President Barack Obama on Presidents Day

people-politico-obama-family-nov-2011President’s Day is coming up and that means it is a good time to take a moment and reflect on the many varied presidents this country has had over its short history. They have come from all walks of life and have had very differing views of what America should be. Much of these presidents’ views were based off the time they led their county and their own history. But most of the presidents throughout our history have held a few common beliefs and goals for our country, and its direction as a whole.

The deeper you peer into the American Presidents’ history and the contribution to forging America, the more you learn about its people as a whole.

You can start your search here:

Here are some fun facts about President Barack Obama:

  • President Barack Obama is our 44th president, but there actually have only been 43 presidents: Cleveland was elected for two nonconsecutive terms and is counted twice, as our 22nd and 24th president.
  • President Barack Obama was born to a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas.  Obama worked his way through college, aided also by student loans and scholarships.
  • President Barack Obama attended Occidental College and Columbia University, and went on to attend law school to became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.  He later taught law at the University of Chicago.
  • Obama became President of the United States on November 4, 2008.
  • He does not like ice cream as a result of working at an ice cream shop as a teenager.
  • He collects Spiderman and Conan the Barbarian comic books.
  • He was known as “O’Bomber” at high school for his skill at basketball.
  • His name means “one who is blessed” in Swahili.
  • His favorite meal is wife Michelle’s shrimp linguini.
  • He won a Grammy in 2006 for the audio version of his memoir, Dreams From My Father.
  • He has his hair cut once a week by his Chicago barber, Zariff, who charges $21.00.
  • His favorite fictional television programs are Mash and The Wire.
  • He was given the code name “Renegade” by his Secret Service handlers.
  • He was nicknamed “Bar” by his late grandmother.
  • His favorite artist is Pablo Picasso.
  • His specialty as a cook is chili.

For more interesting facts about President Barack Obama check out these sites:

Politics of Regulations – Product Safety

congress3I recently found myself standing in the body lotion aisle at the store recently, realizing that my search for a paraben-free lotion was going to be more difficult than I originally thought. Parabens are preservatives that are widely used in personal care products such as makeup, moisturizers, hair care, and shaving. There has been some speculation that these preservatives’ estrogenic activity may be linked to an increased cancer risk. Until more studies have been completed, I decided a “better safe than sorry” approach was warranted. Our family lives in a dry climate and we use a lot of hand and body lotion. We use it so quickly that shelf life isn’t really an issue.

While researching the issue online, I came across EWG’s Skin Deep Cosmetics database. If you really want to become depressed about the chemicals we put onto our bodies, enter your favorite products into the database and see what they may be doing to your health! And keep in mind; women aren’t the only consumers of these products. Anyone who uses hand lotion, soap, shampoo, etc., can look their favorite products up on the database.  I, like most Americans, have been lulled into complacency, thinking there was some governmental agency that regulated the ingredients in anything that goes into our bodies. However, the FDA’s own website verifies that the Food and Drug Administration isn’t authorized to approve cosmetic ingredients. The FDA also cannot require companies to test their products for safety, and manufacturers are not even required to report problems to the FDA.

I started reading the ingredients on the products in my bathroom: shaving cream, lotion, hair gel, shampoo, conditioner, etc. I realized that without some sort of advanced chemistry degree, I was in way over my head.  How was I supposed to make an informed decision on the safety of these items based on the ingredient list? Especially since companies are not required to list all of their ingredients on the package. And a search of the internet didn’t help me with a list of safe products from an unbiased source.

I understand the call for less governmental intrusion, but do the American people understand that corporations are the ones deciding what I put into and onto my body? Some of these chemicals make their way into body tissues; some are inadvertently ingested or inhaled (lipstick, face powder, hairspray…).  Corporations exist to make money. If they can make a product cheaply, and no one knows that a certain ingredient (or combination of ingredients) is harmful, what incentive do they have to replace that ingredient with something safer?

Without some sort of oversight, corporations will do what is in the best interest of their stockholders. The best interest of the stockholders is profit.

