U.S. Elections May be in Violation of the 14th Amendment

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The ideal of one man, one vote has NEVER been achieved. If your VOTE does not carry the same weight as does the vote of someone else, then your rights under the 14th Amendment have been violated! For example, it is possible that a Presidential candidate could get a greater number of popular votes but, by losing a few large states, gets fewer electoral college votes and, thus, lose the White House.

On any given election, votes are not equal. Someone else's vote may be worth more than yours or your vote may be worth more than the vote cast by another person. Votes are not equal; elections may not be fair. In some cases, fairness is ignored. In others, it is controversial. In yet other cases, your vote may not even count.

In a democratic election between two candidates, the winner is the person with the majority of the votes. But when three or more candidates run, things are seldom so simple. The winner often amasses only a plurality of the votes. (Bill Clinton, for example, won the presidency with 43 percent of the vote; Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship with 37 percent.) The plurality winner could be everyone's least favorite candidate and still lose in a head-to-head battle. As Saari puts it:

"The plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who's despised by almost two thirds of the voters." --Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000

The 14th says that ...

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

--U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment The Equal Protection Clause may be seen as an attempt to secure the promise that "all men are created equal".

Not only minorities but every person has a stake in his/her vote being counted; but --even more importantly --counting for as much as every other vote cast by every other person in the nation. The most promising proposals include the 1) System of Single Transferable Vote (STV) proposed by Thomas Hare in England and Carl George Andrae in Denmark in the 1850s. Adopted throughout the world, STV has been adopted throughout the world to elect public officials, prominently in Australia, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland as well as in local school board elections in New York City.

Other systems have their own advocates as well. They include preference voting, the Borda Count, range voting et al. All have in common that they are far superior to any method now in use in the United States in terms of how accurately any given election reflects the will of the people. My own "preference", however, is the Borda count in which... ...each voter ranks all of the candidates from top to bottom. If there are, say, five candidates, then a voter's top-ranked candidate gets 5 points, his second-ranked candidate gets 4, and so on. Finally, the points from all the voters are added up to determine the winner.  

--Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000

It is hard to see how anything could be simpler and just as hard to see how a nation which tolerates the unequal nature of elections can make a straight-faced claim to being democratic or fair. It is hard to see how any government formed as a result of unfair or inaccurate voting systems can claim to be legitimate.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

Why the GOP Occupied Texas II

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Though Texas is now thought of as a 'red' state, it was not always so. From January 15, 1874 to January 16, 1979 every Texas governor was Democratic. Moreover, most of them could be described as 'progressive Democrats'.

This topic has come up as Texas is now thought of as GOP occupied territory, i.e, a 'red' state. If this is, indeed, the case, the GOP had best be kind to Texas. A cursory survey of the red-blue map of the U.S. indicates that Texas is the only state among GOP/red states to have electoral votes in two digits. As a result, Texas may be essential to the GOP which seems hell-bent on self-destruction, courting irrelevance, skirting eventual oblivion.

Under the Constitution, the office of President is supposed to represent the 'people'. If that is the case, then WHY are Presidents elected by states and appointed 'electors'? The final 'vote count' is watered down to the extent it may be irrelevant.
There are several remedies but one is most urgent: the abolition of a relic called the Electoral College! What IS it good for? Absolutely NOTHING! (apologies to Edwin Starr)

There are, in fact, various methods by which a popular vote could and would allow the people to elect their representatives directly, thus cutting out the middle man. The office of President is, under the Constitution, responsible directly to the people --not the states. It is, therefore, absurd that the holder of that office be elected by any method other than a direct election of the people to whom the President is ultimately responsible.

That, of course, is why the GOP will oppose this proposal!

The question is: how responsive is the government to the will of the people? It is self-evident that public officials should achieve public office by way of elections that most accurately reflect the will of the people. Otherwise --why have elections? The most egregious outrages against this principle include election thefts as, in fact, happened in Florida. That is, in itself, an outrage. It might have been predicted that the only beneficiary of this outrage --George W. Bush --turned out to have been among the very worst Presidents in U.S. history. That alone is outrageous and even more so as it followed Bush v Gore, the very worst SCOTUS decision in U.S. history.

