Team USA at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver

American athletes march in to the Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Read more...

Did Sarah Palin write these questions?

In the previous post I introduced readers to GOOOH, a group that has a plan for returning control of the House of Representatives to the American people.   This new political movement claims to be independent and non-partisan.

Integral to GOOOH's candidate-selection process is that every member of GOOOH -- and would-be candidate -- complete a long questionnaire.   I decided to take the "Candidate Questionaire" myself.  Here are some of the questions, plus my reactions whilst attempting to answer them:

• Can you confirm that you have never been a member of, or made a donation of any amount to, the KKK or NAMBLA, and that you have not made a donation of more than $100 to the ACLU after the age of 30 or after the year 1999?   This GOOOH question equates the ACLU with a group advocating pedophilia and the KKK. 
•  Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution with a “law of predominant majority”, which says the “rights” of groups can be denied if they have consistently demonstrated behavior that 95% of the population considers unacceptable? For example, 95% of the population would likely vote that a public KKK rally should NOT be allowed, overriding the “right” of free speech for that particular group.    How is the government supposed to determine what 95% of the population wants when under 65% of Americans vote in any election?  
  
• Will you vote for or against limiting the fees a plaintiff’s legal representative can receive to one hundred times the amount a plaintiff in the case receives? As an example, if a plaintiff receives $10,000, the combined legal fees could not exceed one million dollars.   Yet no limit on the amount a corporation can spend in its own defense?
• Will you vote for or against providing government funds to the ACLU?  Why always single out the ACLU?
• Will you vote for or against multiplying by ten the prison sentence of those convicted of possessing drugs that are not willing to provide information that leads to the conviction of their supplier?   Let's suppose the supplier is not convicted, say due to a technicality?  
  
• Will you vote for or against reducing farm subsidy allocations by at least 25 percent each year you are in office?  For.
• Will you vote for or against limiting foreign aid to ten or less countries in any year?  "fewer"
• Will you vote for or against a federal budget that includes any item whose benefit is primarily for a single state (e.g., a bridge in Alaska, or a levee in Louisiana)?  After Hurricane Katrina, who would dare equate federal spending on a levee for Louisiana with a bridge (to nowhere) in Alaska?   
• Will you vote for or against only applying the Endangered Species Act to animals that are larger in mass than a marble (i.e. eliminate protection for species such as salamanders, crickets, and spiders), unless a critical contribution to the ecosystem is defined?  Did Sarah Palin write these questions?
  
• Will you vote for or against establishing a .xxx Internet domain (e.g., www.notforkids.xxx) and imposing steep fines and significant jail time for all sites that provide access to pornographic material outside of this domain?  Define pornographic. 
  
• Will you vote for or against limiting total military spending to 3% of GDP, excluding periods when our nation is imminently at risk of war with another country or a recognized military unit (i.e., claiming we are at war with terrorists is not the same as being at war with another country)?  Worth considering.
• Will you vote for or against decreasing total foreign aid contributions to match the average contributions of the leading countries in the world in absolute dollars: Britain ($4.9b), Germany ($5.3b), France ($5.5b), China ($0), Russia ($0), Australia ($1.0b), Canada ($1.0b), and Japan ($9.9b), or approximately $3.5 billion per year ($27.6b / 8)?    An "absolute dollars" criteria means that the average American would contribute less than the average citizen of any other developed country.  What kind of cheapskate rat proposed this question?
• Will you vote for or against United Nations recommendations or dictates given to the United States?  Since the US has a veto on the Security Council,  a "dictate" cannot be issued from the UN to the US.
  
• Will you vote for or against processing all people who commit a crime against a U.S. citizen who are not U.S. citizens in military tribunals instead of the U.S. legal system? (Effectively declaring they do not have the same rights as our citizens.)   "Do unto others..." 
  
•  Will you vote for or against allowing government assistance (of any kind) to a company that has A- or lower bond rating (S&P).  ... government assistance of any kind?

In the previous post, I quoted this GOOOH rule:

Candidates are required to sign a binding agreement, before they are selected, that ensures they will vote according to their documented answers once in office. If they do not, they will be legally obligated to resign within 72 hours. 

 If GOOOH ever gets one of its candidates elected, the movement will surely be a boon to lawyers. The elected GOOOH politician-drones would have no time to legislate.  They will be preoccupied with responding to various lawsuits accusing them of having acted contrary to this or that insanely-worded item on the  Candidate Questionnaire.

If you should want to take this tedious questionnaire yourself (there are better ways to spend your time), visit the GOOOH website.  If you want your answers to count, you will first have to pay GOOOH $100.00.

UPDATE:   One further observation about the GOOOH Candidate Questionnaire has taken some time to sink in.  It occurs to me that many of the questions are worded in a rather tricky way.  That is, the answer seems  straightforward unless you happen know something about the subject (the UN question); or you take the time to think through the implications (plaintiff, foreign aid question, etc).  Many of these question/statements more resemble what a lobbyist would ask to throw a poll or manipulate a state referendum than what sincere citizens would come up with on their own.   Who came up with the questions, and how?

The more fundamental problem isn't the questions themselves, but the premise that citizens know or care  enough about all of these issues that they should even want to hold elected representatives to account for obeying their response to every item on such a survey.  I suspect few people even have a strong opinion -- let alone an informed opinion -- on even half these questions.

Read more...

What is Goooh?

Recently I came across a video in which Ralph Nader, the independent consumer-rights advocate who keeps running for president, said that he now thinks the best hope for cleaning up US democracy would be to focus on electing true representatives of the people to the House of Representatives.    A movement to do so has emerged in the form of GOOOH (pronounced "go").

