At this point, the candidates have said everything a million times over. We all knew going into this last debate that nothing new was going to be said.
Also, it was a debate that focused mostly on foreign policy, and we already knew what both of the candidates were going to say because of their party affiliations. The debate tonight could have been predicted play by play and nobody would have missed a beat. From the looks of it, I made the right decision in choosing to not watch it and instead spending the night celebrating my friend's birthday.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Political Parties
As we have all heard time and time again, George Washington in his Farewell Address after two terms as President of the United States said to the young nation that political parties and the polarization of the political process would be detrimental to the progress of the country. Despite this advice, political parties developed in the country, and they started to tear people apart, as expected.
However, even though this sounds like it's a bad thing and in light of recent events it seems as though political parties have done nothing but hurt the nation, we should consider the fact that it was probably impossible for political parties to not take root.
People love to identify with a group of other people. The fact that we are social creatures that want to be able to come together under one common cause is a huge factor in the formation of political parties. Very rare is the person that just goes out on their own and does something without the support of others when it comes to politics. They usually want to go in with some sort of following before they do anything because without it, they have no power.
The Republican and Democratic parties that we know today started out as groups of people who had similar ideals who were going to try to push for certain things to get passed through Congress and the rest of the government, while trying to block other things. People made alliances, tried to make strategic moves, do certain things to intimidate, charm, or trick the other side into making a mistake or doing things the way they wanted and just like that, the political process of today was formed.
There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries or any sort of nomination process for someone to run for President. Legally, someone can just meet the qualifications that are spelled out in the Constitution and they can decide one day that they want to run for President. Third party candidates usually take this route and they try to gain a following through grassroots organizations or small groups of people that have a passion for certain things. Third party candidates can also come from failed primary elections, and they can end up running for a third party if they don't make it past the primary stage.
Sadly, third parties don't usually have a good chance of winning elections. As we all know, a third party has never won a presidential election, and there have only been a few of them who have won seats in the Senate and House over the years, but they usually don't last long. Independents and Libertarians are the third parties that have seen some moderate success over the years because they seem to identify with most of the general public. The general public just isn't as informed about these candidates due to the fact that they aren't allowed to participate in the debates.
In short, I believe that third parties need to play a bigger role in the government so that we can be more democratic and can start to appeal to those who don't vote because the two party system doesn't cater to their needs.
However, even though this sounds like it's a bad thing and in light of recent events it seems as though political parties have done nothing but hurt the nation, we should consider the fact that it was probably impossible for political parties to not take root.
People love to identify with a group of other people. The fact that we are social creatures that want to be able to come together under one common cause is a huge factor in the formation of political parties. Very rare is the person that just goes out on their own and does something without the support of others when it comes to politics. They usually want to go in with some sort of following before they do anything because without it, they have no power.
The Republican and Democratic parties that we know today started out as groups of people who had similar ideals who were going to try to push for certain things to get passed through Congress and the rest of the government, while trying to block other things. People made alliances, tried to make strategic moves, do certain things to intimidate, charm, or trick the other side into making a mistake or doing things the way they wanted and just like that, the political process of today was formed.
There is nothing in the Constitution about primaries or any sort of nomination process for someone to run for President. Legally, someone can just meet the qualifications that are spelled out in the Constitution and they can decide one day that they want to run for President. Third party candidates usually take this route and they try to gain a following through grassroots organizations or small groups of people that have a passion for certain things. Third party candidates can also come from failed primary elections, and they can end up running for a third party if they don't make it past the primary stage.
Sadly, third parties don't usually have a good chance of winning elections. As we all know, a third party has never won a presidential election, and there have only been a few of them who have won seats in the Senate and House over the years, but they usually don't last long. Independents and Libertarians are the third parties that have seen some moderate success over the years because they seem to identify with most of the general public. The general public just isn't as informed about these candidates due to the fact that they aren't allowed to participate in the debates.
In short, I believe that third parties need to play a bigger role in the government so that we can be more democratic and can start to appeal to those who don't vote because the two party system doesn't cater to their needs.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Romney on abortion/ "flip flopping" and what it really means.