Questions remain; solutions are scarce. Nevertheless, there must be a better way. The good news is: there is a better way: the President could be elected directly by the people. Party machines capable of 'stealing' elections may be bypassed, made irrelevant. An election can be made scientific, the tabulation of votes made accurate and the casting of votes themselves made more representative of the 'will of the people'.

I have in mind a direct election of the office of President by all of the people. This has the advantage of getting powerful 'state machines' out of the 'national election' business save for the primaries. The office of President --responsible directly to the people --should, therefore, be elected by the people, not the States. The 'electoral college; should, therefore, be abolished and good riddance!

Why was Texas targeted for occupation by the GOP?

That's easy, covered in 'Election Grabbing 101', first semester! With 38 electoral votes, Texas is, by far the plum in the GOP bag o' dirty tricks. If Texas should turn blue, the GOP is FINISHED. Look at the other 'red' states with electoral votes ranging from 3 to 16. I will put it this way --the GOP needs Texas a hell of a lot more than Texas needs the fucking carpetbaggers of the GOP.

Under the current system, some votes are worth more than others. For example, a single vote in a state having very few electoral votes (Rhode Island with 3 electoral votes) is not worth nor should be worth as much as a single vote in a large state like Texas with some 38 electoral votes or California with 55. At last, 'Southern Strategy' EXPLOITS the present system and is in fact, a huge argument in favor of the kind of reforms I propose.

ALL the people!

Currently, typically minorities are inadequately represented. That's the point behind direct elections. Cut out the middle man; stop 'watering down' the vote. Prior to re-districting by one Tom DeLay, Texas had not been the solid 'red state' that millions now believe it to be. For a period of some 100 years, for example, EVERY TX governor had been Democratic. Some --like the Furgusons --were VERY PROGRESSIVE. It was a better state for it.

---

The GOP's 'Blame Game' Exposed

"There is a collective responsibility in an authoritarian regime."

--Albert Speer, testinony at Nuremberg War Crimes Trials

I am fed up with the right wing blame game! And you should be as well. The U.S. right wing has more scapegoats than A. Hitler's wet dreams! Jean-Paul Sartre said:

"A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself!"

And it was Bertolt Brecht who summed up right wing crookery:

"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a CROOK!"

The GOP has made of themselves CROOKS and MORONS and MORON CROOKS. Conan Doyle provided some bullet-proof logic:

"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, MUST be the truth!"

--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Doyle has never been more relevant. The GOP is defined by the utter BS that they espouse. That would be bad enough but, in fact, they expect you to buy into their ideology, propaganda, nonsense. The GOP is often threatening but that's typical of their psychopathic ilk. Don't buy it.

The only option is that people must think for themselves and demand proof of the lies and mythology that makes up the GOP's 'alternate reality'. The best and most obvious examples are the many ways in which the party favors the ruling elite and helps to enrich them even further. The most egregious example is 'supply-side' economics, often called 'trickle down theory'. It's all ---or worse! Wealth has never, ever 'trickled down' (at any speed or manner) as a result of GOP tax cuts which are designed to enrich those already filthy rich, those already amogn the RULING ONE PERCENT. This tiny (and shrinking) segment of the population owns more than the rest of us combined. GOP 'economics' creates a very, very steep curve.

Think for yourself. GOP ideology with respect to the economy is most easilly debunked with OFFICIAL STATS from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U. S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Commerce Dept -B.E.A. among many university and various 'think tank' studies. The GOP is dead wrong about almost EVERYTHING. Secondly, don't buy GOP platitudes that simply cannot be proven one way or the other. That's a Nazi tactic that was exposed by Hitler's confidant: Herr Albert Speer.

Food for though; wealth has never, ever trickled down nor has GOP policiy ever enriched or benefited any person who is NOT among the very wealthiest people in America if not the world. If you are not a billionaire, you are nuts to vote GOP.

