In our society, we tend to want all things given to us by our magical overlords--the Federal Government. They tend to have all of the answers for our problems, but yet they still can't cure my common cold! Such is life that no one can give us all that we need, I mean it's only my "right" to have someone pay me to sit and watch Netflix all day long and do nothing. Nay, nay! Is it anyone's right and privilege to be handed things to them without working for it?
Well, according the State of California, they've added more rights to people not protected under our laws. Why yes, I speak to the California DREAM Act that was recently signed into its magical law. In the words of my dear friend who says things to enunciate the grammatical flaws of our country, "why for?" And it reality I can't really give anyone a reason to why this passed and budget plans continue to fail. In California, even under a Republican, not one time could they solve the budget crisis. So in what good way does it seem to feel that allowing the people of persona non grata by illegal mean to acquire funding from a near bankrupt state to go to college? There isn't one. Clearly it is a standpoint of "we should allow others the same chance as we do" and you are correct--to a degree. Without such limitations, we could all be bankrupt states and default on our payments to ourselves--the taxpayers. We could end up like Greece in such a financial disaster that small "bailouts"--I mean "austerity measures" can't help. In the global financial crisis, California was one of the few states that tight-roped walked the line of pure bankruptcy and living for another two seconds.
The DREAM Act, codified under AB130 and AB131, is a semblance of the national DREAM Act which calls for illegal immigrants to be able to acquire educational funding for school in the United States. While this is so very nice, the direct impact on California and especially in the United States, is the funding of it. Who will pay for it!? With the crisis in California on their budget still raging hard, it would be near impossible to implement such a measure without doing one of the very powerful moves of the Democratic party, tax increases. The secondary problem isn't just taxation, but like most government agencies in financial trouble, they burrow money from the next fiscal years projections of the revenue to make the budget "solvent," when in reality, they are just borrowing money they are fabricating from thin air.
There is another problem with this though, the act requires the applicant to prove that they arrived in the US prior to the age of 16 illegally, which in essence violates the federal laws that prevent anyone from living with in the country and subject to penalties such as fines, imprisonment, and deportation, or a collection of all of these. The Supremacy Act in the United States says that the federal law supercedes any state law that is in violation of the federal law, thus it could be said that the California DREAM Act is in partial violation of federal law, because one an agency acknowledges that a person is in violation of immigration and naturalization laws, they must report it to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Unfortunately, improper funding and a wide estimated number upwards of 20 million illegals live within the country would be impossible to remove or imprison collectively. Alternatives to such a thing are controversial in the United States (and will prove to be a significant factor in the 2012 election).
Moreover, the California law will undoubtedly be more problematic than the original intention. It will be interesting to see in 2014 when the first budget for financial aid to the DREAM Act recipients either comes close to default or doesn't acquire the number of funding for it to continue without drastic cuts to its availability.
12 October 2011
08 October 2011
GOP Resurgence: Congress and the Presidency
Voices are a rumbling, especially in the Democrat sector of the spectrum. The recent data, which is fascinating to the more Conservative views and philosophers, is telling--more telling than before. The polling data has it showing a possible trend not just a year before the national election cycle for president, the House of Reps, and one-third of the Senate. So what are the data you say?
In the recent polling from all major research centers, the Republican party/candidate on the national level have pushed ahead favorably among the American voters who in 2006 and 2008, but not 2010, ousted a 16 year Republican dominance by near cataclysmic proportions. In a RCP poll, the Republicans have a very small lead on Democrats (+0.3%), Quinnipiac has them tied, and Rassmussen has Republican's at a 6-point lead. The trend, right, is a showing of the each party's favorability from Februrary 14 to October 12 of this year.
Is this strictly indicative of the rising ability of the Republican party to capture the Congressional seats enough to oust the Democrats from power? Not completely, while we are still so far from the election, it is possible that the Republican party can screw up and allow the Democrats to recapture their command in likability among voters. However, with the failings of the Stimulus packages, the controversial and problematic Affordable Health Care Act, the continuing rise in unemployment, the stock market erratic behavior, and the European bailout program for Greece is playing an insurmountable problem for the Democrats who command the Upper Chamber of Congress. With each passing moment that the Democrats (and Republicans) fail to address the problems of sever budget deficits and revenue shortfalls, the party has weakened its power and stance. In an article by Sean Trende from RealClear Politics, he rightfully posits that Republicans have the distinct upper hand in possible control of the Senate. With his analysis on the seat-by-seat, it is clear that the Democratic Party has an uphill battle that they may not win, no matter how much they attempt to corral their bases among the African-American voting populace--which did favor them in 2008. Yet, their lack-luster and failings to complete their dominance in early 2009 have weakened their buying power among their own. Seemingly so in the Presidency.
