There are versions of this amendment going around facebook. Here is how I would write it. I call it the Exemption Amendment.
Article 1:
No member of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government shall be exempt from the laws, regulations and fiats they pass upon the American People. Nor shall any law be valid which gives members of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government benefits which are not available to every civilian employee of the United State Government or the the citizens of the United States, except to protect the safety of those said leaders from assassination or any other crime of which is solely the risk of their office.
Article 2:
Whenever disagreements over the Federal Budget cause the government to shut down, members of congress will not be paid until the disagreement is resolved. Members of the US Armed Forces and other Federal Employees who will not be excused from duty during the shut down will be paid.
The purpose of this amendment is to formally recognize that the President, Members of Congress and members of the Judiciary from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court down to every federal judge are not above the laws that they create. Nor does their election nor appointment, whichever the case may be, give them special privileges; except to recognize the risk they take by taking office and to protect them.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Gun Control, Can the President really use Executive Powers.
In a press conference on January 14, 2012, President Obama stated that he had the power to regulate firearms. The logic is found in the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment does say, "a well regulated militia..." but it does not say who has the power to regulate the militia.
The president is the commander in chief, therefore, the President can regulate the militia. But there is a catch.
The 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the constitution does not give the Federal Government nor the President the power to regulate the militia, that power must belong to the states.
The 10th amendment is balanced by two other clauses in the constitution. First, Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. And there is also the Necessary and Proper Clause in the constitution which gives the federal government the power to pass all laws that are Necessary and Proper.
This is probably something that will eventually be settled in the US Supreme Court. I am not an expert on Federalism, but unless someone is planning to build guns in one state and sell them in another, I don't believe that the Federal Government has a horse to race.
I understand the problem that some people have with this. As you travel from state to state, you are subject to different laws. But this was the way that our founders intended. They wanted stronger state government, and many powers delegated to the states. They wanted each individual state to maintain a level of sovereignty separate from the federal government. That is something that has gradually been lost.
Some states have very strict gun control laws, which in the wake of recent school shootings has been made even more strict. While it may help to curb gun violence, there is little evidence that it controls overall violence. Here in Utah, the majority of gun-related murders were committed in the context of domestic violence. It would not be reasonable to believe that stricter gun control laws would curb the violence. It might save lives, but in close and intimate settings such as at home, the guns that would still be legal would still be lethal.
We need an honest discussion about what is at the root of violence. The answer may be a combination of factors, such as less violence in movies, television and video games. It could be classes in high school about building healthy relationships. It could be removing some of the stigma from mental illness so that people are not afraid to get help before they become violent. It may take a combination of all of these factors to reduce the threat to innocent victims.
As far as violence against schools. They are soft targets. I am not for arming teachers, unless they have experience in prior work that required the use of a firearm. For example, some police officers retire from the force and become teachers. They would be the ideal teachers to arm. Same with former soldiers and marines. Most teachers, however, should remain unarmed and should not be given arms training.
Schools would be a good place for aging police officers and former soldiers and marines to find work after their service has come to an end. It is possible that these men and women could bond with the students and provide positive role models. They could also watch for warning signs and help intervene before students themselves become violent. Remember, many of the most notorious school shootings were perpetrated by students, and not by complete strangers.
School campuses should be closed during school hours. There should only be one way in and out during that time. The only ones that should be admitted are student, teachers, administrators, parents and guests that are invited to speak by a teacher or an administrator. Parking lots and driveways should be a good distance away from school buildings to keep students out of the range of car bombs. Security consultants should be hired in ways to make school grounds a safe place for students to spend the day.
But when all is said and done, on average, students are much more safe in school than they are in getting to and from school. Your child is much more likely to die in transit than at the school. And someone intent on going out in a blaze of glory at a school is likely to find a way to do it. I know that is not very comforting. The bottom line is take time to express your love to those you have while you have them. But still, on average, your kids are likely to outlive you.
The 2nd amendment does say, "a well regulated militia..." but it does not say who has the power to regulate the militia.
The president is the commander in chief, therefore, the President can regulate the militia. But there is a catch.
The 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the constitution does not give the Federal Government nor the President the power to regulate the militia, that power must belong to the states.
The 10th amendment is balanced by two other clauses in the constitution. First, Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. And there is also the Necessary and Proper Clause in the constitution which gives the federal government the power to pass all laws that are Necessary and Proper.
This is probably something that will eventually be settled in the US Supreme Court. I am not an expert on Federalism, but unless someone is planning to build guns in one state and sell them in another, I don't believe that the Federal Government has a horse to race.
I understand the problem that some people have with this. As you travel from state to state, you are subject to different laws. But this was the way that our founders intended. They wanted stronger state government, and many powers delegated to the states. They wanted each individual state to maintain a level of sovereignty separate from the federal government. That is something that has gradually been lost.
