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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
