, though popular, could be harmful.
2) Suppression of the minority
3) Making sure only THEIR voices are loudest--which is slightly different than the component given immediately above.

In contrast, and also in similarity, tyranny of the minority involves these three points:

1) Stopping something that is essential, such as cabinet or court judges, indefinitely and without asking for something in exchange.
2) Suppression of the majority using various legislative "tricks," such as amendments to kill a bill, to ensure only their voice is being heard.
3) Making sure their voice is loudest.

Folks, this is exactly what gridlock looks like: when both tyrannies come together, there is no escape. Everything goes into a dark abyss from which there is no light. Something needs to give to send this nation in a direction, whatever it may be, in order to lead the average citizens. I'm tired of legislators throwing hissy fits.

Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress and the Presidency, you were elected to lead. Now do so.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

On George Zimmerman and Trial by Media

American media has a nasty habit of trying to sway our opinion, rather than reporting the facts. One may think I am giving George Zimmerman a free ride in saying this. I am not. I believe that only George Zimmerman knows what happens that night, and that the prosecution either did not have the evidence to convict, or did a horrible job of prosecuting him. However, I think that approaching something from a predestined outcome does no one any favors. But let's put Zimmerman aside for a moment.  Within the past couple of years, there have been at least 2 other incidents where the media has swayed public opinion.

The first of these was Casey Anthony. Whether you agree with the outcome or not (I actually don't based on...guess what...media coverage. Do you see the problem here yet?), one can't deny that the media played a large part in swaying public opinion. Before the trial even started, various outlets (including CNN and Nancy Grace) had already pronounced her guilty.

Another, more egregious example (egregious because it has a measurable impact on the public) is the Supreme Court case debating the constitutionality of Obamacare. For Obamacare, again, nearly every media outlet was convinced that it would be struck down. When Chief Justice John Roberts read the decision, both Fox News and CNN (I don't know about MSNBC) even jumped the gun and said it was unconstitutional. But the fact of the matter was, Obamacare was ruled Constitutional and legal. But the larger picture is the impression it left on the public. It had such a lasting impact that some citizens don't even know that it is law.

What is my main point? The main point is that the media, it seems to me, has 3 main responsibilities when covering cases of any sort:

1) Report the facts <-- Done
2) Discuss tactics used by Lawyers <-- done
3) Let us determine our opinion <--FAILED

It is the third one that is routinely ignored by the media. Jurors are supposed to be unbiased. Why can't the media, which ultimately plays a larger role of society's jury, do the same? It is truly no wonder why verdicts surprise most people these days, sometimes dangerously so!

Monday, July 15, 2013

On the Never-Ending Cycles of Government

Harry Reid just announced that he would pursue the so-called "nuclear option" in the Senate, which will end all vote on and force a vote on Obama Cabinet nominees.

...but wait, what? Didn't this happen before with the GOP? Yes. In 2005, the GOP threatened to end filibusters via the very same method, using the "nuclear option." Back then, it was for judicial nominees by the Bush administration.

But the fact of the matter is, someone needs to break that cycle. Someone needs to break this never-ending cycle of what are, essentially, hissy-fits by politicians.

Who could lead that charge? Angus King, and independent, possibly could. Other possibilities are Chris Christie, who has crossed party lines numerous times to work with Obama; and even Andrew Cuomo, who got Republicans in the NY State legislature to *gasp* compromise gun control measures.

Whomever takes charge, something has to to give. And better sooner, rather than later!

On Eliot Spitzer and Second Chances

Well, the slimeball, Eliot Spitzer, is running for NY Comptroller. I urge all those who have a shred of dignity not to vote for him, should he survive his party's primary. Ignoring the sex scandal, candidate's personal lives are not relevant as to whether they can do their job or not.

As Fox News puts it--and I shudder that I actually agree with Fox News--Eliot Spitzer's "trial by media" of Wall Street and insurance companies cost my dad his job. Additionally, he has been sued for libel many times for his columns.

Eliot Spitzer is a slimeball and nothing more. He does NOT deserve a second chance, and I urge Democrats in NY to vote against him in the primary and, if needed, vote against him in the general election.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

On the Morality of the Government and their Programs

Inspired by the recent NSA program revelations, I have decide to address not the scandal itself, but the overall question of morality. Morality is, of course, different from legality. A lie, in itself, can be considered immoral, but become illegal if that lie turns into, for example, fraud.

As far as I am concerned, the NSA program is legal. It was provided for in the Patriot Act. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that, when there is a "clear and present danger," (the patterns the NSA's "box" picks up in regards to who calls whom would reflect this) such programs would, I believe, fall into this category.

But the issue, to me, is not legality. The issue is morality. When governments, any government, any democracy, any dictatorship, etc. impinge legally or illegally on their citizens' rights, they have a moral obligation to reveal that impinging of rights to the public.

As far as what is to be revealed, a simple "hey, we are tracking what you do/say/worship" or any other right that is being impinged upon would be sufficient. This enables the country's citizens to know that they might have to be a little bit more careful, and there is not enough revealed about the program so as to expose it to loopholes and exceptions that criminals might otherwise exploit.

Thus, we, the citizens are better informed and there is a bit of transparency, but not so much so that criminals can exploited.

Saturday, June 15, 2013

My thoughts on Syria

First of all, I apologize for lateness in entry. Let's restart!

Three crucial questions must be answered as we offer more aid to the Syrian rebels:

1) Who are the rebels? Are they Al Qaeda? Are they friendly to the US? Will they be like the Taliban and use the weapons we give them against us? The answer to this question must be, regardless, to put the US and its allies in a situation to limit the blowback that will eventually come to us in some form or another. Additionally, we must not allow the chemical weapons stockpile to get into the rebel's hands if we cannot trust them.

2) Will Bashar Assad leave? If Assad does not wish to leave, it could mean that we are dedicating ourselves to a potentially never-ending conflict unless we put boots on the ground.

3) Finally, what will be our ultimate level of involvement? Will we have boots on the ground? A no-fly zone? Will we send in a drone to kill Assad? Will we in/directly confront Russia and Iran? What is the end game. The list of questions related in this category goeso n and on.

One thing is for certain, Syria could be a deadly guessing game. One wrong move and you can pay forever.