Some states have very strict gun control laws, which in the wake of recent school shootings has been made even more strict. While it may help to curb gun violence, there is little evidence that it controls overall violence. Here in Utah, the majority of gun-related murders were committed in the context of domestic violence. It would not be reasonable to believe that stricter gun control laws would curb the violence. It might save lives, but in close and intimate settings such as at home, the guns that would still be legal would still be lethal.
We need an honest discussion about what is at the root of violence. The answer may be a combination of factors, such as less violence in movies, television and video games. It could be classes in high school about building healthy relationships. It could be removing some of the stigma from mental illness so that people are not afraid to get help before they become violent. It may take a combination of all of these factors to reduce the threat to innocent victims.
As far as violence against schools. They are soft targets. I am not for arming teachers, unless they have experience in prior work that required the use of a firearm. For example, some police officers retire from the force and become teachers. They would be the ideal teachers to arm. Same with former soldiers and marines. Most teachers, however, should remain unarmed and should not be given arms training.
Schools would be a good place for aging police officers and former soldiers and marines to find work after their service has come to an end. It is possible that these men and women could bond with the students and provide positive role models. They could also watch for warning signs and help intervene before students themselves become violent. Remember, many of the most notorious school shootings were perpetrated by students, and not by complete strangers.
School campuses should be closed during school hours. There should only be one way in and out during that time. The only ones that should be admitted are student, teachers, administrators, parents and guests that are invited to speak by a teacher or an administrator. Parking lots and driveways should be a good distance away from school buildings to keep students out of the range of car bombs. Security consultants should be hired in ways to make school grounds a safe place for students to spend the day.
But when all is said and done, on average, students are much more safe in school than they are in getting to and from school. Your child is much more likely to die in transit than at the school. And someone intent on going out in a blaze of glory at a school is likely to find a way to do it. I know that is not very comforting. The bottom line is take time to express your love to those you have while you have them. But still, on average, your kids are likely to outlive you.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Like Thelma and Louise...off a cliff
As we head over the so-called fiscal cliff, there are actually very few things that are certain. No, I do not think that it is certain that we are headed for a major recession as a result. If we were, I think that the President and Congress would be working for a solution. If 2010 taught us anything, it is this; economic problems almost certainly will cost Washington politicians their jobs. However, we have just enough political inexperience in Washington for this to be dangerous. We have enough people who don't know when and how to compromise. Or perhaps this is a calculated move.
Taxes will go up in just a couple of days, and there will be many in the GOP who will say, "I never voted for a tax increase." They will blame the other party. But in reality, they refused to compromise and as a result, passed a large tax increase on everyone. Sooner or later Americans will wise up to this reality. But for now, it seems that the extremists in both parties will win the day.
I remember the advice that one sociology professor told me in college. Politicians do not get elected to solve problems. They get elected because problems exist, but if they actually solve problems, they will never be elected again.
For example, many people will tell you that George HW Bush lost in 1992 because people were sick of Reagan-era policies. That is probably not the case. Look at the GOP today. Reagan is a demigod. Why not continue to support his second in command. The problem was that the Cold War ended. Bush no longer had the Cold War and the fear of the Soviet Empire as a plank in his platform. He lost some of the support in his party and the Reagan Democrats because of it.
Perhaps the best thing that the GOP can do is to allow Obama some successes. It will weaken the eventual democratic nominee in 2016. Perhaps the worst thing for the GOP is for Obama to speak at the Democratic Convention in 2016 telling America that Hillary needs to finish the work that he was unable to get done while he was in office.
Another thing that would benefit the GOP is for Obama's policies to fail so badly that no one in their right mind would vote democrat. They want to be able to say, "I told you so." They want to say, "don't like what America has become?" You voted for this in 2012. History shows that this strategy may backfire.
From a pure definition standpoint, the Great Depression ended before Roosevelt ever won. But America has not recovered in 1932. The economy was growing, but America had not yet recovered.
America had not recovered by 1936. Roosevelt won again.
America had not recovered by 1940. Roosevelt won again, and had a new problem. The specter of war. Sure, the US did not officially enter the Second World War by the fall on 1940, but the British and the Soviets were fighting the Nazi's by themselves and it was not looking good. It would only be a war time build up that would put the US back to 1920s employment levels. From October 1929 to December 1941 Americans had trouble finding work for 147 months, and the democrats won the day because the problem was never really solved.
I have to think that if the GOP is going to win the White House in 2016, that one of the problems that exists today will have to be solved. Success can change the political climate just as much as failure can.
One fiscal cliff story that I find far-fetched is the threat of $8 per gallon milk. If that does happen it won't last long.
In economics, I learned about something called an equilibrium price. It is the price that an item will sell for if there is no interference from the government, including taxes. It is where supply and demand meet. My hunch is that the equilibrium price for milk is much lower than $8 per gallon.
Here is what could happen if government subsidies for milk run out.
Retail giants like Wal-Mart will be free to use their marketing power over suppliers to push the price down. They are not free to do so now. In fact, Wal-Mart and others may sell Milk for a loss in order to take advantage of impulse buying on high mark-up items.