If anything, this is something Romney can say that he has been consistent on. He hasn't changed his position on this issue from the beginning of this campaign all the way to the end. I saw a bit today on MSNBC about Romney supposedly being a "flip flopper" when it came to the issue of abortion, and it just made me laugh more than anything.
I don't think that any candidate has ever been completely consistent from one end of an election to another. In today's campaign environment, it's almost impossible for someone to be completely the same when it comes to policy throughout the entire process.
A candidate essentially has to run two separate campaigns: one for the primary when they polarize as much as possible without going off the deep end and sounding crazy so that they can win over the people that are actually going to go vote in a primary election (which would be the more polarized members of the electorate), and then one for the general election where they have to move back toward the middle to try and win the swing voters in the more important states.
This is a sad fact because it often means that the candidates have to change their viewpoints and what they say about certain policy over the course of the year due to the extreme cases in the primaries and the more moderate ones in the general election debates.
It's just sad that the majority of the public doesn't understand this fact, so when they see on TV or read online somewhere that Romney or Obama changed their stance on something, they think that that candidate cannot be trusted and must not be a dependable person. In reality, they're just playing the game that they are being forced to play to win votes and hopefully get elected into office.
Finally, I think that we have to consider that candidates are at their core HUMAN BEINGS. They too have experiences and encounters that change their viewpoints on certain things and can influence their worldview. If you have something happen to you that is a major event in your life, it usually changes your view of the world in that area, whatever that may be. If we begin to think of candidates of humans instead of just political robots, we start to see that changing viewpoints and stances might not be something that has to do with integrity or trustworthiness, but might actually be attributed to the fact that they could have a soul.
I don't think that any candidate has ever been completely consistent from one end of an election to another. In today's campaign environment, it's almost impossible for someone to be completely the same when it comes to policy throughout the entire process.
A candidate essentially has to run two separate campaigns: one for the primary when they polarize as much as possible without going off the deep end and sounding crazy so that they can win over the people that are actually going to go vote in a primary election (which would be the more polarized members of the electorate), and then one for the general election where they have to move back toward the middle to try and win the swing voters in the more important states.
This is a sad fact because it often means that the candidates have to change their viewpoints and what they say about certain policy over the course of the year due to the extreme cases in the primaries and the more moderate ones in the general election debates.
It's just sad that the majority of the public doesn't understand this fact, so when they see on TV or read online somewhere that Romney or Obama changed their stance on something, they think that that candidate cannot be trusted and must not be a dependable person. In reality, they're just playing the game that they are being forced to play to win votes and hopefully get elected into office.
Finally, I think that we have to consider that candidates are at their core HUMAN BEINGS. They too have experiences and encounters that change their viewpoints on certain things and can influence their worldview. If you have something happen to you that is a major event in your life, it usually changes your view of the world in that area, whatever that may be. If we begin to think of candidates of humans instead of just political robots, we start to see that changing viewpoints and stances might not be something that has to do with integrity or trustworthiness, but might actually be attributed to the fact that they could have a soul.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Is Romney going to win his own state?
I had a conversation with someone who lives in Massachusetts today and I asked a question that I think we should all ask ourselves, and I think that it points to one of the fundamental problems that we have in our nation today.
Mitt Romney, as most of us know, was governor of the state of Massachusetts before this campaign for President. Being a Republican governor of that state, he seemed to break the trend of Democrats that had been in power for so long before him. The fact that he was elected showed that the people of Massachusetts were willing to compromise and elect someone who was truly the best candidate for the state, regardless of the party affiliation that the state had seemed to maintain for all those years.
However, it seems like he won't be able to win his home state when the votes get tallied in November. The state is increasingly becoming one that is more blue than red, and the bipartisan politics of today seem like they're going to take over and make it impossible for the former governor to win over his own people.
In most elections, the candidate is almost guaranteed to win his home state because of his ties to the constituency, but it's not looking like Romney will be able to pull out a win in this one.
