ELECTION SEASON - Part V
Most American voters are stupid, but you are different because you are reading this column, this page, and this paper. Unfortunately, everyone else seems to wait for someone to tell them what to do and how to vote, whether it’s by the constant barrage of political attack ads or the non-stop voices of Hannity, Limbaugh, Olbermann, and Maddow. With next Tuesday’s election rapidly approaching I assert the average person walking into the polling place knows nothing more about the candidates or the issues than they have seen on television.
My bold statement about stupidity comes from a personal reminder about the “real world” over the Biketoberfest weekend. Many find it surprising, but I do not have televisions; specifically I do not subscribe to cable or have an antenna to receive local stations. Curious about next week’s ballot I have sought out the proposed amendments and read through the legalese and worked to understand the issues. Regarding candidates I have diligently researched with disregard to party lines, and especially worked to understand judges, commissioners, and other non-affiliated nominees. Over the last four weeks I have worked to educate you regarding labels, parties, and local politics.
I believe the last election had one of the highest voter turnouts ever among young people minorities; captivated by a polished, elegant, intellectual man from Illinois. These same people then checked other boxes on their ballots, radically changing the political landscape. A friend of mine said, “you should not be allowed to vote unless you have skin in the game.” Although somewhat arrogant, the point drives home the fact that our free country allows freedom at the ballot box, even when the voter has no knowledge of the candidates or the issues.
In the final days leading to the election survey results will be reported as truth regarding how your friends and neighbors are thinking. Attack ads, and misleading advertising campaigns will be delivered at a furious pace. No matter what your party alignment and general feelings, I challenge you to find a sample ballot, study the names and prepare yourself to vote. You must take time to read the complicated proposed amendments as they will directly impact you for years to come. Remember two things: our government does not belong to Republicans and Democrats, but “We the People,” and millions of Americans have died for your right to vote next week, don’t waste it.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Election Season – Part IV
Over the last three weeks I have tried to address basic political issues regarding the platforms of the two major parties and the labels applied to describe agendas. With a major election less than two weeks away it is important to understand how the political system works. I feel the 2008 election is an excellent example of our constitutional right to vote where the casual voters caused a “mandate by the American people,” now about to be overturned in another mandate this fall after watching vote selling, favoritism, and power abuse by the majority.
Unfortunately, media attention typically centers on national politics, many people unable to name the President, fewer able to name the Vice President, Speaker of the House, or Senate Majority Leader. These people drive the national agenda and play a significant role in our lives. For instance, national healthcare has been passed and Congress has eliminated incandescent light bulbs; decisions driven on the national level. I argue our state, county, and city elections take as much priority as the national elections though, but too many people scoff at these politics.
Unnoticed, the School Board influences local property tax values and potentially sales tax rates. With our school district, county, and cities in financial dire straits it is critical we understand our local candidates and their fiscal policies because two approaches exist to balancing budgets: cutting expenses or increasing tax revenues. At all local levels of government the millage rate can increase; an easier decision than cutting services, salaries, and pensions. Our local politicians can increase taxes with a vote of four out of seven members, thus just one person can create thousands of dollars in increased annual expenses for your family.
Even Volusia County’s Elections Supervisor found herself at the center of national attention during the Gore-Bush Presidential election of 2000 when voting recounts became critical, certifying election results under the scrutiny of the national media. Few of us realize the members of the Canvassing Board came from our locally elected judges, ultimately deciding the Presidential Election. Proposed amendments are more important as they will ultimately impact policy, tax rates, and budgets for years to come. Proposals like Amendment 4, Hometown Democracy, have the potential to destroy the normal legislative process, relying instead on the populace to make ill-informed decisions argued at the ballot. I urge you to study and learn about your ballot before November 2nd.
Over the last three weeks I have tried to address basic political issues regarding the platforms of the two major parties and the labels applied to describe agendas. With a major election less than two weeks away it is important to understand how the political system works. I feel the 2008 election is an excellent example of our constitutional right to vote where the casual voters caused a “mandate by the American people,” now about to be overturned in another mandate this fall after watching vote selling, favoritism, and power abuse by the majority.
