Usually in my posts (all two thus far), I will report on some current event, adding my "two cents," and either offer constructive criticism or complain and offer some possibilities of remedying the situation. This post probably will not be too constructive or have too many remedies. This post is just going to be some facts, events, or societal mainstays that I lament, or whose ruining I lament.
We have recently been reminded, at least in Pennsylvania, that politicians, in my opinion more so than the average man (not to say every single politician, but a majority) are only after two things: their own increasing benefit and a continuing government office. Case and point: the recent action of newly elected Tom Corbett. Many Pennsylvanians, myself included, turned to Mr. Corbett to make drastic budgetary cuts across the board in order to remove us from the opulent spending of our previous governor, and over time bring us back into the black, as the saying goes. Unfortunately, the Governor has not done that. He HAS made dramatic cuts to the budget, but he did not cut, or even try to mention cutting anything from the legislature's salary or benefits or from his own office, which is spending a mere one percent less than Rendell while having about half as many person to pay. Having been the Attorney General of Pennsylvania before taking over as governor, our governor could have impressed all of Pennsylvania by taking a small pay cut, maybe as high as ten percent, and still be taking a pay raise from his former post. Sorrowfully, our governor has...well he didn't disappoint Pennsylvania, but he certainly did not raise our expectation of future politicians.
In reality, Pennsylvania shouldn't even have a full-time, paid legislature. We should have something more akin to Texas, who give their legislators a small salary and benefits, but not enough to sustain them for their term, which forces them to keep their jobs for at least part of the year. This necessity gives the legislators a better perspective of what their state needs (evidenced by the fact that Texas has enjoyed economic growth while the rest of the country has suffered through a debilitating depression (though they call it a mere recession). Instead, Pennsylvania allows legislators, who are adept at keeping themselves in office, to do nothing but legislate, keeping them apart from the people and their problems, much like the king and aristocrats of old (Wait! Didn't we fight a revolution to free ourselves from that system?). Alas, I digress...
The point is: I wish the people, who campaign for our vote to allow them to decide who gets our scarce resources, would act for the common good instead of themselves, stop using smokescreens, such as partisan squabbling and promises that they know they cannot keep in order to distract us into voting for them, forcing the masses to not vote for the best candidate, but for the least evil, and finally put someone else (namely their constituents) ahead of their own selfishness. Also, I wish the citizens of this country were intelligent and wise enough to see through these tricks and put their apathy on hold long enough to take politicians to task. If politicians would lay out what they believe in and want to do clearly without those citizens, who actually care, needing to look up their voting record and hoping that the record shows what their stances on issues are instead of what they ate for breakfast that day, then I would be more than happy to agree with Edmund Burke, when he said "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Unfortunately, the politicians of today, though they fall over each other in order to agree with this statement and espouse similar sentiments, forget the first half of this paragraph, which says, "it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention," and most importantly, "It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own."
In a similar vein, I lament the expansion of the powers of the President of the United States of America and the same of the federal government over those of the state. After all, James Madison, who is credited with being the major author of the Constitution said that the federal government has a small number of powers, limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, while the states have a large number of powers, which are only limited to those that come in direct conflict with those given to the federal government by the Constitution. And logically, who would have a better idea of what your needs are: the federal government, which must protect the interests of the entire, incredibly diverse nation, or the state government, which only needs to worry about 1/50 of the country?
To aid in the remedying of the federal government's expansion (though I know it will never happen), I wish certain Supreme Court ruling could be rescinded/overturned in much the same way that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Some of these cases include: Wickard v. Filburn, which changed the Interstate Commerce Clause into a clause that enabled the federal government to legislate anything, in order to achieve anything that it wanted, no matter how distance it was from controlling interstate commerce, Whitman v. American Trucking Association, Inc., which, once and for all, allowed Regulatory Agencies to share in Congress' power to make laws, which the Constitution expressly forbids (I think we need Regulatory Agencies, I just don't think they should be able to make laws without Congress), Korematsu v. U.S., which put security before individual liberty (Ben Franklin had something very true to say about that), and to a lesser, but still important, extent, Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, which allowed FDR, and future government officials to impede the ability of individuals' contracts.