Barack Obama has a low approval rating, consistent with Bush-43's polling during the later years of his second term. With the approval ratings depressing so much after just three years, it is a wonder how the Democratic Party will function in the election cycle. A colleague of mine once suggested that the DNC would push, in essence, President Obama out of reelection and put the Clinton machine back in office. This would have drastic repercussions for the Republican party who could not deal a blow (oh so figuratively and literally) hard enough to challenge the Clinton Machine. In this respects, the Presidency would firmly rest back into the Democrats hands and possibly rectify any problems that would have been caused by the Obama Administration. If it were a choice, my choice would be to risk the Republican control of the Presidency for a far more competent Hillary Clinton. While she has Republican tendencies, she does have command of the Democrat base and would garner a large support from Republican social liberals. For what it's worth, Sec. Clinton will have to wait another round of elections to run for office, which she will most likely get if she does decide to run. With that, President Obama has a long and curvy road to traverse and will take almost all of his appeal, which is waning, to capture enough votes to defeat and not take this to the House of Reps for a deciding vote for the Presidency.
In the recent polling from all major research centers, the Republican party/candidate on the national level have pushed ahead favorably among the American voters who in 2006 and 2008, but not 2010, ousted a 16 year Republican dominance by near cataclysmic proportions. In a RCP poll, the Republicans have a very small lead on Democrats (+0.3%), Quinnipiac has them tied, and Rassmussen has Republican's at a 6-point lead. The trend, right, is a showing of the each party's favorability from Februrary 14 to October 12 of this year.Is this strictly indicative of the rising ability of the Republican party to capture the Congressional seats enough to oust the Democrats from power? Not completely, while we are still so far from the election, it is possible that the Republican party can screw up and allow the Democrats to recapture their command in likability among voters. However, with the failings of the Stimulus packages, the controversial and problematic Affordable Health Care Act, the continuing rise in unemployment, the stock market erratic behavior, and the European bailout program for Greece is playing an insurmountable problem for the Democrats who command the Upper Chamber of Congress. With each passing moment that the Democrats (and Republicans) fail to address the problems of sever budget deficits and revenue shortfalls, the party has weakened its power and stance. In an article by Sean Trende from RealClear Politics, he rightfully posits that Republicans have the distinct upper hand in possible control of the Senate. With his analysis on the seat-by-seat, it is clear that the Democratic Party has an uphill battle that they may not win, no matter how much they attempt to corral their bases among the African-American voting populace--which did favor them in 2008. Yet, their lack-luster and failings to complete their dominance in early 2009 have weakened their buying power among their own. Seemingly so in the Presidency.
Barack Obama has a low approval rating, consistent with Bush-43's polling during the later years of his second term. With the approval ratings depressing so much after just three years, it is a wonder how the Democratic Party will function in the election cycle. A colleague of mine once suggested that the DNC would push, in essence, President Obama out of reelection and put the Clinton machine back in office. This would have drastic repercussions for the Republican party who could not deal a blow (oh so figuratively and literally) hard enough to challenge the Clinton Machine. In this respects, the Presidency would firmly rest back into the Democrats hands and possibly rectify any problems that would have been caused by the Obama Administration. If it were a choice, my choice would be to risk the Republican control of the Presidency for a far more competent Hillary Clinton. While she has Republican tendencies, she does have command of the Democrat base and would garner a large support from Republican social liberals. For what it's worth, Sec. Clinton will have to wait another round of elections to run for office, which she will most likely get if she does decide to run. With that, President Obama has a long and curvy road to traverse and will take almost all of his appeal, which is waning, to capture enough votes to defeat and not take this to the House of Reps for a deciding vote for the Presidency.
03 October 2011
DADT: How H.R. 2965 and S. 4023 Changed American Military
Many of my good friends have expressed to me their great happiness to the Repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy (original policy). As a political scientist and as a person, it was my duty to understand the nature behind the drive--not just clearly from the motivation by the "minority complex," as I call it. So, I began a detailed research from across the globe and from right here. In my search there are compelling arguments for the successful integration of the LGBTQ community into the highly effective and powerful United State military machine. However, these sources do have a different take since they are from multiple countries that have established such a program for some time and may or may not have the same philosophical and or political cleavages that the US has.