Unfortunately, media attention typically centers on national politics, many people unable to name the President, fewer able to name the Vice President, Speaker of the House, or Senate Majority Leader. These people drive the national agenda and play a significant role in our lives. For instance, national healthcare has been passed and Congress has eliminated incandescent light bulbs; decisions driven on the national level. I argue our state, county, and city elections take as much priority as the national elections though, but too many people scoff at these politics.
Unnoticed, the School Board influences local property tax values and potentially sales tax rates. With our school district, county, and cities in financial dire straits it is critical we understand our local candidates and their fiscal policies because two approaches exist to balancing budgets: cutting expenses or increasing tax revenues. At all local levels of government the millage rate can increase; an easier decision than cutting services, salaries, and pensions. Our local politicians can increase taxes with a vote of four out of seven members, thus just one person can create thousands of dollars in increased annual expenses for your family.
Even Volusia County’s Elections Supervisor found herself at the center of national attention during the Gore-Bush Presidential election of 2000 when voting recounts became critical, certifying election results under the scrutiny of the national media. Few of us realize the members of the Canvassing Board came from our locally elected judges, ultimately deciding the Presidential Election. Proposed amendments are more important as they will ultimately impact policy, tax rates, and budgets for years to come. Proposals like Amendment 4, Hometown Democracy, have the potential to destroy the normal legislative process, relying instead on the populace to make ill-informed decisions argued at the ballot. I urge you to study and learn about your ballot before November 2nd.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Election Season – Part III
In last week’s column I worked to explore the definitions of the labels so quickly applied to describe various political views: liberal, conservative, and libertarian. Talk radio pundits regularly throw labels around with the intent of degrading the reputation of someone merely by association. This week I want to examine the platforms of the two major parties and the rising Tea Party movement. I believe many people hear the labels and the names of the parties, but do not understand the history, or more importantly the platform. Today candidates are changing, or leaving parties, like grabbing flip-flops for the beach so I must wonder how important are the parties?
Liberalism is the renowned platform of the Democrats, essentially incorporating Progressivism to drive a humanitarian agenda based on intellectual theory and conjecture. The last 80 years have used Keynesian economics to justify government programs as the solution to capitalistic shortfalls. Thus, the Democrats are seen as a champion of the lower class, providing social protections. Democrats evolved from anti-federalist factions in the 1790’s and today represent the single largest political party in the world. The Party once favored states rights and strict adherence to the constitution. Today the Party favors liberalism, social not classical, and has embraced Clinton’s “Third Way” , believing government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation to implement policy.
Conservatism is used to describe Republicans, having evolved from Classic Liberalism, originally focusing on individual rights and civil liberties. This pre-1930’s attitude drives a platform allowing the individual to excel but forcing him to deal with the consequences of his own decisions. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists and saw Abraham Lincoln as its first president. By the 1890’s the Party was known for protecting business, primarily through tariffs, the gold standard, and high wages. The Party also opposed the League of Nations. Today, Republicans are defined by social-conservatism, supply-side economics, support for gun ownership, and deregulatory policies.
The newly formed Tea Party is a populist movement in response to Congressional Bills passed in 2009. The Tea Party’s platform is focused on ensuring the constitutionality of every law, fiscal responsibility, limiting federal spending, reducing earmarks and reducing taxes. Although new, the Tea Party has demonstrated its ability to put forth viable, electable candidates and has forced the two traditional parties to defend their positions in political debate.
In last week’s column I worked to explore the definitions of the labels so quickly applied to describe various political views: liberal, conservative, and libertarian. Talk radio pundits regularly throw labels around with the intent of degrading the reputation of someone merely by association. This week I want to examine the platforms of the two major parties and the rising Tea Party movement. I believe many people hear the labels and the names of the parties, but do not understand the history, or more importantly the platform. Today candidates are changing, or leaving parties, like grabbing flip-flops for the beach so I must wonder how important are the parties?
