Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Time to end the two party system?

The Two party system, which is the system that only the United States has adopted, is seriously flawed. It doesn't allow the people to really express their true beliefs, and in fact, limits the choices to two corrupt institutions.

For those who believe in freedom of expression, and freedom of choice, the answer is obvious, end the two party system. This would require coalitions to gain control of congress.

The reality is that if you're a Democrat, even if you're a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and a touch internationalist, defined by having great respect and deference for the United Nations, you're never going to amount to much in the Democratic Party. You simply put, can't gain influence over the extreme left wing radicals that are the titular heads of the party.

If you're a Republican who believes in open and honest Government, smaller and less intrusive Government, and individual liberty, you're similarly doomed to spend your life slamming your head into the wall of the Blue Blood Republicans who want watered down versions of the Democratic Policies.

So what is the answer? As many parties as you like. If you think that the Democratic Party of today is too Conservative, join a party that is much further to the left. If on the other hand, you think that the Democratic Party is too Liberal, then a vote for the Conservative Democrats may be the way to go. Same with the Republicans.

Other nations do this, and it gives a better example of the people's attitudes. If the Conservatives sweep in with two or three different parties to the right of center, then there is little doubt that the people feel a more conservative line is expected of the Government.

In America, we pretend that the people's votes, are what we say they are. When President Obama was elected, the pundits, and legislators screamed that this was a clear sign that the people wanted extreme socialist principals to guide and build the Government.

When the Democrats took control of Congress, this was claimed to be the same thing, clear evidence that the people wants extreme socialist policies. Yet, the individuals who won the races, ran as Conservatives in Fiscal and International policies. For some reason, the fact that this gave the Democrats control isn't ever mentioned, or considered. These Democrats are labeled as Blue Dog's, but they have little or no influence in the party.

The same is true of Republicans, hard core conservatives are shunned by the party elite, as are the liberals at the other end.

So why not, why not go with the multi-party platform? If you have four parties, let's go with Extreme Liberals who believe in Government Control of everything. Fiscal Conservative Pro-Choice Candidates should go into that party, call it the Center-Left. For the Restricted Choice, in other words not funded by the Government, but available based upon States Choices in the matters, Center-Right. Then the more extreme Right wing, which with few minor exceptions, I would belong in.

That group would shrug helplessly when AIG, or GM says that their poor management of their business will cause them to go Bankrupt if we don't act right now. People like me would look at them and say. "Then I'm sure whoever comes after you, won't make the same mistake your company made, aren't you?" Sounds cruel, but that is the way the system is supposed to work. Nothing, is ever, too big to fail.

We would let the market sort it out, and let companies that are poorly managed, fail. We would have social programs designed to assist people back into society, not spending life dependant upon it. Workfare, where if you're on Welfare, you get job training to get you back into the self sufficiency. Unemployment with a possibility of additional jobs training to make you more competitive in the work force.

So coalitions would be formed, and it would probably swing back and forth between the Center Right, and Center left groups as to who held the most political power during any given time. However, this would eliminate the extremist's like Nancy Pelosi from wielding tremendous power that isn't reflective of the electoral base. We have no say who is the Speaker of the House, or the Majority Whip in the Senate. We the people should have some say, the second in line for the Oval Office, and if we have say over who the President, and Vice President is, shouldn't we have say in who the Speaker is?

I believe it's time for a more parliamentary set up to take root in the United States, and I think it will reduce, but never eliminate the dirty tricks and back room deals that permeate our current system.

Monday, January 25, 2010

The problem with Air America and Liberals

Air America, the liberal dream to destroy Rush Limbaugh, filed for bankruptcy. The most common reaction that people in the world felt was. "Wait, they were still on the air?"

Now, Liberals have a problem. They don't understand reality, so they have no clue how to exist outside of the College Campus. That problem has always affected Liberals, and their solutions to whatever problems society is facing. Their answers simply put, exacerbate the problem.