If the price from Milk goes up, farmers who sell their cows for meat may get into the dairy business. Farmers who produce grade-B milk (Milk not sold directly to consumers but used as ingredients for other food processing) may get into the grade-A business. If people can make money from dairy farming, more people may chose it for a living. And finally, milk will be imported from Mexico, Canada and other nearby countries for sale in the US.
In other words, supply will meet demand. In the long run, who knows, milk may cost less.
Government farm programs, such as farm subsidies do not make the price of milk go up, they support an artificially high price.
But one thing about economics is certain. If there is a surplus, the price is too high. Last I checked, there was a surplus of dairy products in the US. If my understanding of economics is correct, prices will go down because of the fiscal cliff, not up.
Falling prices are usually not a good thing. That leads to higher deficits and higher unemployment. A deflationary economy leads to a depression.
There is one other thing on my mind this morning.
In my wanderings yesterday, I was delayed by a traffic accident outside a gun dealer. (I was not involved, but the road was blocked for emergency vehicles.) Many who believe in defending themselves with assault rifles were trying to purchase weapons and ammunition while they believed they still could. Gun dealers are making a financial "killing" by the threat of more gun control legislation.
Schools are soft targets for violence because there are very few people at schools are able to defend themselves. They always will be. Gun control laws will not change that fact. Trained and experienced armed guards and safe rooms are probably the best answer. This might be a good place to put retired police officers and military men/women who are really to young to retire to work. There are no easy solutions. Training and arming teachers is not a good idea. A bunch of inexperienced people using deadly force is never a good idea. There will be collateral damage and lawsuits as a result.
Gun control laws are what I would term as "feel good" legislation. Members of Congress who vote for it will be able to tell their constituency that they have done something, meaning they have passed a law, but in reality have done nothing.
Taxes will go up in just a couple of days, and there will be many in the GOP who will say, "I never voted for a tax increase." They will blame the other party. But in reality, they refused to compromise and as a result, passed a large tax increase on everyone. Sooner or later Americans will wise up to this reality. But for now, it seems that the extremists in both parties will win the day.
I remember the advice that one sociology professor told me in college. Politicians do not get elected to solve problems. They get elected because problems exist, but if they actually solve problems, they will never be elected again.
For example, many people will tell you that George HW Bush lost in 1992 because people were sick of Reagan-era policies. That is probably not the case. Look at the GOP today. Reagan is a demigod. Why not continue to support his second in command. The problem was that the Cold War ended. Bush no longer had the Cold War and the fear of the Soviet Empire as a plank in his platform. He lost some of the support in his party and the Reagan Democrats because of it.
Perhaps the best thing that the GOP can do is to allow Obama some successes. It will weaken the eventual democratic nominee in 2016. Perhaps the worst thing for the GOP is for Obama to speak at the Democratic Convention in 2016 telling America that Hillary needs to finish the work that he was unable to get done while he was in office.
Another thing that would benefit the GOP is for Obama's policies to fail so badly that no one in their right mind would vote democrat. They want to be able to say, "I told you so." They want to say, "don't like what America has become?" You voted for this in 2012. History shows that this strategy may backfire.
From a pure definition standpoint, the Great Depression ended before Roosevelt ever won. But America has not recovered in 1932. The economy was growing, but America had not yet recovered.
America had not recovered by 1936. Roosevelt won again.
America had not recovered by 1940. Roosevelt won again, and had a new problem. The specter of war. Sure, the US did not officially enter the Second World War by the fall on 1940, but the British and the Soviets were fighting the Nazi's by themselves and it was not looking good. It would only be a war time build up that would put the US back to 1920s employment levels. From October 1929 to December 1941 Americans had trouble finding work for 147 months, and the democrats won the day because the problem was never really solved.
I have to think that if the GOP is going to win the White House in 2016, that one of the problems that exists today will have to be solved. Success can change the political climate just as much as failure can.
One fiscal cliff story that I find far-fetched is the threat of $8 per gallon milk. If that does happen it won't last long.
In economics, I learned about something called an equilibrium price. It is the price that an item will sell for if there is no interference from the government, including taxes. It is where supply and demand meet. My hunch is that the equilibrium price for milk is much lower than $8 per gallon.
Here is what could happen if government subsidies for milk run out.
Retail giants like Wal-Mart will be free to use their marketing power over suppliers to push the price down. They are not free to do so now. In fact, Wal-Mart and others may sell Milk for a loss in order to take advantage of impulse buying on high mark-up items.
If the price from Milk goes up, farmers who sell their cows for meat may get into the dairy business. Farmers who produce grade-B milk (Milk not sold directly to consumers but used as ingredients for other food processing) may get into the grade-A business. If people can make money from dairy farming, more people may chose it for a living. And finally, milk will be imported from Mexico, Canada and other nearby countries for sale in the US.
In other words, supply will meet demand. In the long run, who knows, milk may cost less.
Government farm programs, such as farm subsidies do not make the price of milk go up, they support an artificially high price.