Liberalism is the renowned platform of the Democrats, essentially incorporating Progressivism to drive a humanitarian agenda based on intellectual theory and conjecture. The last 80 years have used Keynesian economics to justify government programs as the solution to capitalistic shortfalls. Thus, the Democrats are seen as a champion of the lower class, providing social protections. Democrats evolved from anti-federalist factions in the 1790’s and today represent the single largest political party in the world. The Party once favored states rights and strict adherence to the constitution. Today the Party favors liberalism, social not classical, and has embraced Clinton’s “Third Way” , believing government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation to implement policy.
Conservatism is used to describe Republicans, having evolved from Classic Liberalism, originally focusing on individual rights and civil liberties. This pre-1930’s attitude drives a platform allowing the individual to excel but forcing him to deal with the consequences of his own decisions. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists and saw Abraham Lincoln as its first president. By the 1890’s the Party was known for protecting business, primarily through tariffs, the gold standard, and high wages. The Party also opposed the League of Nations. Today, Republicans are defined by social-conservatism, supply-side economics, support for gun ownership, and deregulatory policies.
The newly formed Tea Party is a populist movement in response to Congressional Bills passed in 2009. The Tea Party’s platform is focused on ensuring the constitutionality of every law, fiscal responsibility, limiting federal spending, reducing earmarks and reducing taxes. Although new, the Tea Party has demonstrated its ability to put forth viable, electable candidates and has forced the two traditional parties to defend their positions in political debate.
Election Season – Part II
Last week I challenged the reader to consider what path our country should take for the short term issues and for the long-term future we give to our children. Thomas Jefferson asserted those who govern us should be governed by the same laws and not become corrupt. In this week’s preparation for Election Day I want to explore commonly used terms: liberal, conservative, and libertarian. Next week I will explore the platforms of the three parties, history, and my predictions. Labels are thrown around to negatively portray a thought process by the other side. Democrats are “liberals”, Republicans are “conservatives”, and Glenn Beck famously accuses both being “progressives”. I must wonder where the truth lies and what each means.
Classic liberalism was at the root of the American Revolution, justifying the overthrow of tyrannical governments by focusing on individual liberty and civil rights. The philosophies of John Maynard Keynes in response to the depression created modern liberalism; arguing that in hard times free markets were not ideal and investment and intervention by the state was required. Liberalism has changed over time and across cultures since the 17th century, but at its root is a commitment to understanding humanity and society with a great degree of intellectual work to justify and validate the theories.
Conservatism is most likely the most incorrectly applied label, and should be defined as seeking to preserve traditional institutions and maintain gradual changes in society. Unlike liberalism, conservatism was not spawned by intellectual goals and improvements, but came from preservation, emphasizing stability and continuity. The modern application comes from the split in views in the 1930s and Keynesian economics. Libertarianism more closely represents today’s incorrect definition of conservatism; the view that each person has the right to live his life freely, but respecting the equal rights of others. Libertarians believe all actions should be voluntary, with only the most basic tenets of life forbidden by law.
The term “progressive” was coined at the start of the 20th century and focused on driving an agenda of change. Correctly, progressivism and conservatism are antonyms of each other. In our modern political environment we have three philosophies: modern liberalism, classic liberalism, and libertarianism where the rate of change is defined by terms progressivism and conservatism. Carefully consider what you claim to be and where your views lie, more carefully consider the labels you apply to others.
Last week I challenged the reader to consider what path our country should take for the short term issues and for the long-term future we give to our children. Thomas Jefferson asserted those who govern us should be governed by the same laws and not become corrupt. In this week’s preparation for Election Day I want to explore commonly used terms: liberal, conservative, and libertarian. Next week I will explore the platforms of the three parties, history, and my predictions. Labels are thrown around to negatively portray a thought process by the other side. Democrats are “liberals”, Republicans are “conservatives”, and Glenn Beck famously accuses both being “progressives”. I must wonder where the truth lies and what each means.
Classic liberalism was at the root of the American Revolution, justifying the overthrow of tyrannical governments by focusing on individual liberty and civil rights. The philosophies of John Maynard Keynes in response to the depression created modern liberalism; arguing that in hard times free markets were not ideal and investment and intervention by the state was required. Liberalism has changed over time and across cultures since the 17th century, but at its root is a commitment to understanding humanity and society with a great degree of intellectual work to justify and validate the theories.