The overarching theory in the repeal is that everyone should be allowed to go into the military, regardless of sexual orientation, which in the legal language defines it as someone who is confirmed, either by society or self-induced. I agree that all should have the opportunity to serve in our military. Yet, here is the problem: in our society, the trend and tendency for members actively serving and enlisting come from from more conservative and religious affiliations. In the picture, right, from the Heritage Foundation, has compiled a ratio of total proportion of members serving to the population. Any ratio which exceeds 1.0% indicates an overrepresentedness and any below a 1.0% indicates an underrepresentedness of those serving (2007 data, Heritage Foundation). While this is not just the only data that shows the more social climate of military, the previous article on members serving by state opens a possible different trend--which may have counter intuitive meaning to this dynamic problem. The social climate--or more accurately, the political climate--of the military tends to be on the more Conservative/Republican side. While this is not solely true, it tends to be at least the lowest possible majority figure.
But let us get to the bigger picture and the hypothesis that will form by this article. In the understanding of the actual repeal of the DADT Polity, (H.R. 2965 and S.4023), these laws codified as Public Law No: 111-321, did not actually repeal the law, it only allowed the Department of the Defense to circumvent the policy indicated in 10 USC 654 and implement the other policy of all inclusion. So how does this effect the outcome of the military effectiveness? It probably will not pose a great reduction of readiness, however, it will pose a psychological issue. As mentioned before, the tendency for the US military is to be from more religious and conservative values--again, this is not always the case--so in that conceptual lens, it would be possible for any military personnel to actively seek a way to commit a form of genocide within the US military by de facto reasoning.
To understand this concept more, a deeper understanding of the social climatology of American ideals needs to be inspected. In a report by the FBI's on the victims targeted by bias motivation on sexual orientation shows as high percentage of anti-male homosexual bias, the next is the more overarching title of anti-homosexual bias, then anti-female, anti-heterosexual, and finally anti-bisexual bias rounds out the lowest form of bias targets. This data was current in 2007, when speculation on the repeal was beginning. The pie chart, left, shows the overall breakdown of the victim by bias motivation. This data, which shows a high concentration against male homosexuals as targets in general, will transcend to a possible correlation into the military which in itself has a higher propensity to cultivate a stronger culture of what is applicable by law. The change in P.L. 111-321 may eventually change the social climate of the military to be less than the national averages, shown in the chart. Yet, it may be a little late to help.
In it this belief that the bias motivated targets on anti-male homosexuals would indeed pose a direct threat to the lives of those members who serve our country. In that, if the motivation in general, occurs, a form of genocide within the confines of the military may occur. Take for example a male, whom being brought up in religion and of moderate - to high income will have a less likely chance to accept someone who is a male homosexual, than would another male who is brought up in a more secular and "politically correct" nature. In this example, the two male's from differing backgrounds may have gone into the military for differing reasons, but the ideal--prior to P.L. 111-321--would have been to form cohesive groups of their respective ideologies. Expanding it so that by the end of all of it, the person who has more religious and social conservative values will have a higher chance and likelihood to form some psychological need to "eliminate" a problem.
So what am I saying with this? For me it is possible, even highly so, that a person who is against homosexuals serving openly or at all in the military would, in times of war, make the opportunity to have the gay service member be killed in the line of fire without any visible--at that time--recourse. Now this example takes form in an infantry man, but I am not excluding the possibility that officers--who appeal to the same variety of the religious, social conservative male discussed earlier--could fabricate some sort of plan to slowly allow the male homosexuals who serve to be rotated to the front lines in many operations that may not be winnable or have a high probability of death occurring.
As a connector, I would say that while the DADT is a policy that had the intentions to protect, and possibly on some level to discriminate, I feel that the protection of minorities is more capable in DADT than to, as already accomplished, fixate on a new policy that opens more doors and alleyways of bias motivated crimes and the possible link to genocidal tendency that I fear some of my more ignorant conservative military friends will begin to adhere to implicitly or explicitly. While recourse is always an option, it would considerably difficult for someone who is homosexual to seek recourse in such a wide majority of those who are in favor of DADT. My foremost job as a blogger and a political scientist--and even more so as a human, is to protect all from crimes of hate and prejudice.And with that, my feelings on the repeal is negative as it may hurt the LGBTQ community more than help!
