Looks Like Warren, Michigan Has a Good Mayor

Imagine the following situation:
You are going 45 in a 40, on your way to an important meeting. All of a sudden, you see those dreaded blue and red lights in your mirror. Shit, you are going to be late. The cop pulls you over and tells you that you were speeding. You explain the situation, and then he lets you off with a warning. Most of us would be happy about this, and we would probably even brag. That is not how a mayor in Warren, Michigan responded to it however. (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_7735/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=HFAgurKX)


So, this mayor decided that he felt guilty not getting the ticket, and so he decided to call the cops and request one. He figured that it could be seen as favoritism, and thus he made the proper choice I know, most of us would think that this dude was batshit insane, but, frankly, it is good that he took the punishment that he deserved.

Most of us get mad when we are punished. We feel that we don't deserve it, that they were waiting just for us, and/or that the Government is out to get us. Personal responsibility is usually thrown out of the window, and that is what happens with tickets normally. In this case, however, the Mayor knew that he was responsible, and he made sure to suffer what he sowed. I really like the fact that a person was so concerned with right and wrong that he requested the proper punishment. This dude rocks

Even more impressive is that this comes from a politician. Far too often, our 'leader' decide that they are above the law. A simply look at Blago, Clinton, Bush, or Spitzer shows this trend. Finally there is a politician, though he is only a small town mayor, that is standing up and doing the proper, and moral thing. All the power to him. I believe that this mayor should run for Govenor.
Read more ...

Will there be change, Part 2

Stephen D. Krasner - the political scientist, the Stanford Professor, the former Director of Policy Planning at US DoS – is apparently the only polysci author who actually has a strong sense of humor. While writing “Are Bureaucracies Important?”, which was a direct response to Graham T. Allison's “Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, Krasner decided to add a nifty little subtitle. “Allison Wonderland” is a clever little play on words that goes to show that at least one polysci writer has a sense of humor.

Anyways, moving onto the real topic for today...

In this essay, Krasner asks a very interesting question, one that I will attempt to answer in a very basic and non-complex manner:
“What sense to vote a man out of office when his successor, regardless of his values, will be trapped in the same web of only incrementally mutable standard operating procedures?”



Personally, I find very little stock in this actual idea. We can already see the vast policy differences between Obama and Bush, and they have only switched office for a day or so. We can see that Obama is actively attempting to remove the 'harmful' foreign policy decisions that Bush instated, and we can see that there is already a fight brewing over this. There is a clear and obvious change with every president, not just in staff, but in attitude. Looking at various ones, we can argue that it is more there attitude then position that causes the changes.

But is the Obama/Bush switch really a good candidate to analyze this?
As with all data, there will be outliers. From Lincoln to FDR to Obama, there have been only a few presidents that drastically changed the status quo. I believe that this is not what Krasner was looking at; it seems as though he was actually looking at most of our leaders, the ones who do not attack the standard. With that in mind, we can toss out the above mentioned changes...

So, instead we must focus on the small changes, but mainly on those that switched parties, as that is the best way to analyze what Krasner contended.

Was there a drastic change between Bush and Clinton? No, as Bush himself changed the Reagan policies to be more liberal. The dramatic change did not happen, it was slow and in the middle of one admin.. Yet, somehow we vote Bush out based solely on the idea that Clinton would change things up.

What about between Clinton and Bush take two? Not really, it wasn't until a drastic act changed the world that the real change became clear. As far as I know (based on Wag the Dog) Clinton would have acted roughly the same as Bush. Yet, somehow, we considered the election of Bush to be a mandate and bringer of change. The change that Bush brought to the equation came quite slowly, as it didn't foment until late 2002-early 2003.

As one of the Gaia regulars, PockyBot, would say, the NWO/the Elite actually control the politicians already (see my disclaimer at the bottom of the 9/11 post). As much as I disagree with this statement, I think that it has some bearings of truth. The elite do, in a way, control our leaders as they are the main path to the ears. They are the top brass, they are the top diplomats, they are the top thinkers. They are not in some large conspiracy, nor doing this out of their own interests, but they are controlling it simply to keep the status quo.

The status quo needs to be preserved. It keeps the country running smoothly and makes sure that everything is tested long before it is implemented. This sort of system keeps us alive, and it keeps our country alive. That said, however, how can there be change if the elite, AND THE COUNTRY, want to keep the status quo?

The answer, quite frankly, is that they can't

But what if they have a different philosophy?
This is actually the most important challenge to this position. Philosophies matter, a ton, but are they actually important? We elect based simply on the philosophy part, because we have already seen that the change doesn't happen. Sure, Obama is going in all ready to change how everything is done. So did Congress in 2006, and guess what, nothing changed. The philosophical differences are important, but they do not seem to change how the overall system works.


So, I have to agree with Krasner, it seems as though the overall policy of each politician will in the end be no different then that of the previous one. Too many outside factors impact each and every leader. Sure, Obama is going in with high hopes and plans on changing the World. The question is, will the World let him change it?




What do you guys all think? Read more ...

Will there be change, part 1

Before I start I would like to point out that we need to come together and respect President Bush. Sure, I disagreed with most of his policies, but he was still my President. Far too often in politics we lack the respect that we owe to these people. These people live inside of a fishbowl for years just to serve us. Sure, they have power and money, but they do this for us. We owe them a great deal of gratitude, and we should actually honor them for this.
I am just so sick of seeing the disrespect that we give to our fellow humans, let alone our leaders.