Conservatism is most likely the most incorrectly applied label, and should be defined as seeking to preserve traditional institutions and maintain gradual changes in society. Unlike liberalism, conservatism was not spawned by intellectual goals and improvements, but came from preservation, emphasizing stability and continuity. The modern application comes from the split in views in the 1930s and Keynesian economics. Libertarianism more closely represents today’s incorrect definition of conservatism; the view that each person has the right to live his life freely, but respecting the equal rights of others. Libertarians believe all actions should be voluntary, with only the most basic tenets of life forbidden by law.
The term “progressive” was coined at the start of the 20th century and focused on driving an agenda of change. Correctly, progressivism and conservatism are antonyms of each other. In our modern political environment we have three philosophies: modern liberalism, classic liberalism, and libertarianism where the rate of change is defined by terms progressivism and conservatism. Carefully consider what you claim to be and where your views lie, more carefully consider the labels you apply to others.
Election Season – Part I
This is the first of a series I am writing in anticipation of the upcoming elections in November. Last week I commented the American people, the sleeping dogs, have been awakened. Many put their confidence in the poetry of “Change and Hope”, but the prose delivered has fallen short of their romanticized expectations. Leadership and management are learned skills, not certainties due to position, advisors, charisma, or teleprompters. Blame on both parties, the elites, and the constituencie has been tossed about. Regardless of where blame falls, our country is in trouble.
In a recent discussion with my friend Monil, he brought to my attention a writing of Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton on August 26, 1776 where he wrote, “So much for the wisdom of the Senate. To make them independent, I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years, and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eyes forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors, and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life, was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governors which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget.”
Today our politicians see themselves as elites sent to Washington for life, to live off our efforts. Our two party system has ironically become a spectacle of like-minded aristocrats benefitting from larger government, more laws, and dependent constituencies. Political life at the Federal level is about personal benefit, not public service. As the election season comes upon us this year, our votes are about both our short-term future and the long-term vision for America, the future we will give our children. We watched the giddiness of a single majority manipulate parliamentary rules, object to debate, lash out at voters, run from town hall meetings, and fundamentally change our country. Whether change was best, you must decide and I challenge you to engage in the electoral process.
This is the first of a series I am writing in anticipation of the upcoming elections in November. Last week I commented the American people, the sleeping dogs, have been awakened. Many put their confidence in the poetry of “Change and Hope”, but the prose delivered has fallen short of their romanticized expectations. Leadership and management are learned skills, not certainties due to position, advisors, charisma, or teleprompters. Blame on both parties, the elites, and the constituencie has been tossed about. Regardless of where blame falls, our country is in trouble.
In a recent discussion with my friend Monil, he brought to my attention a writing of Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Pendleton on August 26, 1776 where he wrote, “So much for the wisdom of the Senate. To make them independent, I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years, and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eyes forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors, and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life, was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governors which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget.”
Today our politicians see themselves as elites sent to Washington for life, to live off our efforts. Our two party system has ironically become a spectacle of like-minded aristocrats benefitting from larger government, more laws, and dependent constituencies. Political life at the Federal level is about personal benefit, not public service. As the election season comes upon us this year, our votes are about both our short-term future and the long-term vision for America, the future we will give our children. We watched the giddiness of a single majority manipulate parliamentary rules, object to debate, lash out at voters, run from town hall meetings, and fundamentally change our country. Whether change was best, you must decide and I challenge you to engage in the electoral process.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Ex-wives and their opinions of ex-husbands suck. One must wonder why the court system puts a priority on the financial support to maintain the lifestyle of the woman over involvement of Dad in the kids lives. Father's rights groups continue to argue for equal and shared parenting, Dads like me are willing, able, and want to be part of our childrens' lives. However, a presumption occurs in "husband penalty court" (Family Court) that the kids must live with Mom, Dad is relegated to see them every other weekend and one night a week. For that privelage, Dad typically pays 50% or more of his net income.
When divorce occurs Mom gets the house and Dad finds himself looking for a place to live. With the financial burden placed on him he cannot provide a comparable lifestyle. Thus, he finds a small apartment, trailer, or home in a shit neighborhood. Soon he finds his kids don't want to come see him and he is pushed out of their lives.