Goooh (for Get Out Of Our House) is a movement founded by someone named Tim Cox who has written a book.  It seems to be gaining some traction among the so-called "tea-bag" "tea-party" constituency of outraged Republican voters.  According to the website,

It is a NON-PARTISAN plan to evict the 435 career politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives and replace them with everyday Americans just like you.

Well, it claims to be non-partisan. If you go to the links section of the website, beside one of the links (Most Corrupt Politicians) there is a warning: "beware, most claim this site is largely funded by Democrats / Progressives." The need for the warning is not clear to me as fully half the "most corrupt" politicians listed are Dems.   On the link list, I did not see any "warnings" about websites funded by persons associated with Republican/Conservatives (as are several of the "tea party" groups listed). When GOOOH claims to be non-partisan, I suppose it is rather like the Fox News claim to be "fair and balanced."  

Americanpolicy.org  blog describes the selection process for GOOOH candidates:

To become a candidate for Congress through the GOOOH System, one must first become a GOOOH member and complete the Questionnaire. Then they must pass a screening exam to ensure they meet all the requirements for holding office, including citizenship, age, etc.

Then, candidates are asked to sign a “Commitment Letter” confirming, if elected, they will vote according to their questionnaire answers and that they will not accept special interest money should they be elected to Congress.

The selection process has several stages.   According to the group's website:

Once we have the membership needed to succeed participants will be sorted, randomly, into pools of ten within their congressional district. Each pool will use our peer-selection process to select two candidates who will advance to the next round. The process will repeat until a single person emerges in each of the 435 congressional districts. Since every district is unique in its political views, we expect the final 435 GOOOH candidates to run the political spectrum from liberal to conservative.

Candidates are required to sign a binding agreement, before they are selected, that ensures they will vote according to their documented answers once in office. If they do not, they will be legally obligated to resign within 72 hours.

I can't help think GOOOH is at once too simplistic (with their drive toward check-list democracy) and also too complicated.   For example, a candidate can change his position on an issue, but only after submitting his intention to a website referendum.

There might be a more significant problem with the concept. Once you register at the site, you are taken to a four-step sign-up menu:

• Pass the candidate screening exam
• Complete the Candidate Questionnaire
• Sign a “Commitment Letter”
• Donate $100 to the GOOOH system

If I understand it correctly, the only way to "activate" your participation in GOOOH's "direct democracy" movement is  to donate $100.   Woa!  How do I know that GOOOH is not some kind of scam?

In the next post, I report on my experience taking the "Candidate Questionnaire." 

Read more...

How much will the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed cost?

Senator Dianne Feinstein argues in a letter to President Obama that the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be moved out of New York City "to a less prominent, less costly, and equally secure location.”   Feinstein writes:

First, the concerns of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other local government officials should be taken seriously. The mayor’s concerns, raised earlier this week in a departure from his initial views, focused on the costs associated with the trial....

Certainly, New Yorkers should not have to bear the anticipated costs of such a trial.   Having endured so much, New Yorkers should neither have to pay dearly for justice, nor be denied it.  A country that will spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting terrorism with guns can surely afford to pay the relatively small cost of fighting terrorism with Justice.

Feinstein's letter continues:

... the terrorist threat to the United States remains high. Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat.

....Our adversaries are capable and adaptive, however, and I believe holding this trial in Manhattan makes their interest in a terrorist attack even stronger.

Politicians like Sen. Feinstein should not propose special arrangements for terrorists.  They need to refrain from using phrases like "our adversaries" when describing terrorists.  Most of all, they need to stop scaring people.

Where does Sen. Feinstein's logic lead?  How many other events should New York forsake holding out of fear of tempting terrorists to target the city?  The purpose of terrorism, after all, is to terrorize.

A great nation equates mere outlaws with soldiers at its peril.  To her credit Feinstein opposes military tribunals.  A worse option than moving the trials, military tribunals dignify terrorists and ennoble their cause.

If the government were to treat suspected 9/11 terrorists as it would any other suspected criminals, this would help to dis-empower terrorists. That's why I think regardless of the cost, irrespective of fear, every effort should be made to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to justice in a jurisdiction where the crimes occurred.

Read more...

Republican voting bloc exposed

James Fallows posted an interesting letter from a "someone with many decades' experience in national politics" explaining that Republicans now vote as a block for "structural" reasons.  These concern how the GOP selects its candidates.  Republicans can no longer be expected to side with Democrats on important legislation, lest they face a primary challenge from within their own party.   The American tradition of bipartisanship has become a pipe-dream.  Fallows comments:

If Democrats could find a way to talk about structural issues -- if everyone can find a way to talk about them -- that would be at least a step. And the Dems could talk about the simple impossibility of governing when the opposition is committed to "No" as a bloc.

That would be highly desirable.  But on what basis do we assume that the Democratic Party wants this problem solved? The myth of bipartisanship may be useful to its leaders.

On one hand, in terms of attracting voters, many Democratic politicians need to be seen supporting legislative initiatives that appeal to liberals.  On the other, the Democratic Party surely does not want to be blamed for actually having passed laws harmful to its donors.   It takes deep pockets to underwrite national and state-wide campaigns. 

If the myth of bipartisanship was exposed, Democratic leaders would face more pressure to herd Democrats to vote as a block.  This would create a dilemma: either alienate your financial base or your voter base.  

In a world where a handful of Republicans retains the power to vote down a liberal agenda, a Democrat doesn't have to.  Republican nay-saying, the filibuster, etc. means most Democrats can be seen to have voted the right way by their constituents.  Yet these votes need not happen at the expense of the Democratic Party's ability to attract wealthy donors.  Whilst  the public is none the wiser, politicians can have their cake and eat it too.

Read more...