But one thing about economics is certain. If there is a surplus, the price is too high. Last I checked, there was a surplus of dairy products in the US. If my understanding of economics is correct, prices will go down because of the fiscal cliff, not up.
Falling prices are usually not a good thing. That leads to higher deficits and higher unemployment. A deflationary economy leads to a depression.
There is one other thing on my mind this morning.
In my wanderings yesterday, I was delayed by a traffic accident outside a gun dealer. (I was not involved, but the road was blocked for emergency vehicles.) Many who believe in defending themselves with assault rifles were trying to purchase weapons and ammunition while they believed they still could. Gun dealers are making a financial "killing" by the threat of more gun control legislation.
Schools are soft targets for violence because there are very few people at schools are able to defend themselves. They always will be. Gun control laws will not change that fact. Trained and experienced armed guards and safe rooms are probably the best answer. This might be a good place to put retired police officers and military men/women who are really to young to retire to work. There are no easy solutions. Training and arming teachers is not a good idea. A bunch of inexperienced people using deadly force is never a good idea. There will be collateral damage and lawsuits as a result.
Gun control laws are what I would term as "feel good" legislation. Members of Congress who vote for it will be able to tell their constituency that they have done something, meaning they have passed a law, but in reality have done nothing.
Monday, December 3, 2012
On Gun Control and Suicide
Bob Costas on Sunday Night Football has opened up the gun control can of worms again. He said that Jovan Belcher would still be alive today if he did not have a gun. Using his
Guns are often blamed for violence in our society. Advocates of gun control have good data to back them up. About 60% of suicides and 54% of homicides are performed with handguns. 55% of all handgun deaths are suicide, 45% of all handgun deaths are homicide. 10% of gun deaths are either accidental or justifiable. It is very easy to draw the conclusion that handguns are the cause of so much death in our society.
But the real debate is no whether handguns are the cause of the violence or just the tool. And what is the root cause of the violence. Do people have violence sewn into their souls and the guns are just the tools? If they did not have access to guns, would they chose something else?
Let's take the Jovan Belcher incident in Kansas City this week. If he wanted to take his own life, and the life of his girlfriend, he could have done the deed in several different ways. He could have driven his car over a bridge, for example, as there are many in the Kansas City area over the Missouri River. Needless to continue to list all of the options out, but if someone is determined to take their own life, there are many ways to do it.
Suicide is complicated. It is a mystery; even to the experts. What would cause a person to take their own life is the great unknown. But it is becoming epidemic in some professions. One of those professions is American Gridiron Football. Belcher is the latest high profile suicide in the NFL family. The most prominent was hall of fame linebacker Junior Seau last summer.
The trouble with suicide, you can't talk to those who succeed.
Even with murder, one does not know what causes people to snap and become more violent. If that was understood, more could be done to prevent it.
It is real easy to blame the tool that was used in any crime or tragedy, but to say that there would be fewer suicides if there were more limited access to guns is, for lack of a better term, jumping the gun. Hand guns are to suicide and murder as the Internet is to pornography. It is a tool that makes the job a little bit more convenient. Focusing on the tool does not solve the problem. People who have anger issues will find something else to use.
Guns are often blamed for violence in our society. Advocates of gun control have good data to back them up. About 60% of suicides and 54% of homicides are performed with handguns. 55% of all handgun deaths are suicide, 45% of all handgun deaths are homicide. 10% of gun deaths are either accidental or justifiable. It is very easy to draw the conclusion that handguns are the cause of so much death in our society.
But the real debate is no whether handguns are the cause of the violence or just the tool. And what is the root cause of the violence. Do people have violence sewn into their souls and the guns are just the tools? If they did not have access to guns, would they chose something else?
Let's take the Jovan Belcher incident in Kansas City this week. If he wanted to take his own life, and the life of his girlfriend, he could have done the deed in several different ways. He could have driven his car over a bridge, for example, as there are many in the Kansas City area over the Missouri River. Needless to continue to list all of the options out, but if someone is determined to take their own life, there are many ways to do it.
Suicide is complicated. It is a mystery; even to the experts. What would cause a person to take their own life is the great unknown. But it is becoming epidemic in some professions. One of those professions is American Gridiron Football. Belcher is the latest high profile suicide in the NFL family. The most prominent was hall of fame linebacker Junior Seau last summer.
The trouble with suicide, you can't talk to those who succeed.
Even with murder, one does not know what causes people to snap and become more violent. If that was understood, more could be done to prevent it.
It is real easy to blame the tool that was used in any crime or tragedy, but to say that there would be fewer suicides if there were more limited access to guns is, for lack of a better term, jumping the gun. Hand guns are to suicide and murder as the Internet is to pornography. It is a tool that makes the job a little bit more convenient. Focusing on the tool does not solve the problem. People who have anger issues will find something else to use.