Mitt Romney, as most of us know, was governor of the state of Massachusetts before this campaign for President. Being a Republican governor of that state, he seemed to break the trend of Democrats that had been in power for so long before him. The fact that he was elected showed that the people of Massachusetts were willing to compromise and elect someone who was truly the best candidate for the state, regardless of the party affiliation that the state had seemed to maintain for all those years.
However, it seems like he won't be able to win his home state when the votes get tallied in November. The state is increasingly becoming one that is more blue than red, and the bipartisan politics of today seem like they're going to take over and make it impossible for the former governor to win over his own people.
In most elections, the candidate is almost guaranteed to win his home state because of his ties to the constituency, but it's not looking like Romney will be able to pull out a win in this one.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Debate.
Romney won. I don't think that there is any argument to be made for the other side. He was more confident, assertive, and more commanding than President Obama. He made sure that everyone knew that he was there to stay and that he is a viable option in this election.
I have been getting flak for still saying that my vote is going for a third party candidate. When it comes down to it, my vote doesn't really mean much in the overall scheme, but I still want to voice my opinion about what I want in a candidate, even though that might not be a reasonable and realistic request today.
My voting preference aside, I really think that Romney dominated the debate. I talked to a couple Democrats today that are strong Obama supporters today and they even said that Romney won the debate because of the fact that he kept the President on his heels the whole time. He didn't leave any room to breathe, and he made sure that whenever Obama said something that he got his chance to respond to the attacks, whether that meant bulldozing the moderator or not.
He has obviously been practicing those "zingers" that he talked about for awhile now, and he didn't pull any punches last night. He made it known that he is the candidate that is going to fight for every vote, whatever it takes, down to the last day of the campaign.
I personally thought that he took Newt Gingrich's advice very well and presented himself as a viable option for the presidency in a time when the different things that he has said in the past couple weeks has started to make it seem like he wasn't.
I literally got giddy every time he said something about returning the power to the states because they can better deal with things like entitlements because they are closer to their constituents and can better formulate a plan that fits the people in their state. Private organizations also came into the discussion when they talked about stuff like entitlements, and that made me very happy as well.
Romney, well done. If you were a little more moderate on social issues, I would probably vote for you.
Tweet me with suggestions.
I have been getting flak for still saying that my vote is going for a third party candidate. When it comes down to it, my vote doesn't really mean much in the overall scheme, but I still want to voice my opinion about what I want in a candidate, even though that might not be a reasonable and realistic request today.
My voting preference aside, I really think that Romney dominated the debate. I talked to a couple Democrats today that are strong Obama supporters today and they even said that Romney won the debate because of the fact that he kept the President on his heels the whole time. He didn't leave any room to breathe, and he made sure that whenever Obama said something that he got his chance to respond to the attacks, whether that meant bulldozing the moderator or not.
He has obviously been practicing those "zingers" that he talked about for awhile now, and he didn't pull any punches last night. He made it known that he is the candidate that is going to fight for every vote, whatever it takes, down to the last day of the campaign.
I personally thought that he took Newt Gingrich's advice very well and presented himself as a viable option for the presidency in a time when the different things that he has said in the past couple weeks has started to make it seem like he wasn't.
I literally got giddy every time he said something about returning the power to the states because they can better deal with things like entitlements because they are closer to their constituents and can better formulate a plan that fits the people in their state. Private organizations also came into the discussion when they talked about stuff like entitlements, and that made me very happy as well.
Romney, well done. If you were a little more moderate on social issues, I would probably vote for you.
Tweet me with suggestions.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Prisoner's rights
I had to write a reaction paper on something that the ACLU had taken up arms over. I chose two topics, Internet censorship and prisoner's rights. I feel like everyone has beat the Internet censorship thing to death over the past couple years, so I'll talk about the rights of prisoners, or lack thereof.
To start off, I want to say that the vast majority of prisoners have committed a crime, broken a law, and are there for a reason. I believe in the system that we have in place enough to say that the percentage of inmates that we have in the prison system nationwide that are completely and totally innocent of the crime that we have them in there for is pretty low, and the percentage of those who are innocent that got off with something else earlier in their life is pretty high. They are in there because they made a choice. Even if they didn't do something and got framed, they were hanging around with the wrong people and got themselves into a situation where they could be held accountable for something illegal that they didn't do.
