Politics

Google’s blog today provides a decent overview of the SOPA/PIPA issues that are the cause for many websites today altering their appearance or all together blocking access.

There was a great piece in the New York Times today discussing why the Democratic party is unable to gain support from the middle class, even though history shows that when the Democrats are in control the middle class does better.

The premise is that Republicans are against ‘big government’ (or .. put another way.. “government”) therefore the Democrats must be for government and that today, more than ever, people feel estranged from government and therefore, find it hard to side with the party that is ‘for’ government.

This really struck a chord with me – it seems spot on.  And, it seems to explain what’s going on in Washington today.  The Republicans, ever the strategists, know that they want ‘smaller’ government and know the best way to achieve this is to get the rest of the country to become disgusted with government.  How can one do that?  How about sabotage the ability for the government to get anything done.

Once again, it just seems, honestly, brilliant. As always, the Republicans are driving the conversation and the Democrats are left on their heels trying to defend what becomes an indefensible position – that Government can work (while we all sit and watch the (albeit Republican generated) stagnation in Washington).

The Dem’s approach is to show that the Republicans are the bad guys, unable to compromise and unwilling to solve the problem.  It will be interesting to see (next fall) whether this approach will work.  Will the electorate remember who was responsible for the quagmire? Or will they just walk away with a stronger sense that indeed, Government doesn’t work and I guess those Republicans were right all along, and that I’d be better off with my own money in my pocket rather than in the public coffers.

It’s hard to imagine the Dem’s message will survive the next year of campaigning while the Republican’s is so much easier to see.

My thoughts on the killing of Osama?

This was a man who had clearly declared and waged war against the Unites States. It’s hard to imagine he’d surrender. It’s hard to imagine his ability to get a fair trial with a jury of his peers. It’s hard to imagine his not making a mockery of the court and using it as a platform to incite more violence.

No one is arguing his innocence.  Is this not a man who would be sentenced to death?  What would we really have gained with a trial?  Would we have proven our case to anyone who doesn’t already believe it? Does that mean we should give up on Civil Rights?  Of course not.

How did the government, the military, and most specifically Obama handle it?

The decision to call for a strategic strike was spot on.  No drone strikes here.

The decision to provide a proper ceremony with a burial at sea spot on.

By all appearances, the strike team executed the operation with exceptional diligence and professionalism.

Would you have told the Pakistanis?

Yes, we did the right thing.  Yes, Obama deserves some (and not all) credit.

No, I don’t think we should hold mass celebrations – dancing in the streets, chanting U.S.A. feels crass and barbaric. So does publishing photos.

Yes, it’s sad that we had to take a life – any life. But sometimes that’s how it is.  Life isn’t as ideal as we’d like.

So Fuck you Osama.  You asked for it, and we delivered. Rot in hell.

Now let’s get on with working on building good will and celebrating life and not give him the power that he wanted to tear us apart.

I’ve been seeing a lot of ads for Prop. 16 lately and it reminds me just how screwed up California can be.

I used to be a big fan of California’s propositions.  I thought that it was a way to get the people more directly involved in government and elections.

I was young and innocent.

Image via Wikipedia

The propositions have long been a way for interest groups to circumvent the legislature and use the uneducated masses to vote on items that they don’t understand.  And they’re just getting worse.

I’m not trying to be harsh on the masses.  When I say uneducated, I’m referring to their awareness of the propositions and their content.  Most people just don’t spend any time to understand what it is they’re voting for (or against).

Prop 16 is a great example of this.  The “Taxpayers’ Right To Vote” proposition.  Who doesn’t like the right to vote?  Why, on the face of it, of course taxpayers should have the right to vote.  But that of course is the problem.  Most people won’t look past the simple description of the ballot measure.

What this proposition is really about is whether California governments should get into ‘public power.’ (I don’t want to trouble with debating the merits or detriments of public power – that’s a separate topic.)  Because what this proposition says, if it passes, is that, should the government be truly interested in getting into public power, they’ll first need a 2/3 majority vote by the public to approve such a move.  And think about that – 2/3 majority is just about impossible.  Just ask someone trying to pass national healthcare or a California budget.  And these were passed by legislatives.  It’s hard to imagine the general public voting 2/3 for anything.

So basically, all one needs to do to change the law is to get a proposition passed (with a simple majority, by the way) that calls for future votes to require a 2/3 majority vote.  In doing so, you lock in your own view and make it near impossible for any future changes.  And how does one do that?  Just throw a bunch of money behind it.  PG&E has already supported this measure with over $30 million (while opponents have raised about $50,000).

More and more I’ve become a fan of a constitutional congress for the state.  Of course that process has the potential to be filled with missteps and problems but we’re getting to the point where almost anything would be better than what we have today.

I have long been disappointed in capitalism’s drive towards growth for growth’s sake.  I’ve usually referred to it as ‘unbridled capitalism’ as I’ve seen it as companies run amok with no regard for the long-term impact of their actions.

Now I’m not against capitalism.  I just feel like some control is a good thing.  Take banking for instance.  In my opinion, the financial collapse is a good example of what can happen when companies (or industries) are left to their own devices.  Can anyone really still argue that what AIG was offering was not insurance and therefore didn’t need some kind of oversight?  How much have we given that company?

I’m not exactly schooled in this however, and so I’m not particularly eloquent on the subject.  That’s why I especially like the comments and writings of Umair Haque.  I was recommended his blog by a former co-worker and I’ve been really drawn to Umair’s viewpoint, and his ability to express it, ever since.  He tends to talk less about regulation and more about companies and how they should behave in their own best interest.  And I totally believe that there is a benefit to this kind of thinking that most companies would realize if not for their near-sightedness (or desire/need to satisfy the short-term financial statements).  It is for these reasons that I believe some regulation is needed.

Here’s a fairly typical blog posting of his discussing the idea: The Scale Every Business Needs Now

For a more comprehensive look at what he calls constructive capitalism, check out these links that he provides.