Do the politicians calling for more deregulation realize that they themselves and their loved ones are all putting themselves at the mercy of companies for whom greed is their main purpose? Regulation serves a very real and very important purpose: the protection of the American people.

 

 More Reading on Regulation and Product Safety

President Obama’s State of the Union Address 2012

people-politico-president-barack-obama-debatingThe President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, gave his 2012 State of the Union Address. Whether you love or hate President Obama, there is no denying that he knows how to give a great speech. President Obama is a very charismatic speaker using a great amount of intelligence and elegance when he speaks. Whether you agree or disagree with what he said last night does not change the fact that he is great at addressing America.

Watch the web enhanced video of the 2012 State of the Union Address


It’s always interesting to see how the fact checkers rate these addresses. Not just the State of the Union Address but the many other speeches, policies, rallies and other promises that are made by politicians. They are so easily lost in the tumult that is politics that no regular person, like you and I, can keep track of it all. So I like to wait at least a day for all of the fact checking places to do their due diligence. Then I peruse through them to see what was real and was smoke. I urge everyone to take a few extra minutes and check several different sources yourself, especially about the political issues you care most about.

It turns out that on the scale of what was true and what is reality President Obama’s State of the Union Address turns out to be mostly true! This is great news and a refreshing change of pace from the last administration. I always hate when we hear great promises or “facts” about what they have done or not done only to find out it was a thinly veiled attempt to earn favor, and far from the truth. Unfortunately, our first impressions are often the strongest. This means it is much harder for us to “unlearn” the lies we hear first instead of being able to believe the truth we learn later. Unfortunately this is widely known and is an often used tactic in politics. Know they use it, so you can guard yourself from it.

President Obama definitely covered the full gamut of issues that America is facing. There is a lot to talk about for sure and it will be interesting to see what, if any, action is actually taken. President Obama took a tougher stand last night during the State of the Union Address than we have seen before. We can only expect this “toughness” to increase over the course of the election year. I do appreciate that even though President Obama was talking tougher, he was still addressing everyone with respect and dignity. This is something that is unfortunately becoming more and more rare.

Formation of Committee to Investigate Misconduct of Big Oil and Wall Street

I think this was one of the biggest, most important announcements from the State of the Union Address, the formation of a Committee to formally investigate big corporations. If this actually happens, and actually gets to a place that they can actually do their job, it has the possibility to illuminate the insanity that our financial system and its corporations that puts on the people of American and the rest of the world. This decision alone could reach deep into the workings of our government and economy to expose the massive issues and broken systems that have brought the world economy to its knees. It amazes me how fast people have already forgotten how close we were to a calamity of massive proportions. Hopefully this will help to expose these issues and help us move forward to a solution in the future.

I know these are high hopes, look at how crippled some of the others have been. Tied up in the bureaucracy but more importantly the lobbyists pushing their congressman to fight against these common sense steps to a better America.

Combine the Citizen’s United, political partisanship, election year politics and it will honestly be a miracle if anything gets done at all this year. However, I am still hopeful that something will be, or at least could be, accomplished. We have to keep on trying and keep on pushing forward. Contact your representative and urge them to action!

Political Primaries Need an Overhaul

voter-infoAs the political circus of the last year kicks into full gear, we all sit back and wonder…when will the madness be over!?!

That’s right; I’m talking about the ridiculous, wasteful, and in many ways corrupt primary system of this country. I don‘t know why we (meaning we the people, the American citizens) allow the primary elections to last weeks and weeks. Shouldn’t elections last one day? Think of the madness and insane consequences we would have if the presidential election was held over a period of weeks? It would be chaos. It would be totally misleading. It would be a gigantic political farce.

I think the primaries are out of control for several reasons: First, millions of dollars are offered for states to hold the first primary in a place that heavily favors candidate X. Then, everyone disregards all of the “rules” that nobody actually follows and any recourse or penalty is in name only and never really penalizes anyone except the candidates not favored in this micro region. Political candidate X might have some totally radical ideas that go over well in this small region regardless how the entire country thinks. Even though this one state’s primary involves only a small fraction of the country, the media takes the story and runs with it, acting as if this one state speaks for the nation.