Friday, November 9, 2012
3 Non-Romeny Gaffes that could have cost him the election in Ohio.
Romney made plenty of his own mistakes in his run for the White House. Mostly, his ground game did not match Obama's, but there were three mistakes that really cost Romney the women's vote. But these were not his gaffes. According to one blogger, it was the moderate Republican women who did not turn out for Romney, not just the conservative women.
What turned women off? How about these costly stands?
1. Rick Santorum's comments about birth control. This was not just a single gaffe, this is Santorum's personal belief. Santorum did not win the nomination, but this is his repeated stance. It became a real issue when Santorum, for a brief period of time, because the GOP front runner. There are many, even staunch conservative women, who are turned off by stances such as this. These issues were known by Republicans long before Santorum ever considered running president, which was most costly of all. In Ohio, Santorum finished a close second to Romney in the primary election there. Think Ohio women forgot about all of that?
2. Todd Akin's Legitimate Rape Comments. These insensitive and uneducated comments shed a bad light, not just on the Missouri US Senate Race, but on the entire national Republican party. Even though he later said his comments were insensitive, he affirmed that he was still opposed to abortion after rape, which is an extreme position. In the final analysis, it probably was not the back breaker in that race, but could have been the difference in a state where the female vote could have changed the election, like Ohio. Yes, this happened in Missouri, but this gaffe was heard round the world, even in Ohio.
3. Richard Murdock's comments about pregnancy after rape. Murdock, the Tea Party candidate who unseated Dick Lugar in the primaries, said that pregancy after rape is something that "God Intended." That brings up another question, did God intend the rape? Another comment about a very sensitive issue for women that was just insensitive. This may have re-affirmed, on a national level, that Republicans were insensitive about women's issues. It may not have been the difference in Indiana, where Romney won and Murdock lost, but in states like Ohio and Florida, it may have cost the GOP the White House.
Overall, what happened in Indiana is a lesson that I will address in another blog. It's an important one to learn, but obviously, the fiscal conservative who unseated Dick Lugar was not properly vetted by the Tea Party group that backed him before running for office.
Again, I caution about painting with broad strokes. Each Republican woman who voted for Obama or stayed home on election day has her own reason for doing so. But certainly insensitive comments about birth control and rape certainly did not help in the long run.
What turned women off? How about these costly stands?
1. Rick Santorum's comments about birth control. This was not just a single gaffe, this is Santorum's personal belief. Santorum did not win the nomination, but this is his repeated stance. It became a real issue when Santorum, for a brief period of time, because the GOP front runner. There are many, even staunch conservative women, who are turned off by stances such as this. These issues were known by Republicans long before Santorum ever considered running president, which was most costly of all. In Ohio, Santorum finished a close second to Romney in the primary election there. Think Ohio women forgot about all of that?
2. Todd Akin's Legitimate Rape Comments. These insensitive and uneducated comments shed a bad light, not just on the Missouri US Senate Race, but on the entire national Republican party. Even though he later said his comments were insensitive, he affirmed that he was still opposed to abortion after rape, which is an extreme position. In the final analysis, it probably was not the back breaker in that race, but could have been the difference in a state where the female vote could have changed the election, like Ohio. Yes, this happened in Missouri, but this gaffe was heard round the world, even in Ohio.
3. Richard Murdock's comments about pregnancy after rape. Murdock, the Tea Party candidate who unseated Dick Lugar in the primaries, said that pregancy after rape is something that "God Intended." That brings up another question, did God intend the rape? Another comment about a very sensitive issue for women that was just insensitive. This may have re-affirmed, on a national level, that Republicans were insensitive about women's issues. It may not have been the difference in Indiana, where Romney won and Murdock lost, but in states like Ohio and Florida, it may have cost the GOP the White House.
Overall, what happened in Indiana is a lesson that I will address in another blog. It's an important one to learn, but obviously, the fiscal conservative who unseated Dick Lugar was not properly vetted by the Tea Party group that backed him before running for office.
Again, I caution about painting with broad strokes. Each Republican woman who voted for Obama or stayed home on election day has her own reason for doing so. But certainly insensitive comments about birth control and rape certainly did not help in the long run.
Does the GOP need to moderate their platform, or just the tone.
It is clear the the minority vote on election night did not go the way of the GOP and that some loyal conservatives stayed home and did not vote.
While some are calling for change, they can't agree on what change needs to be made. Many are saying that if we had a more conservative candidate at the top of the ticket, then more hardy GOP turnout could have one the election. Others are saying that more moderate views would win more Hispanics, more women and more young people to the GOP.
I think the GOP is in a bigger quandary. There are not enough Hispanics that vote to make up for the conservatives that would be alienated from the party. Some women will never become republicans, and since we are having fewer and fewer babies, and the GOP is not cool enough for people who haven't lived long enough to know themselves. We have to bring more people into the fold without alienating the people that are here.
The Republicans should not change who they are, but should change the TONE. Our 7th-day Adventist Friends have some good advice that I think the whole party should hear and heed. I will use the example of immigration reform.