That said, I think that since they are in prison, they should not have the same rights as someone who abides by the laws that society has put in place. We used to have a prison system that was very harsh. It was not a fun place to go. We did not treat our prisoners very fairly and didn't treat them well. They were beaten severely for petty offenses, some died because of starvation and disease, etc. These were problems that we remedied, but then we went and took it a step further.
We started to give them free dental care and health care while they were inside. Then along with just the basic vocational training courses that they could receive that would help them to assimilate back into society, we started to help to pay for them to get an education. Those are tax dollars from the American public that are going to make sure that a prisoner has a filling put in because he's in pain. That money could be spent better elsewhere. If someone who murdered a family member, friend, coworker, etc. in cold blood doesn't get to have three square meals a day, then I don't know if I would really lose any sleep over it. Some people that get out of prison can't wait until they are back on the inside because they are being provided with things that they would have to work for to get on the outside. They don't want to have to work and get an honest job, so they just steal, murder, sell drugs, prostitute themselves and other things so that they can get back into prison and have a simple life again.
When they try to stand up and say that have rights, I say to them: why didn't you think about that before you went and broke the law? If you are going to violate the rights of those around you and stick your middle finger up to the system that puts laws in place to protect your rights and the rights of the people around you, then why should you still be able to enjoy those rights after you do something like that?
I'm open to hear some arguments, please tweet me @CBMARTIST if you have suggestions for another post or want to debate openly about this topic or something that I've posted before.
To start off, I want to say that the vast majority of prisoners have committed a crime, broken a law, and are there for a reason. I believe in the system that we have in place enough to say that the percentage of inmates that we have in the prison system nationwide that are completely and totally innocent of the crime that we have them in there for is pretty low, and the percentage of those who are innocent that got off with something else earlier in their life is pretty high. They are in there because they made a choice. Even if they didn't do something and got framed, they were hanging around with the wrong people and got themselves into a situation where they could be held accountable for something illegal that they didn't do.
That said, I think that since they are in prison, they should not have the same rights as someone who abides by the laws that society has put in place. We used to have a prison system that was very harsh. It was not a fun place to go. We did not treat our prisoners very fairly and didn't treat them well. They were beaten severely for petty offenses, some died because of starvation and disease, etc. These were problems that we remedied, but then we went and took it a step further.
We started to give them free dental care and health care while they were inside. Then along with just the basic vocational training courses that they could receive that would help them to assimilate back into society, we started to help to pay for them to get an education. Those are tax dollars from the American public that are going to make sure that a prisoner has a filling put in because he's in pain. That money could be spent better elsewhere. If someone who murdered a family member, friend, coworker, etc. in cold blood doesn't get to have three square meals a day, then I don't know if I would really lose any sleep over it. Some people that get out of prison can't wait until they are back on the inside because they are being provided with things that they would have to work for to get on the outside. They don't want to have to work and get an honest job, so they just steal, murder, sell drugs, prostitute themselves and other things so that they can get back into prison and have a simple life again.
When they try to stand up and say that have rights, I say to them: why didn't you think about that before you went and broke the law? If you are going to violate the rights of those around you and stick your middle finger up to the system that puts laws in place to protect your rights and the rights of the people around you, then why should you still be able to enjoy those rights after you do something like that?
I'm open to hear some arguments, please tweet me @CBMARTIST if you have suggestions for another post or want to debate openly about this topic or something that I've posted before.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Participation
The voting population in the United States is dwindling with every year that passes. Not the population of people who can vote, but those who choose to vote. This is a sad fact, considering how much fighting there has been in the past over the right to vote.
Since arriving on campus, I have had numerous conversations with kids about who they support in the next presidential election. Those of them who haven't just completely blown me off have told me some very surprising things in some cases, and have given legitimate reasons for why they would vote the way that they would, and why they believe the way that they do. Then they get to the part where they would actually have to vote for someone, and they go silent. They don't want to actually show up on election day and go to the polls to vote for someone that they believe in.