Air America according to this explanation, failed not because they had a moronic business model, but because the Liberals just don't listen to the radio. Yeah, that's it.

Privately owned Radio Stations have to pay the bills, the income from those stations is in the form of Advertising. The biggest Advertisers, are the biggest Corporations. Now, name a corporation, or business that Liberals like. I'll take a minute and give you time to think. So Corporations that would like to advertise to sell products, or services, are simply put, not welcome on the Air America Radio format.

Who is going to advertise? GM? "Check out our new Chevrolet Pick Up truck, it's bigger and better than ever. It can tow a 747, and handle your weekend projects with ease." The song comes on talking about how Chevy is built like a Rock. Then the radio program comes back and the environmental nuts are screaming about how awful the new Chevy Pickup truck is. How anyone who buys it is in essence shooting a baby seal in the head. So Chevy won't be advertising will they?

Take any company, and the Liberals can't help but rail against it. So why would those companies spend advertising dollars to support people who don't like them, for an audience who won't buy the products?

Now, we can look at the ratings, and why Air America failed is simple. Dishonesty and completely out of touch opinions. After an hour of listening to them rant about how it's all the Republicans fault, you get bored and move on. They had no principals worth mentioning, and no ideals other than the single one, destroy Limbaugh.

When you look at the Air America business plan, you' can't help but think about South Park, who discussed bad business plans on the Underpants Gnomes episode. Their Business plan was simple.

Phase One: Collect Underpants
Phase Two: ??
Phase Three: Profit

What exactly phase two was, just never really got cleared up. However, they had a good idea to begin, and a goal, but that darned bridge phase, just didn't seem to work out.

Enjoy the clip, because the discussions on Air America were probably pretty similar.

Phase One: Start Radio Network
Phase Two:?
Phase Three: Destroy Limbaugh and the Republicans

President Obama and the TelePrompTer

The running joke is that President Obama doesn't seem to be able to say Good Morning without the trusty TelePrompTer there to help him. The TelePrompTer of the United States has a blog page, where he tells the world how hard he and the "Big Guy" are working for the people.

Late Night Comedians have joked about it. The Onion has spoofed this dependence on the scripting tool.

So last week, the President was speaking to some kids in an Elementary School in Virginia. Now, as he is addressing children in the earliest stage of Development, we can assume that he was able to manage this without giving comedy material to the web right?

Er, no, he can't. As can be clearly shown in the picture. President Obama is addressing kids in the 6th Grade and has the usual TelePrompTer set up he needs when saying Good Morning, or ordering lunch.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Police beat teenager for bottle of soda.

The story, a 18 year old senior violinist honor student at a Pittsburgh High School was beaten by three police officers who were "trying to determine what heavy object he had in his pocket".

This video is from the local news story.

Now, to make sure I understand. The police's only probable cause was that they saw a black teenager walking down the street with what appeared to be something heavy in his pocket. These plainclothes officers then started after the boy. This young man then did what anyone would do if suddenly chased, he ran. He was then beaten, stun gunned, and get this, hit by a tree branch during the "arrest."

OK, so the story thus far. Three trained adult male police officers had to beat this young man so badly that his eye was swollen shut, his jaw was swollen shut, and the twigs of the tree branch had in fact, penetrated his gums.

Who decided these three fools should be police officers in the first place? If it takes three men, who are supposedly trained to arrest people, to take down a teenager, and they have to use a stun gun, and a handy tree branch for a club to do it, what kind of cops are they? I can understand if the police officer was working alone, and was attacked by three people, that he grabbed a tree branch to defend himself. I can understand if the Police Officer grabbed a tree branch to use as a club if he was in a riot and seriously outnumbered.

I can't understand how you have the boy outnumbered three to one, and you still have to rip his hair out, literally, and beat him down with a tree branch. Whatever your talents may be, you are obviously inept as a police officer.