Since almost all political candidates at the national level are also public servants who are currently in office, primaries and elections take candidates away from their responsibilities as elected officials. This contributes to the slowdown and breakdown of our already dysfunctional government. If they happen to lose, they may only waste a year of their public office. However, if they stay in the race or even win a nomination, they will spend up to two years of their time in public office campaigning instead of governing. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking it is NOT OK to spend 25%-50% of your time in a job neglecting your actual job duties to look for another job. That kind of dereliction of duty should define someone as unacceptable to hold that position. But the candidates don’t have a choice if they want a shot at the nomination.

To get our political system moving back in the right direction, we need an overhaul of the political primaries. Here are some ideas to move this along:

Reverse Citizens United

First and foremost, corporate money needs to be taken out of politics. This has much more far reaching impacts but this unlimited, anonymous money that flows to the most cooperative politicians has to stop. This ruling above all else is fundamentally undermining our entire democracy.

Institute an Attendance Policy

I would like to see active politicians have a mandated requirement for the amount of time they must spend actually doing the job they were elected for in the first place. We did not elect them to campaign. We elected them to help run our country.

Regulate Campaigning Time

This can be a bit tricky, but I believe regulating the time ALL politicians can spend campaigning could be the key to successful governing. If campaign time was restricted by law or rules of elections it may have a huge impact on the time spent and wasted during the months and years of campaigning.

This could also have the benefit of forcing politicians to tackle the real issues in quick and concise ways. If they had 2 months to let the nation know where they stood on the issues versus two years, they would have to be clearer. And if they weren’t, they would appear to be unable to handle the monumental tasks involved in governing, and we would not vote for them.

Primary Elections Held at the Same Time

If the primary elections for these politicians were held at the same time on the same day like regular elections, we would avoid so much of our current troubles. The final national elections would reflect more accurately the will of the people, if the parties nominated their candidate on the same day. As it stands now, the many different primary elections all act like micro-elections with their own media circus and media analysis.

Something Has to Change Politically

Our current system is a joke. It wastes time and money. It doesn’t give us a clear picture of any political candidate nor does it reflect what the country actually wants.

If all the states’ primaries were the second Tuesday of February, it would all be done at once.

Pull the corporate money out of the equation so politicians can actually focus on doing what’s best for the American people, instead of the corporations that buy them.

Limit wasted time. Politicians were elected to govern!

You may see some problems with these proposed ideas. You might think of a loophole or two. You may be right, but is our current system any better?

We KNOW the current process is severely flawed. We might only guess that something proposed here won’t work politically. But until we try new things, or impose new rules and regulations until things DO work better and our government DOES work for us. We are the ones at fault because we as a people are not pushing hard enough for real, true, and helpful change.

Happy Birthday Citizens United from People Politico

people-politico-happy-citizens-unitedI’d buy you a drink, but what is the legal drinking age for a corporation?

I’d take you out to dinner but how does a corporation eat?

I’d give you a hug if I could wrap my arms around your cute corporate buildings. By the way, is it OK to touch your buildings? I would hate to touch your “no zone”.

Speaking of, I know it is embarrassing but I must ask, are you a guy or a girl? It’s nothing personal; I would just feel weird inviting you to go out fishing with the “guys” if you’re not a guy. And it would not be cool to see if you wanted to go with my wife on “girl’s night out” if, you know, you’re not a girl.

Anyway, Happy Birthday my… friend? Are you a friend or are you family? Or are you like the new college kid that moved in down the street? My kid’s friend? This is just getting weirder. I mean, I know you’ve been around and a part of my life for a long time. I’m just not sure where and how you fit in. I must have missed when we were introduced. Forgive me. So did you marry my aunt? Or are you like a relative of mother-in-law’s? Friend of the family? Are we siblings? Did my mom have you out of wedlock and some deep dark secret we aren’t supposed to talk about? That must be it, sorry. Moving on.