The overarching theory in the repeal is that everyone should be allowed to go into the military, regardless of sexual orientation, which in the legal language defines it as someone who is confirmed, either by society or self-induced. I agree that all should have the opportunity to serve in our military. Yet, here is the problem: in our society, the trend and tendency for members actively serving and enlisting come from from more conservative and religious affiliations. In the picture, right, from the Heritage Foundation, has compiled a ratio of total proportion of members serving to the population. Any ratio which exceeds 1.0% indicates an overrepresentedness and any below a 1.0% indicates an underrepresentedness of those serving (2007 data, Heritage Foundation). While this is not just the only data that shows the more social climate of military, the previous article on members serving by state opens a possible different trend--which may have counter intuitive meaning to this dynamic problem. The social climate--or more accurately, the political climate--of the military tends to be on the more Conservative/Republican side. While this is not solely true, it tends to be at least the lowest possible majority figure. But let us get to the bigger picture and the hypothesis that will form by this article. In the understanding of the actual repeal of the DADT Polity, (H.R. 2965 and S.4023), these laws codified as Public Law No: 111-321, did not actually repeal the law, it only allowed the Department of the Defense to circumvent the policy indicated in 10 USC 654 and implement the other policy of all inclusion. So how does this effect the outcome of the military effectiveness? It probably will not pose a great reduction of readiness, however, it will pose a psychological issue. As mentioned before, the tendency for the US military is to be from more religious and conservative values--again, this is not always the case--so in that conceptual lens, it would be possible for any military personnel to actively seek a way to commit a form of genocide within the US military by de facto reasoning.
In it this belief that the bias motivated targets on anti-male homosexuals would indeed pose a direct threat to the lives of those members who serve our country. In that, if the motivation in general, occurs, a form of genocide within the confines of the military may occur. Take for example a male, whom being brought up in religion and of moderate - to high income will have a less likely chance to accept someone who is a male homosexual, than would another male who is brought up in a more secular and "politically correct" nature. In this example, the two male's from differing backgrounds may have gone into the military for differing reasons, but the ideal--prior to P.L. 111-321--would have been to form cohesive groups of their respective ideologies. Expanding it so that by the end of all of it, the person who has more religious and social conservative values will have a higher chance and likelihood to form some psychological need to "eliminate" a problem.
So what am I saying with this? For me it is possible, even highly so, that a person who is against homosexuals serving openly or at all in the military would, in times of war, make the opportunity to have the gay service member be killed in the line of fire without any visible--at that time--recourse. Now this example takes form in an infantry man, but I am not excluding the possibility that officers--who appeal to the same variety of the religious, social conservative male discussed earlier--could fabricate some sort of plan to slowly allow the male homosexuals who serve to be rotated to the front lines in many operations that may not be winnable or have a high probability of death occurring.
As a connector, I would say that while the DADT is a policy that had the intentions to protect, and possibly on some level to discriminate, I feel that the protection of minorities is more capable in DADT than to, as already accomplished, fixate on a new policy that opens more doors and alleyways of bias motivated crimes and the possible link to genocidal tendency that I fear some of my more ignorant conservative military friends will begin to adhere to implicitly or explicitly. While recourse is always an option, it would considerably difficult for someone who is homosexual to seek recourse in such a wide majority of those who are in favor of DADT. My foremost job as a blogger and a political scientist--and even more so as a human, is to protect all from crimes of hate and prejudice.And with that, my feelings on the repeal is negative as it may hurt the LGBTQ community more than help!
25 July 2011
Who Can Win, Who Can't: Republicans Start the Fight
In a dashing timeline, one would always suggest that the fight for the White House is always in the battlefield. Yet, for many, it is not and it is subjugated to the four-year cycle of primaries and party nominations. We have ourselves a unique (for the second time) Presidential Election beginning in about May of 2012.
May is the primary season and it is where many of the Republican party hopefuls will attempt to attain the magic number for the Republican National Convention nomination (see CNN 2008 Election Delegate Count). While all of these statistics are thrilling, the major issue here for Republicans, is the leading candidates. Following are my classifications of who can win the nomination, who cannot, and the who could if they run.
This is the list of those running: Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, John Huntsman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson.
So let's begin:
The Losers
The Winner's:
May is the primary season and it is where many of the Republican party hopefuls will attempt to attain the magic number for the Republican National Convention nomination (see CNN 2008 Election Delegate Count). While all of these statistics are thrilling, the major issue here for Republicans, is the leading candidates. Following are my classifications of who can win the nomination, who cannot, and the who could if they run.