Now, according to Jordon Miles, they drew weapons on him. The police claim they thought the young man was armed. I have a hard time with that. Every heavy pocket is not a gun, and merely the existence of a heavy pocket is hardly probable cause to stop and search the young man.

The DA in Pittsburgh should drop all charges, and issue an apology. If an investigation is warranted, it would be better served looking into these three officers. This is obviously excessive use of force, and quite possibly Felony Assault.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Plan to pass health care

I believe I have a plan to help the Democrats pass Health Care, that plays into the strength's of the White House.

After the great game changing effect that the President had on Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts, the White House should simply tell the Congressmen and Senators the following.

If you don't vote for Heath Care, then we will not only actively campaign for you, but we'll show up for the Primary in Air Force One, and President Obama will deliver a speech that mentions change and hope no less than fifty times.

This threat may be enough to get the bill passed in the next couple days. After what has happened in what should have been three safe races for Democrats, the promise of President Obama's help in campaigning, would be seen as a threat anyway.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010


Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts. Astounding, absolutely astounding. Honestly, I didn't expect this result.

Congradulations Scott Brown, and the citizens of Massachusetts. You have impressed and surprised me beyond my ability to describe.

What does this mean for President Obama? Obamacare is dead. The darned thing he's been trying to ram through Congress is the nail that was driven into the coffin now.

Why? Because Conservative values matter to Americans. We care about Conservative principals.

One thing President Obama and the Democrats keep saying is that a vote for Brown was a vote to go back to the way things were before President Obama. That's the problem Mr. President.

Then we had 5% or less unemployment. Essentially statistical full employment. Now we have double that, and that's just the folks still drawing unemployment checks. You're darned right people want to go back, they want to go back to work. They want jobs, and you've been wasting time focusing on your Obamacare bill.

Mr. President, forgive me for explaining this as though to a simpleton. However, when in charge, you tackle the most important problem first. Let's say you're the captain of a ship. It doesn't matter a fetid dingo's kidney if the brass is shiny, when the boat is sinking.

Sir, you passed up opportunity to fix things. Your stimulus package was a payoff to your supporters in slush funds for political cronies. We know, we see it. You bought GM, and propped up a failing corporation, at our expense. You screwed up the Bank Bailouts, and you picked your cronies to be your Cabinet. The people noticed, and we saw the caliber of people you selected.

We were told that these were the best people available. You would think with the rising unemployment, that someone else had to be available.

Mr. President, it's time to consider something. Something that President Clinton figured out. Liberal agenda items don't sell well with the public. He figured that out when the Republicans won big in 1994. He became far more conservative, and a better President for this nation after that date.

It's time to throw off those far left wing radicals, and hire yourself some Conservatives to advise you Mr. President. The far left wing Liberals may be more acceptable to your circle of friends, but they suck as advisers, or leaders. Think about it Mr. President, or you'll find yourself on the end of an Election Night shocker in 2012. The people of one of the most liberal states in the Union have spoken, and they rejected you as well as your anointed shoe in.

President Obama needs your help

President Obama arrived to try and shore up support for the Democratic Candidate Coakley in Massachusetts. He promptly shoved his foot right into his mouth demonstrating how out of touch he is.


Everybody can buy a truck. They can? Perhaps you haven't noticed Mr. President, but the unemployment rate is 10% and the underemployed/Unemployed/Gave up category is estimated to be about 20% according to the BLS.

So Mr. President, the economy is doing worse than any time since the Great Depression. You're in control of the Government during this time, and you're the one who's most responsible for it's getting worse, and it's continuation. Instead you say, Everybody can buy a truck.