Anyway I was planning on taking a trip next summer and wanted to know if you wanted to come. You can bring your subsidiaries if you want, but you need to take care of their arrangements. Now, are you going to need a double seat on the airplane? You know we’re friends right? I’m not trying to hurt your feelings or anything but you might not fit in the seats they have in coach. Let me know.

I want to take a couple tours on our trip too, but I’m not sure of our group size. I know you’re big, but do you count as one for just your corporate identity, or do I count your number of employees? You might want to have that looked at; having that many things living in you probably isn’t good. Or should I figure you size based upon the overall economic effect of your presence? I mean, you see my issue, I don’t know if I will need to book the bus or not.

My friend Bob is going and was wondering if you wanted to share a room? He’s cute and don’t worry I won’t judge you if things happen. I mean, we’ll be on vacation so have fun but please use protection. I consider myself and the rest of my friends to be pretty open, so no worries about it. Hetero, bi, lesbian, gay, and Man on Backup Generator Shed is good with us. We’re all friends, right!

One last thing, I won’t mention it directly so it can’t be incriminating. But that thing you did, awhile back. Yeah, well the cops were asking around and I think they may be onto you. So I would suggest booking the trip with us. Because when you get back, they might have found it. And if they do, you’re going to the big house. Though I’d like to see them try to cram you in somewhere. Ha! They might have to make a whole new prison just for you! Sorry, that’s not cool. I’m cool and won’t say a thing.  Citizens United is the “word”. Doesn’t matter though does it, my friend? Because in the end, you and me will be in Heaven together, won’t we?

Peace out.

Lots of love,

Your… friend, brother, mother, daughter, uncle, aunt, school teacher, or whatever I am to you.

If this sounds like a bunch of crazy loon babbling treating a corporation like a best friend, a life partner, a college roommate or your brother. It sounds that way because IT IS crazy!

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!

Political Mockery of Our Hope

white-houseSo I have been trying to get around to saying something about this over the last couple of weeks but have been unsure how to approach it or even talk about it. Finally, I decided to just say what was on my mind to voice the frustration with one of worst and most despicable acts I have witnessed to date.

On December 31st President Barrack Obama signed into law the Defense Authorization Bill. This bill effectively continues funding to the military and its vital services as well as addresses some health care issues inside of the DOD.

However, it also contained a provision supporting and continuing the policy that it is legal for America to arrest and detain non-American citizens indefinitely and without being charged, effectively stripping Habeas Corpus. Habeas Corpus is Latin for “you [shall] have the body,” a legal action or writ by which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment.

Habeas Corpus has been granted by America to both citizens and non-citizens over much of our history. And it should be. It is a shining example of high moral fiber allowing ANYONE who has been wrongfully imprisoned the right to be set free should the courts decide they are not guilty. To make any distinction to any human at any time on whether they deserve Habeas Corpus is simply wrong. This should NOT be a debate. Period.

So instead of cleaning up the unjust laws that were passed during the last administration and solidifying the moral fiber of America itself, our President has allowed, and we have allowed, this disgusting and disgraceful provision to be included to legalize imprisonment without reason or recourse. This is a sad day for America.

In an effort to appease the Democratic base he also issued a signing statement with it. Signing statements are another one of those problems about I need to rant about, but that is for another article or ten.  Basically a signing statement says that “X” is a law but not a law I have to follow, or will follow. I know it might sound like a joke, but it isn’t. Signing statements are real, they are used, and they undermine our judicial system and the powers held by each branch of government.

Anyway, my point is this:

It is never right to deny basic human rights to any human.

It contradicts our very way of life. It is wrong. And it is heartbreaking to see President Obama be OK enough with this to allow it to become law.

Here is the full signing statement issued by President Obama.

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

There you have it as sad as it is. Guantanamo is still open and operational. President Obama says he won’t use the law he passed. Which is sort of true. He “legalized” the prisoners we still have. We are pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan so there will be much less temptation to do so.

However, that still leaves the law on the books. It still leaves an unjust prison open. It still threatens each and every one of our security.

This all coming from the person that spread Hope as his message. Then to make a mockery of our hope is just not right, especially with something that can be so easily classified as fundamentally and unequivocally wrong.