---

---

Political Decision Theory Made Easy

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I lost patience long ago with so-called 'progressives' because Democrats are 'imperfect'! Who is perfect? I've never seen such a person on any ballot! I prescribe an introductory course in 'decision making'! So what if the MESSIAH is not on the ballot!? You are stuck with two viable choices in any case. You don't like either though one is clearly superior to the other.

NOT voting is not an option; it puts a crooked moron in the Whie House! So --what do you do? You stay home, don't vote and piss and moan about it on FB while a criminal elitist takes over the White House.

I actually consulted a GOP campaign once. I wish I could say that it was an act of 'infiltration' to study GOP tactics and attitudes. Though it was not, I did learn --from the inside --how the GOP thinks. I was in the 'Belly of the Beast'. I even picked the 'brains' of one Tom DeLay --the evil genius who delivered Texas to the GOP on a platter.

Texas had been a Democratic state for some 100 years prior to Tom DeLay's GOP 'revolution'. The GOP campaign manuals actually cover the art of voter suppression. The GOP does not want you to vote. The GOP wants you to BELIEVE that Dems are not better. And --if you buy that crap --you lose!

Short of real revolution, we are stuck with a crappy and inaccurate system, a system that seems designed to keep the very best candidates OFF the ballot. It could not have worked out better for the GOP had they conspired to create it. Come to think of it --they did. That said, the GOP could NEVER, EVER have gone as far as they have of late if idealistic Democrats and Utopian progressives had not decided to boycott the election.

---

---

How U.S. Elections May Violate the 14th Amendment

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The ideal of 'one man, one vote' has never been achieved. If your vote does not carry the same weight as does the vote of someone else, then your rights under the 14th have been violated! For example, it is possible that a Presidential candidate could get a greater number of popular votes but, by losing a few large states, get fewer 'electoral college votes and, thus, lose the White House.

That's only one example and a more obvious one. On any given election, votes are not equal. Someone else's vote may be 'worth' more than yours or yours may be worth more than another person's. Votes are not equal. And, in some cases, some votes --perhaps your vote --may not even count.

In a democratic election between two candidates, the winner is the person with the majority of the votes. But when three or more candidates run, things are seldom so simple. The winner often amasses only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. (Bill Clinton, for example, won the presidency with 43 percent of the vote; Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship with 37 percent.) The plurality winner could be everybody else's least favorite candidate and could even lose to each of the other candidates in a head-to-head battle. As Saari puts it: "The plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who's despised by almost two thirds of the voters."

--Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000

The 14th says that "...no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

--U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment

The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise that "all men are created equal". But not only minorites but every person has a stake in his/her vote being counted but --even more imporantly --counting for as much as every other vote cast by every other person in the nation.

The most promising proposals include the 'System of Single Transferable Vote' (STV) proposed by Thomas Hare in England and Carl George Andrae in Denmark in the l850s. Adopted throughout the world, STV has been adopted to elect public officials, prominently in Australia, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland as well as in local school board elections in New York City.

But other systems, likewise, have their advocates. They include 'preference voting', the Borda Count, range voting et al. All have in common that they are far superior to any method now used in the United States in terms of how accurately any given election reflects the will of the people. My own 'preference', however, is the Borda count in which...

...each voter ranks all of the candidates from top to bottom. If there are, say, five candidates, then a voter's top-ranked candidate gets 5 points, his second-ranked candidate gets 4, and so on. Finally, the points from all the voters are added up to determine the winner.

--Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000

It is hard to see how anything could be simpler and just as hard to see how a nation which tolerates the unequal nature of elections can --with a straight-faced --claim to be democratic or fair. It is hard to see how any government formed as a result of unfair or inaccurate voting systems can claim to be legitimate.

---

---

Decision Theory for Progressives

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Anyone telling me that there are no differences between GOP and DEM had best prove it! The government's own stats prove that every Democratic President since WWII (possibly since 1900) has better GDP and job growth than ANY GOP president. Those are perhaps the most significant, the most important differences between the two parties. Certainly --without GDP growth, without the creation of new jobs, the economy will collapse in short order. If there were no other differences between the parties, these alone are sufficient to justify never, ever voting GOP. Unless, of course, you are a robber baron member of the ruling 1 percent.