Isn't that a bit like Let them eat cake Mr. President?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. President Obama is destined to repeat the great work of President Carter. He's going to Shepard in a new Conservative Resurgence that will carry us through another Decade. One term President, considered a failure by history, that's the destiny of President Obama, and he'll have no one to blame but himself.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Liberals confirm their plan to win Elections

Liberals even now are astounded. They don't understand why the polls seem to indicate that a majority of people don't like their policies. The Liberals don't care of course, their policies are the right ones, and if someone doesn't like it, that's only because anyone who opposes it is a homophobic hate filled racist sexist bigoted moron.

It began as a post on Hot Air for me. Ed Shultz, the MSNBC nutcase who thinks like all Liberals that they know what is best for everyone. Decried the potential loss of the "Kennedy Seat" to a Republican as potentially the end of Change as we know it.

From there, he's gone downhill. He says now that he would vote ten times to "keep those bastards out."

Interestingly enough, I wouldn't vote ten times to get a candidate I liked in, or one I didn't like out. Because I believe I am no better than any other person. I am but one single voice, and if I think the country is headed in the wrong direction, I have a choice. I can explain to my fellow citizens why I think things are going wrong, and my philosophy on what could be done. I can educate in other words. I can teach my fellow citizens why I believe that Conservative principals work and can give examples of historic significance as to why they have worked in the past.

Or I could take the Ed Shultz technique. I could vote ten times, because I'm certain that my own opinion is so right, my own beliefs so superior, that only I should be allowed to decide what happens to all of you, my fellow citizens. Arrogance doesn't begin to describe that by the way.

At least the Liberals admit their policies are unpopular, and further, admit how they can only win. They can only win, if they cheat.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Incredibly inept Democratic Campaign.

In what can only be described as an incredible gaffe, or a thoughtless blunder, the morons in the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) have tried to help out embattled candidate Martha Coakley against Republican Scott Brown.

Friends, many people have complained that the Democrats have one page in the playbook, demonize all Republicans and especially Conservative Republicans (assuming there are any left) as hate filled racist homophobic morons who don't care for the "little guy" but do care about business's.

This one playbook is why every election we hear how all Republicans are always painted with the same broad brush strokes. However, as I read in Hot Air, and couldn't believe it at first, the Democrats are now recycling more than the same old tired lines, they're recycling ad campaigns.

These dolts actually included footage of the World Trade Center, not to show how he's soft on Terror, or a reactionary loon. But in an attempt to show how Scott Brown was a big friend to unregulated Wall Street. Are you joking DSCC? Did anyone review this before running this ad?
According to Politico, it was a mistake to include the image, and the DSCC has pulled the ad, and removed it from You Tube, and it will be fixed with a different image, and resubmitted.
I am sure that some of you will be able to describe to the mules at the DSCC what pictures you think they should use.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

When Liberal and Conservative intersect

I was reading and laughing at the various whiny posts at Huffington Post when I stumbled across one that made me agree with the writer, with the caveat that accepts the post as reasonably true.

The story from Victoria Fine is that her Father is being held indefinitely on Contempt of Court charges from a Judge.

Now, how long have I hated that charge? Pretty much all my life. When I was in school, I took a course that among other things gave a brief introduction into the courts. This instructor was astounded that I believed that Contempt of Court charges violated the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. You see, under this charge by a Judge, you are deprived of liberty without a trial by a jury of your peers. I suggested then that the proper way to do this was to have the charge reviewed and then moved to a trial by jury to see if the actions of the defendant were really contemptuous, or merely the ranting of a holier than thou judge.

Remember the asinine Judge in Niagara Falls New York? He jailed the entire court room over the ringing of a cell phone in his court. He was disbarred for Judicial Misconduct, but really, was his insanity any different than any other claim from a Judge?

Now, I understand that there must be some semblance of control in the court room, which is why I began by stating that it should be reviewed, and before you detain the offender for more than the normal 3 days, that charges be filed and the system allowed to work as it does for every other criminal complaint. I say criminal, because you're not supposed to be jailed for civil matters.