Martin Luther King Jr Day and the Occupy Wall Street Movement

martin-luther-kingMartin Luther King Jr. Day is coming up, which gives us a chance to reflect on how far we have come as a society, and remember those who worked tirelessly for the betterment of us all. Martin Luther King Jr. is probably the most recognizable figure in the American Civil Rights movement. He brought attention to race issues in the 1960’s, rallying citizens to end racial segregation by use of non-violent protest. He also worked to end poverty and bring about an end to the Vietnam War, before he was assassinated in 1968.

Dr. King’s contribution to civil rights and equality is undeniable: trying to explain to kids that in America, it used to be expected that you would treat other people differently because of the color of their skin, just results in puzzlement. Slowly, Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream has come true—our children are basically colorblind. His work is not yet completed, of course, there is still more to be done to accomplish true equality. But this success shows the effectiveness of peaceful activism.

His goals to end poverty and inequality are echoed in the Occupy Wall Street Movement, whose protest method is based upon Dr. King’s nonviolent activism. Dr. King’s methods were based on Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience. The Occupy Wall Street movement’s actions are based upon the prior successes of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, and are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights allows for peaceful assembly and freedom of speech.

There are a large number of homeless protesters involved in the Occupy Wallstreet movement. After all, the economic downturn was fueled by just the types of issues the Occupy Wall Street movement is trying to bring to light: economic inequality and the corrupting power of major corporations. The homeless and jobless, most obviously affected by the recession, are the most bitterly appropriate people to represent the rest of the 99%. And as the states and the protesters began having differences about how public areas should be used, it brought to light the age-old issues of homelessness and poverty. Now that more people are at serious risk of becoming homeless and impoverished, some of those who already hit the bottom are speaking up to try and prevent the rest of us from sliding down.

In several cities across the nation, on the same November night, the protesters were evicted from public areas, effectively ending the Occupy Wall Street movement in its original form. However, the movement has grown quite large, gaining media exposure because of a popular lament, an abiding inclusiveness of varying points of view, and because the protesters insisted upon nonviolent protest. They have a breathtaking new tool in technology and social media, and have received the world’s attention.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy has rippled across generations. His method gained results and changed the world. Indeed, large numbers of people in countries all over the world have engaged in unarmed protests, demanding to be heard, and have seen results from their tireless activism. Although change is measured in years and not months, preventing the horrors and loss of life that result from violent uprisings is worth the wait.

People Politico Sources

2012 Political Primary Schedule

Here is the schedule for the 2012 Political Primary’s. Make sure to check your local election offices to confirm the dates and times. If you are allowed to vote in these primary’s please make sure that you do. It is very important that we get as many Americans as possible involved and voting at every step of the political process.

For those of you that are not familiar with exactly what a primary election is, here is a blurb from Wikipedia:

A primary election is an election in which party members or voters select candidates for an election. Primary elections are one means by which a political party nominates candidates for the next general election.

Primaries are common in the United States, where their origins are traced to the progressive movement. Primary elections are usually the responsibility of political party organizations themselves and not the government.

~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election

2012 Republican Political Primary Schedule

January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus)
January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary)
January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary)
January 31, 2012 Florida (primary)
February 4, 2012 Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11, 2012 Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012 Colorado (caucus)Minnesota (caucus)

Missouri (primary)

February 28, 2012 Arizona (primary)Michigan (primary)
March 3, 2012 Washington (caucus)
March 6, 2012(Super Tuesday) Alaska (caucus)Georgia (primary)

Idaho (caucus)

Massachusetts (primary)

North Dakota (caucus)

Ohio (primary)

Oklahoma (primary)

Tennessee (primary)

Vermont (primary)

Virginia (primary)

March 6-10, 2012 Wyoming (caucus)
March 10, 2012 Kansas (caucus)U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)
March 13, 2012 Alabama (primary)Hawaii (caucus)

Mississippi (primary)

March 17, 2012 Missouri (GOP caucus)
March 20, 2012 Illinois (primary)
March 24, 2012 Louisiana (primary)
April 3, 2012 District of Columbia (primary)Maryland (primary)