We are not talking about compromise, moderating platforms nor changing who we are. We are talking about taking the high road and a tone that will lead to problem resolution.
Here are the bad steps to conflict resolution.
1. Name-callling. Avoid the use of racial slurs, for example. Even the use of terms like illegal alien are offensive to some. The reason why this is bad is because it transforms the discussion into a personal attack. What should we call people who have broken the law and crossed the border without documentation, then? Call them by name. They also prefer the term "undocumented immigrant." Let's go with that because it is respectful.
2. Becoming hysterical. The first person to get angry in a conflict will lose. The statement, "what part of illegal don't you understand?" is an anger statement.
3. Becoming historical. Each immigrant comes to the US for a different reason. Let Democrats try to categorize and pigeon-hole people because that is what they are best at. We are best at solving problems. Let's focus on solutions, not on history. Sorry Newt.
4. Overgeneralizing. Again, we can let the other party do that. That is the main weakness of the Arizona immigration bill, it tends to overgeneralize the problem. Not everyone who crosses our southern border does so for ________.
5. Silent Treatment/Ignoring. We are not going to woo Hispanic voters if we ignore the problems that they care about. We have to show that we are willing to listen to all sides and put forth a workable resolution.
6. Becoming physically abusive. This almost goes without saying.
The right way to solve problems.
1. Define the problem. Here is how I define the immigration problem. "Ever have a party and an uninvited guest showed up? Did they spoil the party? No. But what if the whole neighborhood shows up? Do you have enough to take care of everybody? No." The problem is this, we are simply looking for a way to ensure that there is enough to go around.
2. Listen intently and with an open mind. Not everyone that crosses the border came here for the same reason. Some come to escape problems. Some come to earn money. Some come to be with family. Some come to break the law. What can we do to help? Maybe the solution is to help them make things better at home. We won't know unless we talk.
3. Ask clarifying questions. It helps both sides feel better about the solution to the problem.
4. Restate what the other person has said. That person will then know you have listened.
5. Do not interrupt.
6. Treat others with respect.
Read more at the following address:
http://www.adventistworld.org/article/1298/resources/english/issue-2012-1008/speaking-your-mind-without-losing-it
While some are calling for change, they can't agree on what change needs to be made. Many are saying that if we had a more conservative candidate at the top of the ticket, then more hardy GOP turnout could have one the election. Others are saying that more moderate views would win more Hispanics, more women and more young people to the GOP.
I think the GOP is in a bigger quandary. There are not enough Hispanics that vote to make up for the conservatives that would be alienated from the party. Some women will never become republicans, and since we are having fewer and fewer babies, and the GOP is not cool enough for people who haven't lived long enough to know themselves. We have to bring more people into the fold without alienating the people that are here.
The Republicans should not change who they are, but should change the TONE. Our 7th-day Adventist Friends have some good advice that I think the whole party should hear and heed. I will use the example of immigration reform.
We are not talking about compromise, moderating platforms nor changing who we are. We are talking about taking the high road and a tone that will lead to problem resolution.
Here are the bad steps to conflict resolution.
1. Name-callling. Avoid the use of racial slurs, for example. Even the use of terms like illegal alien are offensive to some. The reason why this is bad is because it transforms the discussion into a personal attack. What should we call people who have broken the law and crossed the border without documentation, then? Call them by name. They also prefer the term "undocumented immigrant." Let's go with that because it is respectful.
2. Becoming hysterical. The first person to get angry in a conflict will lose. The statement, "what part of illegal don't you understand?" is an anger statement.
3. Becoming historical. Each immigrant comes to the US for a different reason. Let Democrats try to categorize and pigeon-hole people because that is what they are best at. We are best at solving problems. Let's focus on solutions, not on history. Sorry Newt.
4. Overgeneralizing. Again, we can let the other party do that. That is the main weakness of the Arizona immigration bill, it tends to overgeneralize the problem. Not everyone who crosses our southern border does so for ________.
5. Silent Treatment/Ignoring. We are not going to woo Hispanic voters if we ignore the problems that they care about. We have to show that we are willing to listen to all sides and put forth a workable resolution.
6. Becoming physically abusive. This almost goes without saying.
The right way to solve problems.
1. Define the problem. Here is how I define the immigration problem. "Ever have a party and an uninvited guest showed up? Did they spoil the party? No. But what if the whole neighborhood shows up? Do you have enough to take care of everybody? No." The problem is this, we are simply looking for a way to ensure that there is enough to go around.
2. Listen intently and with an open mind. Not everyone that crosses the border came here for the same reason. Some come to escape problems. Some come to earn money. Some come to be with family. Some come to break the law. What can we do to help? Maybe the solution is to help them make things better at home. We won't know unless we talk.