Accountability is the issue. Are the Judges accountable? Usually, no. All too often they're appointed for life, and this is the key. We have to hold the judges accountable. The obvious answer is one that will never be allowed by the legal profession. Have all Contempt citations reviewed by the next higher court. If a State Judge in Los Angeles issues a Contempt charge against a man, and orders him jailed, then the State Court of Appeals should review the record of that charge within three days, to guarantee that the charge is proper.

If it is found to be proper, then the person should be charged properly, and then tried by the prosecutor, and judged by a jury of his peers, not some sanctimonious potentate in a black robe.

Ms. Fine, I agree with you, that this is indeed troubling. This is one of those instances where the smaller Government less powerful Government Conservatives like myself, should support the cause of actual justice and the intent of the Constitution as written, no matter who the victim is.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Trust us, we're not lying

Anyone who's ever watched Court TV or been in a court room knows how things go. The Prosecutor presents video, testimony, and explanations to the jury to explain that the defendant did do whatever he was accused of. Cop reality shows which show the dashboard video footage are all the rage on Television. Security camera's and video are often shown to the public so the people can see what really happened.

But we're told that these body penetrating ionized X-Ray's which produce pictures like this aren't going to be saved, or kept.

OK, let me get this straight. The vital chain of evidence is not going to be kept in the case of someone who is shown in one of these pictures as hiding a weapon, or an explosive? The chain of evidence which gives the law enforcement probable cause to initiate an additional search, or make an arrest, is going to be destroyed?
I guess you expect me to believe that right? Please tell me that you don't really expect me to swallow that lie.
My problem with this is obvious. I've yet to find an authority or power that the Government has given itself, that it hasn't yet abused or misused. National Security letters for example, which I have denounced more than once, were to be used only in cases where time did not permit a proper warrant application. It was the defense against the "ticking time bomb" scenario. So it was to be used sparingly right? OK, so sparingly is tens of thousands of times per year. Roughly 100 times a day, the FBI was serving people with these National Security Letters, to investigate ticking time bombs? Hello, how many ticking time bomb scenarios are you people looking at over there?
Allowing the Government to take this power, and trusting them to "Police themselves" is beyond foolish, it's another nail the the coffin that contains the remnants of our privacy.
I vote no. I vote no and have already decided never to fly again. I vote no and will not fly until or unless Big Brother decides that invading my privacy and giving extra random searches to every good looking blond girl is not the way to guarantee security and safety. I'll be taking my car from now on.

Friday, January 08, 2010

Tis the week for painfully obvious

The problem with hype is this. Eventually, the hype falls flat in the light of reality.

President Obama's hair is going gray, no surprise, since his administration is on a run of a years worth of absolute failure. But let's look at the painfully obvious realizations that were made in the last week.

After a year's worth of "unexpectedly high" unemployment numbers, the press is starting to squirm when told that this weeks numbers are also "unexpectedly high."

Every single week for the last year, the experts have been supposedly surprised by the high unemployment numbers. We in the public have been less surprised, we've been expecting those higher numbers every week, and we know those high numbers are only a very small part of the total unemployed. Now, it's refreshing that the AP has finally figured it out. Next week, expect the numbers to be just as unexpected.

On the national security front, the administration was shocked, shocked mind you, that the people who haven't liked us, and have been attacking us since 1979, still don't like us, and still want to attack us.

Apparently the administration believed their own hype, that if we elected President Obama, that the world would shower us with love. Mr. President, that yellow stuff they're showering you with isn't sunshine.

So what is the plan? The plan is to use those whole body scanners, you know the ones that probably wouldn't have seen the explosives that the Eunuch Bomber had on him anyway. No one has asked the admin this, but perhaps someone will now.