Wisconsin (primary)

Texas (primary)

April 24, 2012 Connecticut (primary)Delaware (primary)

New York (primary)

Pennsylvania (primary)

Rhode Island (primary)

May 8, 2012 Indiana (primary)North Carolina (primary)

West Virginia (primary)

May 15, 2012 Nebraska (primary)Oregon (primary)
May 22, 2012 Arkansas (primary)Kentucky (primary)
June 5, 2012 California (primary)Montana (primary)

New Jersey (primary)

New Mexico (primary)

South Dakota (primary)

June 26, 2012 Utah (primary)

Keep an eye on the election coverage and make sure that you are prepared to vote when it it your turn for the primary’s. Go in with as much knowledge about the candidates as possible and vote for who you think will be the best choice to represent your political interests in America.

Political Resolutions for the New Year

people-politico-windy-eagleWith the end of the year comes the end of the politco circus for this year. It’s been a hilariously depressing year of posturing, antagonizing, and defaming. The really fun part is watching them try to out lie one another. It’s nice to hope that we have hit the lowest of the low in our political environment but it’s hard to say. I’d like to think we can only get better from here, but to make this dream a reality, each one of us can take a few moments and forge our own Political New Year’s Resolutions.

With any luck, we all can pick a few which fit ourselves and our views in order to make us better people, better citizens, and better equipped to deal with our poisoned political environment.

Treat Each Other with Respect

It may seem simple, but it may be the hardest resolution.  We all have our own political opinions and we want to share them. We also have our issues with other political views and tend to look down on people who don’t agree.

The unfortunate truth is that we are not smarter than those who disagree with us, nor are we morally better than those that hold different opinions.

You don’t have to agree with other people’s political views, but if you accept that their opinion is just as valid as yours, you may have a chance to intelligently debate and discuss both sides. Perhaps we as constituents might be able to do what our representatives cannot: either agree to respectfully disagree, compromise, or even come to a solution that suits both sides.

Being one of unbending principles and ideas is NOT respectful. Without the ability to change, adapt and grow, political ideas grow stagnant, time and money is wasted, and the problems that face us as Americans do not get solved.

Stay Politically Informed

This resolution has several facets but I find this to be an important issue which undermines one’s own ideas and opinions on all manner of political topics.

It’s easy to say we don’t have time to keep up with politics. It’s true we are very busy and the current political environment is incredibly complicated, and even politicians can’t keep up with everything. Career politicians have advisors to tell them their opinions daily. They also have lobbyists to try and push their agendas. If politicians cannot stay fully informed, and cannot always get both sides of the story, how does the average American person stay informed?

First, determine the top 6 issues that affect you directly or you are truly passionate about. Ignore the other issues that hold little interest to you or have no impact on your life. I know you may care about more political issues, but you can’t stay fully informed, so focus only on your top political topics. If you want to add a couple more or take a few off the list that is up to you. The point is to focus on what is most important to you. To not be distracted from issues you are passionate about, to those you aren’t. Limiting your focus accomplishes two things: 1.) Makes sure you are knowledgeable about what is most important to you. 2.) Allows you to vote knowledgeably on the issues that are most important to you.

So you have narrowed down your topics, but you can’t add more hours to your day to research these things. We can’t add hours to the day, but we can squeeze in a little more education or substitute our time with some knowledge. If you usually listen to music on your commute to work or school, try listening to the news instead. Get informed for the day and discuss current events with co-workers. You can also install a few apps on your phone to browse news stories while you are waiting in line, on break, or at lunch.

It’s important to get you news and information from a variety of sources. If you watch two hours of news a night but it is always the same channel or the same website you are doing yourself a disservice. Free media in this country is nearly extinct, and all the remaining news sources are corporately or privately driven. This means they inject their own political bias onto their stories. Though frustrating, it’s reality. So pick a few different news sources and rotate between them. More variety in your news sources will greatly improve your real knowledge of politics and world events. The very same news story will be presented differently depending on who is telling it. Do yourself a favor, and work to filter the bias out yourself by attaining your knowledge from many different sources.