3. Ask clarifying questions. It helps both sides feel better about the solution to the problem.
4. Restate what the other person has said. That person will then know you have listened.
5. Do not interrupt.
6. Treat others with respect.
Read more at the following address:
http://www.adventistworld.org/article/1298/resources/english/issue-2012-1008/speaking-your-mind-without-losing-it
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Second Term Curse
Almost every president that has served 2 terms has had more trouble in the second term. It may be no different for Obama. It happened to Woodrow Wilson almost every president. Many second term agendas have gone by the wayside because of the Second Term Curse. Here is what has happened in the 2nd term to each president in their second term in one word. Only Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt and Monroe seemed to avoid it. Even George Washington had his. I think that Obama will get his, and his legacy will be defined by how well he handles it. Look at Bill Clinton, for example. Each word has a link to the Wikipedia article about the scandal.
GW Bush--Katrina
Clinton--Monica
Reagan--Contra
Nixon--Watergate
Johnson--Vietnam
Eisenhower--Health
Truman--Korea
Roosevelt--Court
Coolidge--None
Wilson--War
Roosevelt--None
McKinley--Buffalo
Cleveland--Silver
Grant--Many
Lincoln--Booth
Jackson--Debt
Monroe--None
Madison--Bonus
Jefferson--Embargo
Washington--Whiskey
If you do not want to go to Wikipedia, scroll down...
Side Note:
In this Blogger's opinion, Grant was by far the worst president to win a second term in office.
GW Bush--The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina turned Bush into a lame duck.
Clinton--The Monica Lewinsky Affair got him impeached.
Reagan--The Iran-Contra scandal.
Nixon--The coverup of the break in at the Watergate offices of the DNC. Dick tried to protect his "plumbers" and had to resign.
Johnson--The Vietnam War.
Eisenhower--Ike tried to hide is heart troubles from the public. The President is now expected to disclose health problems.
Truman--War broke out in Korea, didn't result in a decisive victory. Truman fired McArthur.
Roosevelt--Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court after some of his programs were declared unconstitutional.
Coolidge--None
Wilson--It wasn't the war that did Wilson in, it was selling the peace treaty and the League of Nations to an America that wanted to return to isolationism.
Roosevelt--None
McKinley--McKinley met an assassin in Buffalo.
Cleveland--Had to deal with a panic and recession in his second term.
Grant--US Grant was the most scandal-plagued president in history, bar none.
Lincoln--John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln in the head while he was at the Theater.
Jackson--High public debt and speculation led on a major depression.
Monroe--None
Madison--He vetoed the popular Bonus bill that would have channeled profits from a national bank to the treasury for capital projects.
Jefferson--The embargo act of 1907 led to the War of 1812.
Washington--When Western Pennsylvania farmers refused to pay taxes on whiskey grain, Washington sent in the militia.
GW Bush--Katrina
Clinton--Monica
Reagan--Contra
Nixon--Watergate
Johnson--Vietnam
Eisenhower--Health
Truman--Korea
Roosevelt--Court
Coolidge--None
Wilson--War
Roosevelt--None
McKinley--Buffalo
Cleveland--Silver
Grant--Many
Lincoln--Booth
Jackson--Debt
Monroe--None
Madison--Bonus
Jefferson--Embargo
Washington--Whiskey
If you do not want to go to Wikipedia, scroll down...
Side Note:
In this Blogger's opinion, Grant was by far the worst president to win a second term in office.
GW Bush--The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina turned Bush into a lame duck.
Clinton--The Monica Lewinsky Affair got him impeached.
Reagan--The Iran-Contra scandal.
Nixon--The coverup of the break in at the Watergate offices of the DNC. Dick tried to protect his "plumbers" and had to resign.
Johnson--The Vietnam War.
Eisenhower--Ike tried to hide is heart troubles from the public. The President is now expected to disclose health problems.
Truman--War broke out in Korea, didn't result in a decisive victory. Truman fired McArthur.
Roosevelt--Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court after some of his programs were declared unconstitutional.
Coolidge--None
Wilson--It wasn't the war that did Wilson in, it was selling the peace treaty and the League of Nations to an America that wanted to return to isolationism.
Roosevelt--None
McKinley--McKinley met an assassin in Buffalo.
Cleveland--Had to deal with a panic and recession in his second term.
Grant--US Grant was the most scandal-plagued president in history, bar none.
Lincoln--John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln in the head while he was at the Theater.
Jackson--High public debt and speculation led on a major depression.
Monroe--None
Madison--He vetoed the popular Bonus bill that would have channeled profits from a national bank to the treasury for capital projects.
Jefferson--The embargo act of 1907 led to the War of 1812.
Washington--When Western Pennsylvania farmers refused to pay taxes on whiskey grain, Washington sent in the militia.
The Next LDS Candidate
Mitt Romney lost and historically the first person from a new religion to run for the White House will lose, the second one always wins. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon are prime examples. Kennedy was the 2nd Roman Catholic to become a major party candidate after Al Smith. Nixon was the first Quaker to become president. He failed the first time he was on top of the ticket, but succeeded the second time.
Here is a list of who the next LDS presidential candidate could rise to the top of their party's ticket.
