Arnold for President ?

There is a serious move afoot to introduce a constitutional amendment that would permit foreign born US citizens to be President of the United States. Really. No kiddin'.

Sen Orrin Hatch of Utah is pushing this in the Senate right now, and many observers say it has a fair chance of making it out to the states for ratification.

I ask, why?

I have not yet decided whether this is motivated by a desire to keep the US government up to date, or whether it is an attempt to modify the rules to give a high profile potential candidate a crack at the top job. (I have to wonder if this would be happening were this person a democrat). After all, he is the Governor of one of the (reputedly) liberal states, any republican who can swing that has something going for him or her. it has happened before you know, and that president was enormously popular.

This is something worth debating. When the issue comes up, (and it might), ask aloud what the benefits of such an amendment would be. Imagine the situation if the amendment stipulated that it would not take effect for fifty years after ratification. Would it still be a good idea?

The party in the majority is becoming a bit brash in the approach to the rule of law and ethics. Ask Tom DeLay about that, I am sure he has a nice pat answer for the question.

what's it gonna take? part 2

It suffices to say that the party that runs against a lot of things but for nothing in particular is not going to do real well next time out. A viable platform is crucial. Ask yourself, "what are the three most pressing problems facing this country today?" Then come up with an idea to eliminate or mitigate that problem. Some, (but not all) of my issues are:

(listed in no particular order)

global warming. the US will be hit a lot harder by this issue than many countries, as we are the most dependent on a manufacturing and service economy, and, we generate the lions share of the cause of this problem, the use of fossil fuels for our energy needs.
what the nation needs, and soon, is a program to build more "renewable resource" energy plants, as well as a nuclear infrastructure. yes, I know, nuclear energy is bad and causes all kinds of other issues, but these are more likely to be slower at catching up with us, and we need to get on track with this problem right now!

the complexity of government: ya think?
I am not concerned with the size or scope of the government as much as I am the complexity of dealing with it at any level. if the trend does not chance, we will all become subservient to a thing, rather than a ruling class or despot.

what's it gonna take? part 1 of a whole bunch...

I realize that the election is just over, and that anything can happen between now and the next one, but I ask myself, what will it take to give me a sense of progress in the country for myself and for the general class of people that I associate myself with.

Let me say from the outset that I am not particularly enamored of either political party, and that I generally vote for the candidate or platform that I feel will do the most good at that particular time. Those things said, I don't care if the label that the next congress and president carries is democrat or republican. As a realist, it will be a much colder day in hell if the repubs adopt a program that I find palatable than if the dem's do it, so I will aim my sage advice in that direction, and let whoever use it or discard it as they see fit.

The nation is divided over a set of small and relatively insignificant labels, chiefly liberal and conservative. That these words are grossly abused and misused is obvious to me, and I hope to those who read this blog. If labels are required in this day and age, the party that wins the next election should adopt a new one, and make it stick. Progressive comes to mind, but that word is also subject to a good deal of torquing and twisting. In any event, new platforms are needed, and the party that fails to produce a viable plan to accomplish basic goals should be chastised severely and penalized at the ballot box.

The issues that seem to get the press during an election cycle are those that should have been taken care of long ago. It seems to me that there are limits to freedom and liberty, specifically the imposition of rules and constraints on the freedom and liberty of others. Examples of this abound in everyday life, we all have to make little compromises here and there and we do so, mainly because not doing so, even on principle, is more harmful than the compromise. In this spirit, I suggest that the new political reality needs to address the following issues:

1) the debate over abortion. the terms "freedom to choose" and "right-to-life" are both inaccurate and counter-productive, not to mention inflammatory. why not push a platform of minding ones own business? there is no right to a legal, safe, abortion stated or implied in any law or statute, the driving factor is that these (and presumably other) things are not a valid legal basis for investigating and interfering in the affairs of an individual under the right to privacy enunciated in Roe v. Wade. the right to privacy is a limit on the power of government to impose an agenda, however narrow or broad, on the individual.

2) the right to keep and bear arms. this should have been settled when the second amendment was adopted, but I suppose that there is money to be made and political capital to be amassed by stirring up the masses on either side of this issue. I have a mental picture of Charleston Heston in the role of Prof. Harold Hill, bemoaning all the troubles in River City. at the same time, I see an image of Ted Kennedy as Clarence Darrow, defending the imperative that government must protect the people against dangerous notions and possibilities. there does not appear to be any debate on the the legality of the improper use of firearms, so what is the issue?

as a side note to the second amendment, I do believe that there must be a consensus on where the line is drawn in terms of keeping and bearing arms. what if an individual owns a bazooka?
a flamethrower? a shoulder fired SAM? biological or chemical toxins? not too many folks would argue that these things are a bit beyond the pale in your basic rights argument, but they are armaments nonetheless, and, as is sometimes argued, they might actually be needed if the people were to rise in revolt against a tyrannical government.