Be Politically Open Minded

It’s difficult to know that sometimes we are wrong. The current political environment is so unforgiving that people cannot admit to being wrong. It’s refreshing when someone actually says they had the wrong idea. We can only grow as people and a society by acknowledging our mistakes and growing, evolving, and progressing, because of our mistakes, not in spite of them.

It’s good to keep this concept in the back of your mind when discussing politics. Unlike math, political ideas, laws, and legislation are not absolute. They affect different people in different ways at different times. Our opinions can be right one day and wrong the next. That is OK!

The most important thing is to have an open mind. Be open to different ideas, perspectives, and ways of thinking. An open mind enhances political discourse and will ultimately drive us all towards political solutions that are the most advantageous for all of us. But we will never get there unless each and every one of us has an open mind to new ideas and ways of achieving more for us as a country politically.

Allow Others Their Time

We all have our own political ideas and beliefs. Some want the world to know their ideas and some are afraid to share. Those who are afraid to share may fear persecution or intolerance. They may simply not want to risk a friendship by stating their political ideas or beliefs. It’s possible the quiet, shy person who is afraid to open up or is constantly interrupted has a startling idea for change.

It can be hard to let someone express their ideas or thoughts on politics. We often are so busy thinking of what we want to say next that we don’t actually listen to the other person. Sometimes we can’t contain our thoughts and we interrupt. These interruptions can derail the point or even burst into counter points and arguments. Soon the person who wanted to share their fabulous idea is lost in the discourse and ricocheting of these kinds of conversations. This kind of behavior gains us nothing.

It’s hard to wait your turn, as silly as that sounds. But it’s vitally important to allow the time and attention required to fully listen to and absorb an idea. Keep any counter points you have to yourself and save them for your turn to speak when the time comes.

This is one New Year’s Resolution I am going to work very hard on this year. We all deserve respect and attention when we are presenting our ideas. I would hope others would offer this to me and I will work hard this year to offer it to them.

Should you find yourself involved in conversations where this is impossible or realize the discussion is on the verge of breaking down, step in and offer some more solid rules to the discussion. It might sound silly, but if some ground rules are followed, people of vastly different opinions and ideas can discuss their sides fairly. When laying out the rules, the first one should be no interrupting.  You might want to decide on a procedure, such as a round robin, where one person can speak their piece for a set amount of time and then it’s the next person’s turn. This frees up the listeners to really pay attention to what they are hearing versus trying to find a point to jump in and dispute. Another important rule would be to always respectfully disagree.

Contact your Representative

Do you agree or disagree with a certain bill? Contact your representative and give your opinion.  Backing up your opinion with a story that tugs at heartstrings is a bonus. They may even use your story on the campaign trail! You are a constituent. If you want representation, you need to express yourself. If you want your representative to compromise to get a problem solved, tell them so.

Get Involved

By Popular Demand

By Popular Demand tackles two important issues--increasing political participation and restoring trust in government--that are critical to the future of American democracy.

If you have some time, local campaigns could use you. If you have some money, donate to candidates or to causes you care about. They hire lobbyists to do the sweet talking for them. Get involved in some way.  Whatever skills you have can probably be used.

Make Next a Better Year

The solution to our country’s problems is not in average Americans giving up and dismissing these hard conversations and decisions. The solution comes from more of us being more involved than we are now. It is truly sad when the “flagship” of worldwide democracy celebrates that we had a record setting turnout of 40% of registered voters. It does work to the advantage of those politicians that want to disenfranchise the American people from their own country. Then they can give themselves raises, months of vacation, free health care, and earmark bill after bill awarding millions in contracts to their friends and lobbyists.

Resolve to do some of these, all of these, or anything else you can think of. Let’s bring American politics back to a level of decency and functionality we once enjoyed. Politics in America can be worse, and they can be a lot better. You and I can make sure that politics in America will be better this coming year, one American patriot at a time.