This is a growing problem in the United States. It's scary because this has been a part of our culture for so long, and we are starting to lose it rapidly. If we don't vote, then the people who we truly support won't get elected, and then the people won't be accurately represented, which is the point of the government that the Founding Fathers instituted. This democratic republic that we live in depends on the participation of it's voting populations to go out and to voice their opinions not just through the picket signs and the protests, but also through the polling booths. People can sit online and read through the news all day long and try to discern the truth from the lies, but if they don't go and vote for who they truly believe to be the best candidate for them at the end of the day, then what was all that research for?
Protesting and writing letters to Congress is something that is important if you want to be politically involved in this country, but voting is a huge part of that involvement as well. Some may say that your vote doesn't count that much, and that may be the case. However, my view on the matter is that if you didn't vote at all but had the chance to, and you don't like the way that the country is being run at the moment, then you have no room to complain.
So please, if you are reading this and you are 18 years of age or older, please go and vote this November, and make sure that your voice is heard.
The Entitlement State
I had a discussion with my American Government class the other day about the government's role in reducing the amount of poverty that we have in our nation.
First off, let me say that I do care about the issue of poverty in our country. It is a problem that needs to be addressed and the amount of people in poverty in the United States, considering that we are a civilized, Western nation is appalling. However, I think that there are different means of bringing down the poverty numbers besides the way that we are going about it today.
However, the amount of money that we spend yearly on programs that benefit the elderly and the poor is astounding. Some of that money is going toward the people that it should be, and some of it is not. I don't want to get into the elitist debate of "those people" not working for anything in their life and just taking from the government and not spending it well, but that does happen. The cases are few where the individual pulls out an iPhone or the latest smart phone and then pays for their food with the government food stamp card, but again, it does happen.
This country was founded upon the idea that you could change the way your life was going if you wanted to. You could work for what you needed, and if all you ever got was enough to support your family through a roof over your head and food on the table, then you would be content with that. Nowadays, people need television, cell phones, free time, movie tickets, cars, and things that didn't used to be necessities, and now have become just that. We have moved from a society that valued the intangibles to one where material possessions now rule people's lives. Appearance is everything, and some people will literally run themselves into the ground financially if it means keeping up those appearances.
We cannot be content anymore with just the basic needs being met. In some ways, this is a good thing. In business, going above and beyond the call of duty is always encouraged because it can lead to huge breakthroughs and advancements for the company the individual is working for. However, the basic needs being met is something that we need to settle for when it comes to whether or not we should intervene and give someone government aid.
There are some people with extraordinary stories that literally cannot provide for themselves, no matter how hard they try to. Those are the people that would need to be helped. This is a very hard thing to do because if that were to be instituted, we would have to evaluate everyone on a case by case basis and make sure that the case stayed the same and they weren't lying about any of the circumstances that they say they were facing. The system becomes more convoluted and more complex as we move deeper, but the root of the problem lies in the mentality of the public. Not just of the lower 50%, but of the upper 50% as well.
Those who have more than enough need to pitch in. Not in terms of taxes, but in terms of public service and charity. If there were more private organizations providing aid to people who truly need it, then we wouldn't have a huge problem with the amount of money that we're spending each year on the programs that we use to combat poverty. Human nature is selfish, but humans also feel better when they engage in charitable activity. If the CEO of WalMart would come down from the ivory tower once in a while and actually go out and do some community service and give some money to the people that need it on the streets instead of only going to that part of town when there was a good photo opportunity, then this issue of poverty would not be as much of an issue.
To be honest, I think that the privatization of most state-run programs would be a huge step forward. If these programs like the food stamps and welfare programs were run by private organizations, they have a bottom line. They have to make sure that they don't lose money, so they will do whatever they can to prevent fraud in their system. If someone is fraudulently using the money that they are giving to them, then the supply will be cut and legal action will be taken. EFFICIENCY is the name of the game, and government organizations just don't have a general track record of overall efficiency.