What would happen if we started with a presumption of equality? Both Mom and Dad would be required to provide equally for the kids, share equal time, and work together to raise them - just as if they were married. Without a "my time" and "your time" scenario, or punishment for success by the court system, the conflict at home would die down. Children would benefit from both parents.
My personal situation had us both living within 4 miles of each other until I lost my job. The courts rewarded my ex-wife with the opportunity to work part-time, even though her potential to earn income as a Family Court attorney was significantly higher. At first I had a liberal visitation schedule, and was very grateful. But, she maintained there would be no excess time and constantly worked to avoid the legal wording of Right of First Refusal. Repeatedly the legal system had to be invoked to maintain my role as a father. Ultimately, when I lost my job, I lost. I remained stunned that a judge, whose husband worked in the same office as my ex-wife, could rule that "until I had nothing left" I would not find relief. Along the way I sold assets, lost my home, and liquidated 20 years worth of savings. Regardless of the "stuff", I lost my kids - having to move 500 miles away to find work.
At first my ex-wife worked with me to help facilitate seeing the kids. Ultimately, she took the position the burden should be entirely on me to come visit them - requiring time off from work I don't have, keeping them from their new brother, pets, home, grandparents near me.
Let's try this - shared and equal parenting with equal custody. Tomorrow, no questions asked, we could live in the same town, split time with the kids, and have no child support. Our kids would benefit from both parents living within miles of each other and being able to participate in school events. Considering child support is nearly twice the amount of most mortgages, until that financial relief comes I will not have the wherewithal to be part of my kids lives.
Our society has chosen to reward those who do nothing and take advantage. My ex-wife is a taker, a leach, and failing to teach our children personal responsibility. I challenge the lawmakers to take a tough look at the presumption of custody and ask how it has evolved to personal idebtedness for one party and a winning lotter ticket for the other. The children lose one parent along the way and never know the importance of a father in their lives.
When divorce occurs Mom gets the house and Dad finds himself looking for a place to live. With the financial burden placed on him he cannot provide a comparable lifestyle. Thus, he finds a small apartment, trailer, or home in a shit neighborhood. Soon he finds his kids don't want to come see him and he is pushed out of their lives.
What would happen if we started with a presumption of equality? Both Mom and Dad would be required to provide equally for the kids, share equal time, and work together to raise them - just as if they were married. Without a "my time" and "your time" scenario, or punishment for success by the court system, the conflict at home would die down. Children would benefit from both parents.
My personal situation had us both living within 4 miles of each other until I lost my job. The courts rewarded my ex-wife with the opportunity to work part-time, even though her potential to earn income as a Family Court attorney was significantly higher. At first I had a liberal visitation schedule, and was very grateful. But, she maintained there would be no excess time and constantly worked to avoid the legal wording of Right of First Refusal. Repeatedly the legal system had to be invoked to maintain my role as a father. Ultimately, when I lost my job, I lost. I remained stunned that a judge, whose husband worked in the same office as my ex-wife, could rule that "until I had nothing left" I would not find relief. Along the way I sold assets, lost my home, and liquidated 20 years worth of savings. Regardless of the "stuff", I lost my kids - having to move 500 miles away to find work.
At first my ex-wife worked with me to help facilitate seeing the kids. Ultimately, she took the position the burden should be entirely on me to come visit them - requiring time off from work I don't have, keeping them from their new brother, pets, home, grandparents near me.
Let's try this - shared and equal parenting with equal custody. Tomorrow, no questions asked, we could live in the same town, split time with the kids, and have no child support. Our kids would benefit from both parents living within miles of each other and being able to participate in school events. Considering child support is nearly twice the amount of most mortgages, until that financial relief comes I will not have the wherewithal to be part of my kids lives.
Our society has chosen to reward those who do nothing and take advantage. My ex-wife is a taker, a leach, and failing to teach our children personal responsibility. I challenge the lawmakers to take a tough look at the presumption of custody and ask how it has evolved to personal idebtedness for one party and a winning lotter ticket for the other. The children lose one parent along the way and never know the importance of a father in their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)