Presidential Candidates: We Are ALL Americans

sw_fake_ballot_sa03045If you’ve been reading this blog, you know that the contributors share a disdain for the current political climate, especially the lack of respect that politicians, pundits, and others have shown in their conversations.

What is really disturbing is the lack of respect and outright mockery that some of the men and women vying for the Republican Presidential nomination have been directing toward voters.

This behavior is perplexing to me…why alienate so many people in the country? Don’t you need their votes?

Herman Cain said stupid people are ruining the country, and “the objective of the liberals is to destroy this country”. I’m pretty sure the 72 million people who are registered Democrats in this country would find this insulting.

Newt Gingrich enjoyed his brief surge in the polls with comments about the Democrats’ agenda, comments which were out of step with his prior reputation as a bipartisan. His actions were often contradictory during the Clinton administration. In 1994 he put together a helpful list of words to use with Republicans: “Moral”, “Family”, “Freedom”. And an accompanying list to use with Democrats: “Failure”, “Traitor”, and “Waste”. Gingrich himself is often held to blame for the extreme partisanship evidenced in politics today, after bringing ethics complaints against Speaker of the House Jim Wright.

However, in the late 90’s, he worked with President Bill Clinton on big projects, including welfare reform and working toward a balanced budget. As recently as 2008, he expressed his support for action on climate change, in an ad in which he appeared with Nancy Pelosi, who was Speaker of the House at the time. However, when asked about the ad in November of this year, he said it had been a mistake.

For some reason, it’s now gauche for politicians to be seen working together for the common good, so Mitt Romney called the ad an example of Newt Gingrich being “an unreliable conservative and an unreliable leader”. Gingrich didn’t attempt to defend the ad, which to me is unfortunate, because I view the ad as a shining example of how it IS possible for Democrats and Republicans to work together on an urgent topic. It is constantly perplexing to me that the environment is a Democratic issue. After all, the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is occurring and that human action is contributory. We all live on the same planet, so it seems like a global issue to me.

By now Rick Perry has enough bizarre YouTube videos to hopefully put him out of the running as an actual contender for the Republican nomination. His debate gaffes occurred after his comments about doubting the science behind climate change. In November, he signed a pledge to uphold the legal definition of marriage between one man and one woman, and appoint “faithful constitutionalists” to the federal bench. Michele Bachmann also signed this pledge. In December, he released what has been dubbed his “anti-gay” ad. This kind of stance doesn’t sit well with 53% of Americans, who according to a new poll, think the government should give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex. A candidate who vows to deny anyone’s basic rights is shocking to me, as is a candidate who will not consider a potential judge’s merits if that nominee doesn’t fit neatly into a pre-specified category.

I hesitate to consider Michele Bachmann an actual candidate for the Republican nomination, but since she has been involved in the debates and is as much a candidate as Rick Perry, I can definitely include her comments. She has said that Barack Obama and the “people he associates with” are Anti-American. Most of her other noteworthy comments are not specifically aimed at Democrats, but she is very good at alienating very large chunks of America. She has stated that she is for eliminating minimum wage, being a submissive wife, and introducing legislation to ban same-sex marriage. She is apparently against a vaccine against cancer (!) and all 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

Until recently, Mitt Romney seemed to be the only major Republican candidate whose aim wasn’t to alienate half his future constituents. Indeed, the main attacks from the right and left focus on how his comments on the issues tend to change. I’m not against a candidate changing his or her mind with a little more knowledge, but not being able to pin down the views of a possible future President make it difficult to decide if you want that person representing you. It’s nice of him not to call me anti-American, but I’m afraid his indecisiveness may be leading him down the road the way the other candidates came: He said recently he’d back a ban on same-sex marriage. In October he said the Supreme Court should reverse Roe v. Wade, a clear indication of his opposition to reproductive rights. However, he refused to sign the limiting pledge that Bachmann and Perry both signed.

Whomever the Republican nominee for President should turn out to be, I hope they understand the need for flexibility, bipartisanship, compromise, and that they will not only be governing the red states, but the entire United States of America.

 Political Information Sources

 

1 6 7 8 9 10 11