Rod Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-trial,0,6323910.story

The thing that strikes me about this whole trial, both the impeachment portion as well as the future criminal trial, is the presumption of guilt. While the Governor did himself no favors by not attending the majority of his trial, it still seems like most of the Senators have already made up their minds. Guilty, and must be removed. Same with Rod's adoring public.

So what happened to the presumption of Innocence? What is going to happen if Rod is removed from office in a trial where he could not adequately defend himself (according to his media blitz, he was not being allowed to call witness to defend him if the information would taint the Federal criminal trial)? What if he is exonerated in the criminal trial, found innocent on all counts, and has been banned permanently from politics in Illinois for life?

Maybe Illinois needs to re-work their laws on impeachment. I don't see how Rod could have mounted any sort of defense with the rules the way they are being portrayed as. Maybe I'm just cynical and think that all Illinois politicians are corrupt, and that this is nothing but a Mickey Mouse trial for political reasons.

Ah well. Good luck, Rod, if you are innocent.

What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?

Well, not us, but the Jews. In Monthy Python's Life of Brian, this is a great scene where rabble rousing is going on, without much success.





Which my fellow blogger victorsleeps will probably appreciate as a perfect example of why big government is doomed to fail. No matter how much is provided, some people will never be content and always want more.

The Communitarian Party

Based on the idea of Communitarianism, The Communitarian Party is dedicated to a balance of civic society and individual rights. I like the philosophical portion of the idea,
"Communitarian philosophers are primarily concerned with ontological and epistemological issues, as distinct from policy issues."
I think this is one of the things that always gets me intangled in arguments - I like to look at the overall picture and explore the boundaries of the argument, but in doing so inevitably get tagged as being on one side or the other. Getting out of the mire of that is a difficult and usually impossible effort.

Back to the Communitarians:
"Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution."

And here is where they will find themselves opposed. They are going to have a really hard time explaining why they aren't just liberals dressed up in another set of clothes. It has been described as being a radical centrist point of view. This might be a difficult concept to swallow, but the theory behind it is very intriguing.

Here is a list of what "Radical Centrists" might believe:

• Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential
• Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referenda)
• Being of concrete help to those in the developing world
• Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality
• Build character by promoting conscious moral choices
• Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships
• Possess a foundation of traditional values and common sense
• Enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to environmentalism

It actually sounds like a good thing, going down the middle of the path and taking the best ideas of both extreme Left and Right and combining them into a cohesive set of principles that seeks the balance. But it also sounds like there are some who are opposed to this seemingly idealistic political movement as another tool of a sinister One World Government.


At least one blogger is pointing out how Communitarianism is part of a vast network of change that is striving for the collapse of civilized governments as we know them and replace them with a single, global political state. Churches with communitarian themes are to avoided as nothing more than brainwashing camps to enable the OWG (One World Government) to take over.

It looks like the anti-conspiracy side has it's heros, though, that oppose this benevolent sounding message. Take this about the president of the Czech Republic.

"Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, can drive communists, leftists, Greens, and one-world globalists to near apoplectic fury. However, the popular Czech statesman (finance minister, 1989-1992; prime minister, 1992-1997; president since 2003, reelected 2008) has become a hero to a growing tide of Europeans from Prague to London who are resisting the increasingly oppressive rule by the European Union’s bureaucrats in Brussels and the socialist-dominated European Parliament in Strasbourg."

Not all Communitarians believe this, surprisingly. Check out this blog by Niki Raapana, who talks extensively about Communitarians.

"But, and here's the real kicker, many people I know have completely embraced communitarian values! I am hearing more communitarian double-speak every day, and it's beyond bizarre to listen to it. I am beginning to wonder seriously about my choice to remain in the US and to reject the new requirements for global citizenship here where I was born with the right and the responsibility to resist tyranny. Now I can plainly see it, my countrymen will turn on me next time for not wearing the new shackles we all have to volunteer to wear under my grandious, insane delusion that there is a whole new system of government called communitarianism."

An interesting philosophy, nonetheless. Might bear some looking into.

Links
The Communitarian Party Blog
An Interesting Communitarian Blogger, Niki Raapanaort

PETA Sexy Ad Banned

http://www.ireallyshouldstudy.com/entertainment/2009/01/28/peta-ad-is-just-too-sexy-for-the-super-bowl/

So NBC finds this ad too sexy, and will not air it during the Super Bowl. I wonder if the execs over there have ever seen a beer commercial. It also makes me wonder about the current lineup on TV overall. Too much sex, too much violence. But people have been saying that since I was a kid, and I don't see that much has changed. Sure, you can say some "dirty" words on Network TV that I never heard as a kid, but I sure as heck heard those words outside the TV.

And I grew up on violent movies. They've been around since well before I was even born. Yet I have been in one fight in my adult life, at age 18.

So explain, please, why some commercials should be allowed to be "sexy" and some should not? Is it the content of the message? The innuendos? Or is it the PETA that is being discriminated against?