These are just a few things that I have contemplated, though not much, if anything can really be done about it. Hopefully it will make you think about things like these a little more. Your contemplations of these may incite action, and that, in the end, is how great works are accomplished.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Stupidity in Hard Times
Allow me to start this entry with a disclaimer, saying that I did not vote for President Obama, and, honestly, I'm not too keen on most of the policies he has enacted and would like to enact, nor do I approve of his particular style of leading the country by way of celebrity. Having said that, I find it incredibly frustrating that people (called "Birthers"), led recently by possible future Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, are still clamoring about Barack Obama not being born in the U.S.A. He is already the president...deal with with it! Now, they have gone even further. Recently, there has been an uproar for proof of Obama's grades in economics classes at Harvard University. Obama has released his birth certificate in the past few days, but I sincerely hope he does not release his grades because, after all, WHO CARES! As Obama is the President of the United States of America, he has legions of economic advisers. If he does not have a commanding grasp of economics (which, as an economic conservative, I don't feel that many economic liberals do, but that is neither here, nor there), these advisers will ensure that he becomes learned in it, at least as much as it takes to understand the bills being put before him.
Furthermore, these politicians, celebrities, and ordinary citizens should put all of the energy that they are expending on this futile fight into something that might actually help the country in these turbulent times. For instance, they could work to solve the current brawl in the political arena about tax breaks to oil companies. Why not compromise? Give tax breaks to oil companies that make headway into popularizing and commercializing bio-fuels. I see that Exxon Mobile commercial all that time with the president, or CEO of Exxon talking about how he began researching and creating bio-fuels in 1975. Yet, they still do not produce a lot of bio-fuels in America. What is taking so long? With estimates of oil reserves running out somewhere in the next 50 (by the most pessimistic estimates) to 150 years (by optimistic estimates), why is it taking so long for oil companies to do something. It doesn't even have anything to do with saving the environment (though it is an INCREDIBLY HUGE BONUS) at the moment, it is just good for our future. First, the new research and development jobs alone will help our economy. Second, cars aren't going to disappear, and they need fuel, so it seems as though we need to get some soon or we're going to be paying $100 per gallon (which is just fine with the oil companies as Exxon Mobile's profits are on par with the country of Hungary's entire gross domestic profit), or enduring exponentially worse unrest in the Middle East.
The Middle East is another area of contention that could use this excess energy. In addition to the unrest everyone is aware of (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.), it would seem that the U.S. has continued to botch its choice of allies. We are all aware that Yemen, one of the U.S.'s allies in the Middle East, is a large training ground for terrorist organizations, most recently re-proven by the Christmas Underwear Bomber. News has recently reached the U.S. by pro-American politicians in the Afghan government that Pakistan, a supposed U.S. ally (albeit a tenuous one as of late), is entreating Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, to dump America as an ally and disallow any long-term American military help (after we pull out of that country) and instead ally itself with Pakistan (and some theorists speculate China as well). This was according to today's Wall Street Journal. However, not all of America's foreign policy has been horrendous as of late. A new law was passed that disallows publicly traded companies to buy tantalum, a necessary mineral for all current electronics, from the war-torn nation of the Congo, thus helping to stop cartel-esque rebel factions from getting even more funding. This is a welcomed break (in my opinion) from past American Foreign Policy, which has had a tendency to grab whatever we want/need from countries, and if they are locked in combat (and it allows us to get what we want/need at a better price), then it is great with no concern as to if we're helping the side that is committing crimes against humanity.
Additional areas of concern that people should be putting their energy into, instead of this "Birther" mania are the economy and recent unconstitutional laws. A book, which I am very excited to read, has just hit the shelves. It is called America's New Economy, written by William Holstein. It is supposed to give some tips and valuable insight about ways to re-start our nations economy, and even has a chapter on Pittsburgh's rebirth after the steel industry crash (Being that I am from Pittsburgh, it will be a fun chapter). Maybe these politicians and businessmen that are involved in worrying about the President's birthplace could read this and help the whole nation instead of continuing to feed their own delusions. And if they must harp on something about Obama (and from my perspective their is a lot about which to harp), why don't they start with the most recent assault on the constitutional rights of free speech and association? Last week a draft of an executive order was leaked to the press, which should cause great concern to all Americans. The order would make any company, whether a large, multi-billion dollar corporation or a small-town business, seeking to obtain a federal contract to disclose its, and its executives' political contributions, be it to a candidate, party, action group, or association (such as the NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc.), before its bid could be ruled upon by the government. If this particular, possible action doesn't outweigh whether Obama was born here, or his grades in college on the national importance scale, what does?
Finally, because I am 50% Italian and find much about Italy fascinating, I have to get this plug in for Italy. Yesterday, Italy's Mario Draghi was endorsed by both French President, Nicholas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for the position of President of the European Central Bank. This could catapult him into the favored position after these endorsements made Germany's leaders "warm up" to his possible appointment. Long story short, it's a pretty outstanding victory for Italy.