This is the list of those running: Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, John Huntsman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson.
So let's begin:
The Losers
- Ron Paul: with a strategic plan for being the absolute favorite of stark libertarians and a rising glory with the Tea Party Movement (TPM), this man has truth behind him. With his son Dr. Rand Paul (R-KY) as a freshman Senator, he could sweep something in that state, yet party establishment dominated another TPM favorite and he was defeated. Like this motif, Ron Paul will undoubtedly fail at getting the nomination. His repertoire is extensive, but does it compete with the more social conservatives? No, his leanings to social liberalism will give him due pressure from such elements and will prevent him from solidifying the TPM voters.
- Herman Cain: as a businessman, he knows very little on public policy and political underpinnings. Much like his other businessman counterpart who "officially" decided to not go for a bid--Donald Trump--he will not garner much more that 10 minutes of political intrigue. While he is a businessman, he could potentially alleviate our economic issues, but yet, it isn't just this. While the economy is the top domestic issue, it won't help him garner more than just "ok so you can run a business....tell me about the foreign relations with the Asian markets and the interest in Iran to Chinese and Russian weapons sales."
- Michele Bachman: A colleague of mine defines the likelihood of her rise as such "[s]he is charismatic, very conservative, and seems to hold sway over Tea Partiers and social conservatives. That’s not likely to be enough to beat Romney though- her numbers aren't high enough. Also, Congresswoman Bachman is seen as polarizing by many on the left (sadly that doesn’t take much these days). She’s a three-term Representative who is largely on the outside of the establishment, which also hurts her." (Continue reading) While his analysis is somewhat respectable, it leaves out the following motives: charisma isn't a good indicator of Party Nomination, being a "very conservative" isn't always a good thing either, it leads to such a small fringe related group of voters. Could she sway the more moderate Republicans such as those like John McCain and or the members of the Log Cabin Republicans who aided Bush-43? Not likely, nor is her likelihood to gain much more popularity. While she would have third place in a recent poll against other contenders if Sarah Palin stays out, she still has so much ground to cover.
- Newt Gingrich: Former glorious member of the House of Reps Speaker, fell from his revere when he could not capitalize on his plan. What does he have to offer this electorate now? Not much, except the adage of lower government, fiscal responsibility, etc, etc. Gingrich has too much personal baggage as well as the mass exodus of his campaign team. In a race against any Republican contender, he would not fare well, just like the others in this category and would lose greatly to President Obama, who under the auspices of the incumbency theory would win again. His woes in his finance exodus also mask his ability to effectively hone his speaking and influence.
- Gary Johnson: Need I say more? There's no plausibility of his campaign ever gaining enough momentum to actually be a promising candidate.
- Rick Santorum: Besides being a Senator in Penn. there is still much ground Santorum would need cover. It is unlikely that his bid, albeit like all the others, will encompass the "true conservative." Santorum has the most probable chance here to exit this column and move into the more glorious column of "Wish I Could Get More Votes."
The Winner's:
- Mitt Romney: This man has the highest rank of my column. Governor Romney probably has more clout among the nation to garner the treasured number of delegate votes at the RNC Convention. His poise in the last election cycle left him with a considerable amount of name recognition, along with his more religious views. While the nation still views Mormans and the people of weird practices, I doubt that it would make an impact. When pitted against Obama, who hasn't shown much of any religious leanings, the Morman could win. Now, some will argue that the "single-payer insurance" deal is going to reduce his likelihood among Republican voters.
- Jon Huntsman: This man has the second highest ran in this column. Mr. Hunstman has a record of proven status from Utah. More so, the candidate has a diplomatic advantage over some of his opponents. A fault in this though is his reported stance on the mandate under a health law much like President Obama's (see here). Now, he has a good command to offer many fiscal responses to the economic and debt fallout and possible impending default. Yet, out of this, will it be enough for his more moderate approach to control a large portion of the primary votes needed? Yes, I do think he could manage it, it would be hard with other more moderate conservatives in the playing field
- Tim Pawlenty: This man has the lowest rank in my winners column. While there is considerable amount of uphill battle Pawlenty would need to accrue to be able to make a statement against larger known candidates. In this respect, Pawlenty may have some small gains for Republican and independent voters. There really isn't enough substantive value to claim that he could lose or win, but because of some his more claims on how to reduce the negative effects of the economic decline and his defense policy projections it would grant him a large score with more hard line Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