I think it is hyprocrisy to ban a commercial like this, that utilizes sex to sell something ostensibly good, i.e. vegetarianism, while they allow commercials that utilize sex to sell something destructive, i.e. beer. Why is it OK to sexualize addictive drinks, but not healthy food?

The Next Bail-Out (Part 1)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2738007120090127?pageNumber=1

"An $825 billion economic stimulus bill advanced another step on Tuesday, as the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $365.6 billion portion of it as President-elect Barack Obama met with Republican lawmakers in an attempt to broaden support."

So we spend 700B on the first bail out, to fix the financial industry. That doesn't work, and the economy is still shedding jobs. The bottom still hasn't been found. Noone can seem to explain why the economy is in such shambles. "It's the real estate market." "It's the financial speculation market." "It's the auto industry." Whatever the current "reason" is for the economy being in such poor shape, it doesn't seem like pouring money into a broken system has done much to stem the tide.

So let's pour some more.

Now granted, this new bailout (actually being called a stimulus package) is geared more towards actually getting money into the hands of people to do some work. A blogger I know posted a while back about the proposed stimulus. Now this seems to be proceeding and will end up passing. So we just need to build some roads, and all our economic woes will be over? Hardly.

So what should we be pouring?

I think the the economy is in shambles, yes. But the key to moving forward is not to stimulate it artificially. It is not to bail out all the failed actors who are causes or victims of it. People will survive. The smart will have planned ahead, and will be able to weather it. The not so smart will be lean and hungry for a long time, but hopefully will come through. The dumb? That is the real problem, isn't it?

People who have been responsible and didn't over spend, and socked away during the good times, will now suffer and have to expend their savings, and cut back. The ones who didn't will get help from the government. It is still not decided, apparently, what kind of help. But you can't just let people starve to death, can you?

The government has to fix it, don't they?

Obama Reviews California Waiver Petition of the EPA

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11559208

President Obama is reviewing a Bush decision that would allow states to go above and beyond the EPA regulations. This may lead to stricter standards required on cars being sold in CA, and add between 400.00 and "thousands" of dollars to the price of a car. It would require greater control of tailpipe emissions.

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state officials praised Obama's decision to order a swift review of the state's request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act, allowing California to enforce strict limits on tailpipe emissions. At least 14 other states have adopted the California standard, with four more in the process, representing about half the nation's population."

Opponents say this will bankrupt the auto industry, raise the price of cars, and put thousands of auto dealers out of business. Proponents praise the notion, saying that tougher regulation is needed to save our planet. But what might strike one is the idea that States should have more power than the Federal government. That is something to be considered.

What happens when States are given greater leeway to regulate than the Federal regulation? A couple of things. First off, it is allowing the Great Experiment to operate. One of the ideas behind the USA was that different states could operate under different rules, and people could freely move between states if they didn't care for the rules that governed them. So if a particular state had moral laws that one couldn't abide, they could more to a more (or less) restrictive moral state. If one state had a death penalty law, and one didn't want the death penalty, one could move. And so it is for regulating the environment.

So California, and 14 other states that follow California's Clean Air policies want stronger regulations in their states. What is the downside to this? More regulation = more government. But wait, isn't the act of the Bush Administration in blocking the waiver request also more government? Just of the Federal type. So where does the debate lead to? Is it right for 15 states to dictate policy to the Automakers in regards to the emissions? Can individual states, or states as collectives, determine national policy?

It would appear that they can, under Obama. Meaning factions of states, who could conceivably target specific industries and force them to comply with potentially unfair rules that would cause economic damage to them. And yet the alternative is a stronger Federal government. Can there be a middle ground to this argument?

As a final note, something that escapes a lot of notice, is this article here:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/01/26/federal-govt-shifts-to-hybrids-green-procurement/

This is about an Executive Order from President Bush in 2007 mandating better gas mileage from fleets run by government agencies.

"Bush’s order requires agencies to reduce their overall energy use by three percent annually through 2015 and to cut water consumption two percent annually over the same period. It mandates that agencies expand procurement programs focusing on environmentally friendly products, including bio-based products."

Is it better to tackle emissions issues from a State perspective, or should we allow the Feds to do it?

Nationalizing the US Banks

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?hp

So far, President Obamas top aides have steered clear of the word entirely, and they are still actively discussing other alternatives, including creating a “bad bank” that would nationalize the worst nonperforming loans by taking them off the hands of financial institutions without actually taking ownership of the banks. Others talk of de facto nationalization, in which the government owns a sizeable chunk of the banks but not a majority, with all that connotes.

That has already happened; taxpayers are now the biggest shareholders in Bank of America, with about 6 percent of the stock, and in Citigroup, with 7.8 percent. But the government’s influence is far larger than those numbers suggest, because it has guaranteed to absorb the losses of some of the two banks’ most toxic assets, a figure that could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.


From what I recall, the Republican president with the help of his Fed chairman Bernanke are the ones that started this ball rolling. Most of the Democrats went along with it, as well as a few Republicans. So what does this say about the party system these days? I constantly see stories about how the Republicans want to push this agenda or that and increase the size of government, and Democrats limiting government or putting power into the hands of the States.