Furthermore, these politicians, celebrities, and ordinary citizens should put all of the energy that they are expending on this futile fight into something that might actually help the country in these turbulent times. For instance, they could work to solve the current brawl in the political arena about tax breaks to oil companies. Why not compromise? Give tax breaks to oil companies that make headway into popularizing and commercializing bio-fuels. I see that Exxon Mobile commercial all that time with the president, or CEO of Exxon talking about how he began researching and creating bio-fuels in 1975. Yet, they still do not produce a lot of bio-fuels in America. What is taking so long? With estimates of oil reserves running out somewhere in the next 50 (by the most pessimistic estimates) to 150 years (by optimistic estimates), why is it taking so long for oil companies to do something. It doesn't even have anything to do with saving the environment (though it is an INCREDIBLY HUGE BONUS) at the moment, it is just good for our future. First, the new research and development jobs alone will help our economy. Second, cars aren't going to disappear, and they need fuel, so it seems as though we need to get some soon or we're going to be paying $100 per gallon (which is just fine with the oil companies as Exxon Mobile's profits are on par with the country of Hungary's entire gross domestic profit), or enduring exponentially worse unrest in the Middle East.
The Middle East is another area of contention that could use this excess energy. In addition to the unrest everyone is aware of (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.), it would seem that the U.S. has continued to botch its choice of allies. We are all aware that Yemen, one of the U.S.'s allies in the Middle East, is a large training ground for terrorist organizations, most recently re-proven by the Christmas Underwear Bomber. News has recently reached the U.S. by pro-American politicians in the Afghan government that Pakistan, a supposed U.S. ally (albeit a tenuous one as of late), is entreating Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, to dump America as an ally and disallow any long-term American military help (after we pull out of that country) and instead ally itself with Pakistan (and some theorists speculate China as well). This was according to today's Wall Street Journal. However, not all of America's foreign policy has been horrendous as of late. A new law was passed that disallows publicly traded companies to buy tantalum, a necessary mineral for all current electronics, from the war-torn nation of the Congo, thus helping to stop cartel-esque rebel factions from getting even more funding. This is a welcomed break (in my opinion) from past American Foreign Policy, which has had a tendency to grab whatever we want/need from countries, and if they are locked in combat (and it allows us to get what we want/need at a better price), then it is great with no concern as to if we're helping the side that is committing crimes against humanity.
Additional areas of concern that people should be putting their energy into, instead of this "Birther" mania are the economy and recent unconstitutional laws. A book, which I am very excited to read, has just hit the shelves. It is called America's New Economy, written by William Holstein. It is supposed to give some tips and valuable insight about ways to re-start our nations economy, and even has a chapter on Pittsburgh's rebirth after the steel industry crash (Being that I am from Pittsburgh, it will be a fun chapter). Maybe these politicians and businessmen that are involved in worrying about the President's birthplace could read this and help the whole nation instead of continuing to feed their own delusions. And if they must harp on something about Obama (and from my perspective their is a lot about which to harp), why don't they start with the most recent assault on the constitutional rights of free speech and association? Last week a draft of an executive order was leaked to the press, which should cause great concern to all Americans. The order would make any company, whether a large, multi-billion dollar corporation or a small-town business, seeking to obtain a federal contract to disclose its, and its executives' political contributions, be it to a candidate, party, action group, or association (such as the NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc.), before its bid could be ruled upon by the government. If this particular, possible action doesn't outweigh whether Obama was born here, or his grades in college on the national importance scale, what does?
Finally, because I am 50% Italian and find much about Italy fascinating, I have to get this plug in for Italy. Yesterday, Italy's Mario Draghi was endorsed by both French President, Nicholas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for the position of President of the European Central Bank. This could catapult him into the favored position after these endorsements made Germany's leaders "warm up" to his possible appointment. Long story short, it's a pretty outstanding victory for Italy.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
To start my first post, I'll try to give everyone a run-down of how this blog will work. Mostly, I will write about current events. These will be often political in nature because political current events seem to make the largest waves in the media. Feel free to comment on what I write, but please keep them informational or, at the very least, constructive in their manner of criticism.
This is not a current event for most people, but I am reading a book, called The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor. Currently, I am approximately a quarter of the way through it. It is very interesting in its assertions, a good many of which are moot, but interesting none-the-less. Also, the authors seem slightly on the extreme side. However, this book has re-acclimated me to a sad, yet important truth in American politics: no matter how well-intended a piece of legislation or act of an official is, if it, even in the slightest manner, over steps the bounds that branch of government, it must not be allowed because it will open the door to abuses made in the future by other, probably less well-intending, officials. Anyway, let us move on to a current debate in my city.