Last off, I'll point out something that I saw on Rock Center with Brian Williams this past Thursday night. There are some schools that are taking on a program now that doesn't reward kids for mediocre work. They are only rewarded and praised when they truly work hard and achieve the goals that have been set for them. They are docked points when they act with immaturity and are also docked points when they do poorly. Grades are harsher, and the teachers are not as inclined to say that everybody won and give out gold stars like water. These kids are being brought up differently in an age when it is considered to be too harsh for a kid to go to a sports banquet at the end of a season and not get a trophy just like everybody else. When my Dad was in high school, he got a trophy at the end of the season if he had done something above and beyond to achieve it. These methods of teaching kids that mediocrity will still get you something in life is ruining the foundation of hard work and of perseverance in this country, and curriculums and programs like this one will work to bring that old sentiment back to life.
Tweet me @CBMARTIST if you have any suggestions about what to talk about. I also have a music blog that is at cbmartist.blogspot.com if you want to check that out.
This country was founded upon the idea that you could change the way your life was going if you wanted to. You could work for what you needed, and if all you ever got was enough to support your family through a roof over your head and food on the table, then you would be content with that. Nowadays, people need television, cell phones, free time, movie tickets, cars, and things that didn't used to be necessities, and now have become just that. We have moved from a society that valued the intangibles to one where material possessions now rule people's lives. Appearance is everything, and some people will literally run themselves into the ground financially if it means keeping up those appearances.
We cannot be content anymore with just the basic needs being met. In some ways, this is a good thing. In business, going above and beyond the call of duty is always encouraged because it can lead to huge breakthroughs and advancements for the company the individual is working for. However, the basic needs being met is something that we need to settle for when it comes to whether or not we should intervene and give someone government aid.
There are some people with extraordinary stories that literally cannot provide for themselves, no matter how hard they try to. Those are the people that would need to be helped. This is a very hard thing to do because if that were to be instituted, we would have to evaluate everyone on a case by case basis and make sure that the case stayed the same and they weren't lying about any of the circumstances that they say they were facing. The system becomes more convoluted and more complex as we move deeper, but the root of the problem lies in the mentality of the public. Not just of the lower 50%, but of the upper 50% as well.
Those who have more than enough need to pitch in. Not in terms of taxes, but in terms of public service and charity. If there were more private organizations providing aid to people who truly need it, then we wouldn't have a huge problem with the amount of money that we're spending each year on the programs that we use to combat poverty. Human nature is selfish, but humans also feel better when they engage in charitable activity. If the CEO of WalMart would come down from the ivory tower once in a while and actually go out and do some community service and give some money to the people that need it on the streets instead of only going to that part of town when there was a good photo opportunity, then this issue of poverty would not be as much of an issue.
To be honest, I think that the privatization of most state-run programs would be a huge step forward. If these programs like the food stamps and welfare programs were run by private organizations, they have a bottom line. They have to make sure that they don't lose money, so they will do whatever they can to prevent fraud in their system. If someone is fraudulently using the money that they are giving to them, then the supply will be cut and legal action will be taken. EFFICIENCY is the name of the game, and government organizations just don't have a general track record of overall efficiency.
Last off, I'll point out something that I saw on Rock Center with Brian Williams this past Thursday night. There are some schools that are taking on a program now that doesn't reward kids for mediocre work. They are only rewarded and praised when they truly work hard and achieve the goals that have been set for them. They are docked points when they act with immaturity and are also docked points when they do poorly. Grades are harsher, and the teachers are not as inclined to say that everybody won and give out gold stars like water. These kids are being brought up differently in an age when it is considered to be too harsh for a kid to go to a sports banquet at the end of a season and not get a trophy just like everybody else. When my Dad was in high school, he got a trophy at the end of the season if he had done something above and beyond to achieve it. These methods of teaching kids that mediocrity will still get you something in life is ruining the foundation of hard work and of perseverance in this country, and curriculums and programs like this one will work to bring that old sentiment back to life.
Tweet me @CBMARTIST if you have any suggestions about what to talk about. I also have a music blog that is at cbmartist.blogspot.com if you want to check that out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)