So where does that leave us, Joe and Jane Taxpayer?

Up the creek. Throwing good money after bad, and borrowing from ourselves to do it. One of the biggest lessons I learned in my personal finances was to balance my sheets as much as possible. If I want something, I need to save for it or make sure I have a good portion of the money set aside before purchasing it on credit. The government apparently doesn't have to do the same sort of caution, and instead rushed through a bailout package that effectively transformed us from the USA to the USSA. (United Socialist States of America).

Now what?

Ownership in failing banks, with no guarantee of seeing the money again. Misspent TARP funds. Guarantees on possibly bankrupt companies debts. If there is anyone out there who can do something about all this, then they still haven't shown up. I call it a sham. What is going to happen when those guarantees come due, and we don't have any more money for them? Hyperinflation as we print up billions more dollars to cover the debt?

Who is going to own our country when this is all settled?

Obama - Closing Guantanamo

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-22-voa53.cfm

So the gist of the story is, Obama is closing Gitmo within a year. And the detainees have to go somewhere. Europeans, who have been nagging Bush since the camp was opened, are appearing somewhat reluctant to take in any of the prisoners (if prisoners they really are, legal status is somewhat nebulous on this batch of people).

So my question is, why should anyone take them in?

Meaning, they are our prisoners, why should we be shipping them off overseas? The whole argument against giving trials to these men is that they are not legitimate prisoners of war in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions. Meaning that they gave up their rights as POWs under the GC, one of which includes having a neutral country take over possession of them. But that is a digression from my main concern.

We took em, we should deal with them.

It is superfically a great thing to close Gitmo. I am not against the camp on general principles, the only thing I take issue with is granting the prisoners rights of Justice. I have heard the argument that they gave up their rights, they are illegal combatants, terrorists, horrible men. But isn't our country built on the notion that "...ALL men are created equal...", not just Americans? If we want to hold our heads high and be proud, yes proud of our country, doesn't it seem like the best way forward is to extend our notions of Right and Fair to the world, instead of acting like in some way we are better than them and can treat our enemies (regardless of their "legal" status) however we want? Including lifelong incarceration without any sort of legal recourse?

Isn't it possible that even one of these men are innocent? It seems that those people who most vociferously deny these prisoners any sort of legal recourse are the same ones who tout the USA as the best country in the world. Dyed in the wool, red blooded, they will take my gun from my cold dead hands, rah rah patriotism ridden, democracy uber alles sort of people who really and truly believe in the American flag. Why is it these are the people who are so reluctant, so afraid to show Justice to these prisoners?

I think the USA is the greatest country on the planet, for good reason. Our principles. Rugged individualism, and recourse against an unfair government. These are the ideals that we should be exporting, and extending to even our most bitter of enemies. Without our principles, we are nothing more than a bunch of thugs.

Rush Limbaugh - I hope Obama Fails

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

Very interesting read. I think Rush is pointing to exactly the problem, although he isn't quite spelling it out. Republicans are now liberal. THAT is the problem. Not that the Democrats are liberals. Look, Bush is the one who pushed through the bank bailout, and the day that was signed into law was the day we began the socialization of American business in earnest. National ownership of banks? Pushed through by a Republican president?

The problem isn't the concept of liberalism or conservatism. Both philosophies have their strengths and weaknesses, and there should be a balance between the two. Personally I believe in leaning more towards the conservative - anything the public can do, the government can do for four times the cost. Fiscally I am a staunch conservative. Socially I am fairly liberal. The best party that tends to espouse my beliefs is the Libertarian party, but their problem is they keep putting up the lunatic fringe as their spokespeople (Bob Barr being the exception recently).

The problem is the political parties. They rule our country between them, leaving no room for the little guy to come in and voice their opinion. Tyranny of the majority, indeed. 80% of the country has been taken over by these two parties, and power shifts back and forth between them, with no counterbalance to the entire system. Just look at the coverage throughout the election (setting aside arguments about how the media favored Obama over McCain). When did they talk about Barr? When did they talk about Nader? Baldwin? McKinney? These were all candidates on the ballot in enough states to conceivably win the election.

But nothing was heard about them, because the entire system is geared toward Rep v. Dem. Nothing else. That is our choice in America, between two parties that can't even claim to be the champion of a particular political philosophy. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. The idea that either party stands for something is laughable. They stand for the party, the regime of power that includes the individuals of their group, and that is it. Both sides are willing to do what it takes to gain and keep the power, without regard for anything else.

It is these exclusionary realities that is tearing apart our country. Not liberalism, not conservatism, but the machine of power that has grown. Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial complex. Who do you think runs these people? Both parties? It doesn't matter who is in charge at any given moment. Our future as Americans rests on a lie, that We the People have a voice. We don't. Until we go out there and start breaking into the political power system, We the People will be dominated by the narrow minded political system that excludes all other ideas. Between them, they have a near monopoly on political power in the USA. Until we break that, We the People are at their mercy.