3) religious freedom and public education. wow. where does one start on this one? there needs to be a dialogue and a censuses on what constitutes "promotion of religion" by a governmental body or agency. prayer in schools? let me be brief. who cares? if you have a problem with it, then work around it, teach your kids not to participate in a respectful way, but do not try to impose a religious agenda on everyone else by calling it a "non-religous" agenda.
if your kids are intelligent enough to read about the issue and possibly to write or talk about it in a coherent manner, then move on, the schools are doing what they are there to do, and the various little cultural things that happen are insignificant.

4) gay rights. ahem. as I dive into this quagmire, I will merely say that government needs to separate cultural considerations from tax policies. when that is done, see item 1 above.

the war on terror

where did it go? you know, the challenge facing the newest "greatest generation". we are embroiled in a conflict in the general vicinity of where we, as a whole, perceive the terror battleground to be, but the war on terror has pretty much petered out. in my opinion, (at least today), it is likely to fade from view, barring another major incident on US soil, its usefulness having been harvested in the election earlier this month.

does anyone know why we have not captured and brought to justice the man that we vilify as the personification of evil in the world, Osama bin Laden? I believe that it is because of the nuclear issue. al Quaida may or may not possess weapons of this particular ilk, but the uncertainty of that is proving to be a strong deterrent to the capture of the man. it is widely believed that Osama is in Pakistan, operating from the soil of one of America's staunchest allies in this faux war, and a known nuclear power in the region. it is known and has been widely reported in the past year that many of the leading scientists and administrators of that nations weapons program have assisted such states as Iran and North Korea in the pursuit of the relative security that comes with owning ones own WMD.

where am I going with this? I think that what has stopped the US from making an incursion into Pakistan is the fact that though the Pakistani government would howl, it would likely do little to hinder such operations, but it is unable to ensure that its citizens, (specifically those with physical access to the weapons inventory), would not take the matter into their own hands, and either use, or pass such a weapon to parties that would use it.

the ramifications of this notion are sobering indeed, no matter where one stands on the political landscape. that Osama should be brought to justice is not in question here. I wonder today how far we are willing to go to defend our right and/or obligation to accomplish that.

now is a good time to become a Republican

seriously. if an individual wants to make a difference, to really have his or her voice heard, it is a good time to join the party, register to vote under that affilliation, and attend meetings. the term 'democrat' and 'republican', like 'liberal' and 'conservative', mean absolutely nothing. the repub's will take you if you aren't a screaming fanatic, and real change, (as real as it can be), might be effected from within the party, rather than in an electoral contest where ties go to the defenders, and the glibbest, best bankrolled candidates win. in the end, does it matter if ones goals are achieved by people calling themselves democrats or republicans?

more on this as I sober up.

now wasn't that interesting....

well, the election is over and we face four more years of politics as usual. before I go any further, let me say that there is an interesting piece in the SF paper today analyzing briefly the reason why the dem's lost so badly. you can see it here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/07/EDGQQ9M33Q1.DTL


the reason that we lost is because we ran against something, (assuming that it was a given the W is a dork. he is, but there was not a solid alternative, except a dork who would f**k up differently), instead of for something, (a solid agenda addressing those issues deemed most pressing). it is time for the dem's to do some soul searching and prioritize the issues that matter, knowing all the while that they will not make everybody in the party happy. that's the way things go. has to be done, no alternative, except the continuation of a losing record. in order for this to happen, a leader must emerge, quickly, who has no aspirations to the White House. this person must build some political credibility and push for a truly progressive agenda, (by definition, one that will satisfy some of the core priorities of both parties). Howard Dean comes to mind. if his days of running for anything are over, he could be a powerful voice for the centrist portion of the party, (and despite the labels he has been painted with, he is a centrist).

and just WHAT do you WANT?

today is election day. I have just returned home from work, stopping to cast my ballot on the way. like many people, I voted for the lesser of two evils. I don't expect much in the way of progress for the nation or for me as an individual however this thing goes, but that remains to be seen.

I dont have a solid agenda to pursue as I blog away, so, let me say that the opinions expressed here are those of a deranged nut, and may at times be abrasive to some, (but I will try to keep that at a minimum). this publication may also include a few little bits of minutia and fluff from time to time. I might brag or complain about who knows what. everybody else does, why not me?

have fun. feel free to post opinions or comments. I will feel free to plagiarize or ignore them.

for any of you so inclined....

every now and then, I listen to some nice, well-aged, vintage Grateful Dead music. this is a link to a site offering a concert from October 30, 1977. pretty decent sound, decent performance as well. the download is available in a couple of formats.

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=12316