Democrats:
Nevada Senator Harry Reid
New Mexico Senator Tom Udall
Republicans:
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman
Utah Governor Gary Herbert
Idaho Senator Mike Crapo
Utah Senator Mike Lee
Nevada Senator Dean Heller
Arizona Senator Elect Jeff Flake
Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Utah Congressman Elect Chris Stewart
Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador
This is not the complete list of Latter-day Saints in high office. I left out those over 60, except for governors and senators. Those in the House will likely need to move to one of these offices before seeking the presidency, so those on this list are relatively young.
The ones that I would have this list that I would have the highest hopes for are Flake, Chaffetz and Labrador, but I would not expect either of these men to rise to the top of the ticket until after 2020.
Here is a list of who the next LDS presidential candidate could rise to the top of their party's ticket.
Democrats:
Nevada Senator Harry Reid
New Mexico Senator Tom Udall
Republicans:
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman
Utah Governor Gary Herbert
Idaho Senator Mike Crapo
Utah Senator Mike Lee
Nevada Senator Dean Heller
Arizona Senator Elect Jeff Flake
Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Utah Congressman Elect Chris Stewart
Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador
This is not the complete list of Latter-day Saints in high office. I left out those over 60, except for governors and senators. Those in the House will likely need to move to one of these offices before seeking the presidency, so those on this list are relatively young.
The ones that I would have this list that I would have the highest hopes for are Flake, Chaffetz and Labrador, but I would not expect either of these men to rise to the top of the ticket until after 2020.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
GOP frontrunner for 2016.
After reading through all of the exit polls and all of the reaction for the radio talk show conservatives, I am willing to cristen Floria Senator Marco Rubio as the GOP frontrunner for 2016. I think after all is said and done, he is the only one that comes out like a knight in shining armor that is associated with the Republican Campaign. Everyone else had a hand in Romney's defeat like Chris Christie or didn't do all that could have been expected to help Romney to victory like Paul Ryan.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
7 Reasons Why Obama Won...7 Ways the GOP can improve
1. We did not know the real Mitt Romney. It took too long for us to get the know him. We only began to find out after the first presidential debate.
2. Hurricane Sandy stalled Romney's momentum in key states.
3. The rhetoric of the Republican party does not translate to how it will improve the lives of many Americans. The GOP rhetoric is too strong, particularly on immigration and birth control and how to repeal or reform Obamacare.
4. The Tea Party and their refusal to back Romney in the Presidential Primaries cost the Romney Campaign too much time, energy and money. If the GOP had settled on a candidate earlier, they would have had a much earlier start at Romney vs. Obama. They treated the primary election as if it were an open-year election, when they needed to settle on a candidate early. The GOP forgot Reagan's 11th commandment...not to speak ill of thy fellow Republican.
5. Many in the GOP and in the Tea Party in particular do not fully appreciate how truly difficult it is in any election to defeat an incumbent. They were too focused, early on, on defeating Romney because he was not their style of conservative.
6. Romney did not woo enough women.
7. Minorities overwhelmingly supported Obama.
Five matters of advice for the GOP to win in 2014 and 2016.
1. Put all effort into winning back the Senate in 2014. If Sarah Palin wants to be a force in national politics again she can begin by running herself to defeat Sean Parnell in Alaska in the US Senate. Buy the end of 2013, the GOP needs to identify a winning candidate in each Senate Race.
2. Do not challenge any GOP incumbent in Congress in 2014 no matter how moderate they are. A moderate Republican is better than any liberal. Do not challenge the GOP within the party until the party is in firm control of both houses in Congress. Only contest open seats.
3. Settle on a Presidential contender early in 2016. Do not punish states that want to vote in their presidential primary early. The earlier the GOP can settle on a presidential candidate, the better. Maybe all states that have not otherwise voted should vote on Super Tuesday.
4. Tone down the Rhetoric. Show how GOP policies benefit the average American, especially those who earn less than 50,000. No one cares how much national debt is per person there is until they realize how it impacts them today and now. Don't just talk about the future, talk about today. That is why many people will say, "the Republicans care about my boss, not about me."
5. Take stock in how difficult it truly is to defeat an incumbent. GOP members need to be more generous with their political contributions and need to be less contentious with themselves.
6. Work to elect more conservative women to office. They do exist.
7. Work to elect more conservative minorities to office. They also exist.
The GOP will win over minorities and women if more are in office.
The bottom line, Republicans need to show that they care about people. This election should be a wake up call to the GOP. Tone it down, or we will continue to lose. We can still show that we care about the economy, about the deficit and about strong moral values. We simply need to be less extreme about it. It's not always about what you say, it's about how you say it.
This was the most telling statistic from the exit polls...
Which ONE of these four candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted for president? (CHECK ONLY ONE) |
Total | Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Shares my values | 27% | 42% | 55% | |
Is a strong leader | 18% | 38% | 61% | |
Cares about people like me | 21% | 82% | 17% | |
Has a vision for the future | 29% | 45% | 53% |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