Saturday, April 9, a man had become annoyingly intoxicated. The security staff had been complained to by multiple persons in this man's section, so they asked him to leave. He began to leave his section, and arrived on one of the landings when he shoved a security personnel member and began shouting profanities at this person and the police officers that were nearby. The police asked him to leave, but instead he became more aggressive. The policemen attempted to taser him, but the probes would not penetrated the thick clothing the man was wearing. He took a fighting stance, so the police hit him with their batons to subdue him and arrested him.
Many people in the area have termed this occurrence as police brutality, but let us examine the facts. First, the man in question was at least in the mid-200 pound range, a rather large man. Second, he was intoxicated to a very extreme level. Third, he was angry, and at least semi-violent based on his action throughout the night, and specifically in this brief ten minute span. If you were a cop, would you want to attempt to wrestle with this 250 lb, drunk, probably to the point of feeling very little pain, and angry individual, and probably allow him access to your gun while wrestling? I didn't think so. Plus, continuing to talk to this individual, or wrestle bare-handed with him would possibly cause harm to a number of helpless bystanders. Once again, not a good idea.
This incident speaks to an even larger problem within our society: lack of personal responsibility/sense of entitlement. I have been to a number of sporting events, and drinking at them is a huge problem. Drinking alcoholic beverages at sporting events is not a problem in itself (I like to have a beer or two when I'm watching my favorite teams), but many take it too far; they drink to the point of intoxication beyond all self-control. Unfortunately, the justification of almost of these fans is the same, "I bought a ticket so I deserve to drink/ I am entitled to drink as much alcohol as I want; it's fun." They completely forget that everyone else has purchased a ticket as well. Don't the other 59, 69, 79, 89,000 fans deserve to enjoy themselves too? Besides, as with the screaming "fire" in a crowded theater rule goes, your right to enjoy yourself/speak freely ends as soon as someone else's well-being or safety is infringed by it. That's what we seem to forget today. We seem to forget that we have to share this country with the other 300,000,000 Americans and this world with the other 6 billion persons in it.
This is not a current event for most people, but I am reading a book, called The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor. Currently, I am approximately a quarter of the way through it. It is very interesting in its assertions, a good many of which are moot, but interesting none-the-less. Also, the authors seem slightly on the extreme side. However, this book has re-acclimated me to a sad, yet important truth in American politics: no matter how well-intended a piece of legislation or act of an official is, if it, even in the slightest manner, over steps the bounds that branch of government, it must not be allowed because it will open the door to abuses made in the future by other, probably less well-intending, officials. Anyway, let us move on to a current debate in my city.
Saturday, April 9, a man had become annoyingly intoxicated. The security staff had been complained to by multiple persons in this man's section, so they asked him to leave. He began to leave his section, and arrived on one of the landings when he shoved a security personnel member and began shouting profanities at this person and the police officers that were nearby. The police asked him to leave, but instead he became more aggressive. The policemen attempted to taser him, but the probes would not penetrated the thick clothing the man was wearing. He took a fighting stance, so the police hit him with their batons to subdue him and arrested him.
Many people in the area have termed this occurrence as police brutality, but let us examine the facts. First, the man in question was at least in the mid-200 pound range, a rather large man. Second, he was intoxicated to a very extreme level. Third, he was angry, and at least semi-violent based on his action throughout the night, and specifically in this brief ten minute span. If you were a cop, would you want to attempt to wrestle with this 250 lb, drunk, probably to the point of feeling very little pain, and angry individual, and probably allow him access to your gun while wrestling? I didn't think so. Plus, continuing to talk to this individual, or wrestle bare-handed with him would possibly cause harm to a number of helpless bystanders. Once again, not a good idea.
This incident speaks to an even larger problem within our society: lack of personal responsibility/sense of entitlement. I have been to a number of sporting events, and drinking at them is a huge problem. Drinking alcoholic beverages at sporting events is not a problem in itself (I like to have a beer or two when I'm watching my favorite teams), but many take it too far; they drink to the point of intoxication beyond all self-control. Unfortunately, the justification of almost of these fans is the same, "I bought a ticket so I deserve to drink/ I am entitled to drink as much alcohol as I want; it's fun." They completely forget that everyone else has purchased a ticket as well. Don't the other 59, 69, 79, 89,000 fans deserve to enjoy themselves too? Besides, as with the screaming "fire" in a crowded theater rule goes, your right to enjoy yourself/speak freely ends as soon as someone else's well-being or safety is infringed by it. That's what we seem to forget today. We seem to forget that we have to share this country with the other 300,000,000 Americans and this world with the other 6 billion persons in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)