To counter the privacy concerns, the admin is explaining that the photographs of buck nekkid people like this one, will be computer adjusted to blur the parts that you would object to. In other words, the areas normally associated with bathing suits.
Yet, if those areas are blurred, how can we see the explosives carried in someones underwear? The obvious answer is, that we couldn't.
So those areas wouldn't be blurred would they? If they aren't blurred, and my 16 year old daughter goes through the scanner, does that mean that the Federal Government is producing Kiddie Porn? It would be kiddie porn if I took that picture, and I would rightfully go to prison for a very long time.
So many questions, and no answers forthcoming from those in the administration, just more of the same old song and dance. "We have to do this to be safe." Guys, the painfully obvious reality of the Bush Admin is this. The panic sell didn't work to keep him in office in 2006 and didn't win McCain the election in 2008.
Final Painfully obvious observation of the week. Democrats are now admitting that they should have waited on Health Care and addressed things like the economy, and national security first. No kidding? Now you figure that out? Now you figure out that double digit unemployment is not a sign that the economy is getting better? Now a year into your control of all three branches of Government, you finally get the idea that the economy, and national security matter?
Apparently it is the week of the painfully obvious, and I thought I'd highlight these few examples. Next we're going to hear how it's really cold in the winter, and really hot in the summer.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Is it time for direct democracy yet?

In 1776, when the nation was declared independent, it was done by Representatives of each state in the Continental Congress. At that time in our World History, the Representative Republic was frankly, the only effective means to govern an area larger than a city.

Direct Democracy, as was practiced in the ancient Greek City States was obviously too unwieldy to work over a large area. Transportation took days to get anywhere. Thirty miles a day in travel time was a very fast trip, this after all, was decades before locomotives were invented.

By sea, if the wind was favorable, you might cover 200 miles as the crow flies, with a heck of a lot of work by the crew in a single day.

So the idea that someone would travel to an area, and ask the people what they thought about an issue, and then travel back with that area's choice was obviously impractical, and essentially impossible. So Representative Republic, with elections held to choose the representatives was the only effective way to govern any large area, be it a state or a nation.

Today, communication is much faster. Trains, planes, and automobiles have made travel much faster and more efficient. Electronic communications have changed to allow people to speak to anyone instantly around the globe. You can read, watch, or listen to things as they happen.

In 1775, Paul Revere went from a silversmith of some note, to a famous historical figure with his midnight ride. Slightly faster communications were initiated in France shortly after the Revolution. Napoleon started a semaphore telegraph. This used flags to send messages along a line of posts. One station would send, another would receive, and then turn and transmit to the next station. This was faster than the alternative of racing down the road on horseback, but still not instant as we have today.

Today, when an issue faces our nation, the public has opinions. We're polled, some of us, and our national will is determined by these potentially fatally flawed polls. It isn't until the next election that we get to express our dissatisfaction to the elected, by voting them out of office, and choosing a new representative.

Yet, with the advent of instant communication, why haven't we gone to a more direct form of democracy? We could all vote on an issue, from the comfort of our homes. We could all vote on an issue with accuracy beyond the dreams of the founding fathers of this nation.

Imagine, we have a serious issue before this nation. Perhaps it's a treaty, the Law of the sea treaty for example. We can read, watch, and listen to the arguments, and then on the day indicated, we all phone, or use our computers, to register our vote. The nation, as a whole declares that we aren't going to join this treaty.

Perhaps it's a tax question. We can all vote that no, we aren't going to levy new taxes.

Would the Congress be able to make special deals to pass legislation then? Would the Senator from Louisiana be able to hold out for a special bribe to be included to get her vote? Would the Senator from Nebraska be able to demand special compensation for his support?

What do you think the other peoples in the remaining 49 states would say should such special favors be included. They would respond with a resounding NO. Would it end corruption in Washington? I doubt it, but it would limit it and reduce it to new lows not seen in modern history.

Direct Democracy wasn't practical at the time of our nations founding. It is practical now, and I think it's time to adopt it in some form of fashion.

There was a time when elections every two years was considered too short to really accomplish anything. Now, with the speed of communications, and the changes facing the world, it's too long to allow inadequate representation to continue.

Hit Counter