Today was a day of change, a day of great celebration. Yet, it was also a day of mourning and sadness. We replaced one leader for another in the act that made America so special. That is, we switched parties with no violence. We replaced one president, Mr Bush with another, Mr Obama. For all pomp and circumstance, was there actually much of a change?

I am not going to go into much detail today (will get into large amounts of detail on Friday) but I really want to know what you guys are thinking. Will this 'change' actually occur? Or, are the same influences going to be applied to both?

Will create a full entry on this for Friday, but until then, think about it...


Now, go out and have fun celebrating this great day.
Read more ...

A Response To "Republicans: It’s time to hang it up"... About The Right Splitting

Before I start, I would like to show you a quotation from my entry endorsing Obama for President. In this quote, I show you exactly what I think of third parties. Keep this in mind when you start reading my response to The Ohio Republic:

" To start this off, I would like to first talk briefly about third party candidates. Both Ralph Nader and Bob Barr and the who string of other candidates have no overall chance of winning this election. At most, third parties will pull in 5% or so ALL TOGETHER. This means that a vote for a third party is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote AGAINST your favorite mainstream candidate. That said, lets chat briefly about what third parties actually do. Third parties usually are very similar to a mainstream party, just they have one big difference. When that difference (their campaign base) gets enough attention and support, it jumps to the mainstream parties. Basically, third parties are vetting parties for new and interesting ideas. They should be allowed to get local power, but never national."

Over on The Ohio Republic, Harold has a post about the potential split in the Republican party that he sees occurring soon. I am going to be quoting his entry, so that I can respond below, and per the terms on the bottom of his blog, I need to include this:

"Permission is granted to use contents of this blog (except feeds copyrighted by their originators), provided that this copyright notice appears with the item used, and the use is not for profit."

"The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration)."

Claiming Hoover as an example of your party, or your own position, is probably not a good thing to do. That said, I agree that the old-school republicans, of which I do respect and enjoy, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The main point of a paleoconservative is mostly laze-fare in both social and business aspects. Furthermore, they should only care about the countries well being, making sure that we do not run into debt and that we are ready to defend ourselves. A true paleoconservative will only wish to go to war when either our country is attacked or if there is clear evidence that we NEED to go to war to protect ourselves. This is the position a lot of our founding fathers were, and this is a decent/good position.

"Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent. "

While I would not place Roosevelt, or even Nixon, with Reagan or Bush, I agree that the same fiscal sense as the paleoconservatives, while an invasion into the personal sphere, is the trademark of this group. To me, neoconservativisim is not a good position to be in, as it forces your believes (usually religious) upon the country. Additionally, the odds of being able to get our message around the world without going into debt (the fiscal republican part) is very unlikely. How can we have a war without a huge waste of money? Basically, I contend that their secondary goal, makes the neoconservatives lose their primary goal.

"The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible. "

The Republicans have weathered worse storms then this. When Lincoln left the party, they still were able to reform shortly there-after. I can not see that the party will fall due to only this issue. Frankly, at the start of the election season, I agreed that they would, but at the end, I thought the Democrats would.

"Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.
The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad. "

The Democratic party is splitting more than the Republicans are. Frankly, I see both extremes breaking off, and a new 'moderate' party forming with 20% from both camps. The old-school democrats are getting more and more alienated from their party as the far-left (huffpo, moveon, etc.) become the mainstay of the party. That said, as the Democrat party is the oldest party in US politics, I see this party as being stable and continuous.

"A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only. "

I sure as hell hope that Ron Paul will never get his own party. While I like the idea of this populist party, it is clear that this is simple old school republicans. Frankly, this is how the party was before Reagan, and this is what I think it should return to. Due to its previous existence for decades (right after the fall of the Whigs, until Reagan), this party would probably still be very stable. Hell, I would be a republican if it went back to this system.

That said, Rob Paul would not be the leader of this; Paul is in no way a supporter of social freedoms. Additionally, he is not for a strong national defense, nor does he have good economic plans. For more on Ron Paul, refer to my entry regarding him.

"The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative. "

To me, this party would be one of the worst things that we could have in the American political system. After all, why would we want a party that specifically aims to violate the Constitution. Don't we already have the Constitution Party for that? My biggest question to this party would be how they could justify a pro-life social policy, but an anti-life foreign policy, policy? Unlike the previous two parties, I can not see the neoconservatives as being a stable party. After all, any small party that is targeting only one specific area, will become redundant and thus loose votes. By doing this, the CC would regulate themselves to tiny-party status.

...

"I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about. "

The reason that more than two parties do not last is the way that our system is set up. With a winner take all system, it is best to try and keep your party stable, and thus not on the fringes. Any third party is on the fringes, and when it becomes mainstream, it gets taken by one of the two players. This works very well as it allows vetting, and socializing, of the more "extreme" ideas before they come to the center.

Overall, I do agree that the religious right (neoconservatives) will be splitting from the Republican party sooner or later. I do not think that they will form their own group, but that they will promptly align themselves with already existing groups. The Constitution Party, and other third parties, would be a good fit for these former Republicans.

Read more ...