In Texas, there is yet another strikingly significant difference between Gopps and Democrats: EDUCATION. Every Democratic governor in TX has enjoyed higher rankings and it was under Bush Jr ( as Governor) that Texas beat out the likes of Mississippi et al for dead last in high school graduations. As high school graduations declined, crime --not surprisingly --rose! Who benefits? Simply --the corporate sponsors of the GOP who own the 'privatized' prisons. There may be no better way to launder a payoff.

The GOP benefits in yet another way: an uninformed and/or semi-literate population is sure to be fooled by GOP propaganda. A population that does not read must rely upon the electronic media for information. Conveniently, right wing regimes have 'de-regulated' the media, allowing its consolidation into fewer and fewer huge corporations. Just as conveniently for the GOP, an ideological right-wing court has decreed that 'corporations', in fact, just legal abstractions, are to be considered 'real people' in the eyes of the 'law'.

In Texas, the fortunes of the Bush crime family rose as education, quality of life and air quality declined. This is another cause and effect from which only the GOP and its crooked sponsors benefit. A corollary: as Bush family fortunes increased so did crime, poverty and unemployment.

If you wish to be informed you must ask: why is that the case? Dismissing that verifiable fact with a PC platitude like: "...there are no differences between the parties' is a convenient cop out, an excuse not to think, a ruse designed to absolve the GOP. It's a 'childhood' defense: "...but Harry did it too, teach!" But did he?

Have the Democrats, in Texas, ever dared to pull off such an overt and heinous crime? Indeed --no! In fact, it is often joked that Democrat crimes (if there were any) benefited the people. The folk wisdom --'he may be a crook but he's our crook' --was and is still often said of Democrats and their constituency: the people! It is NOT said of the GOP. The GOP is no one's crook but that of huge corporations and the corporate money-brokers, i.e, K-street pimps...uh...shills.

Any Democrat chosen at random beats ANY gop re: the environment. Additionally, you will find more effective opposition to 'corporate personhood' among Dems than among Gopps if any opposition among GOPPS whatsoever! The GOP, by and large, defend the recent SCOTUS decision which does what even God nor the Wizard of Oz could do --it bestowed upon corporations, mere legal abstractions, 'personhood'! What other miracles await us? I had feared to ask!

A Bullshit Decision

Every intelligent person most certainly knows that SCOTUS blew it with 'corporate personhood'! But when I say that Antonin Scalia may not know, I am being generous. I may be giving him a benefit of doubt that he neither earned nor deserved! If he knows better and rules otherwise, he is just a common crook! Bertolt Brecht could not have described Scalia better than his terse summation of crookery:

"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!"

Scalia either drools in public like most GOP morons ---OR he knows 'corporate personhood' is utter crap and lies about it. He doesn't care one way or the other! He long ago sold his soul. He's a lost cause, a hard case, a closed file! Scalia is a crook. To sum up: Scalia is either a moron or he is a crook! The only remaining option is that Scalia is both a crook and an idiot.

Perhaps GDP growth, jobs and economic opportunity are unimportant to you. If that is the case, vote GOP! You will not regret it. The GOP --since WWII --has not excelled in either. Perhaps, corporate personhood is just fine with you. Perhaps you can live with the fact that the GOP is the enemy of edcuation. If you're OK with all of the above --fine! Vote GOP! But don't call yourself a 'progressive'.

You get ONE vote!

Who says that by voting you should expect to change the world? We consider 'voting' a right and so it is! But it is a right that must be exercised if it is to have any meaning at all. If, for example, you have the right to vote but fail to exercise it, the outcome is the same if you had not had the vote to begin with. Ergo: not voting is a vote for anything that is anti-Democracy! Not voting is only an option for those who can live with a dictatorship; not voting is an option only if you're OK with idiots telling you what to do, think or say. Not voting is an option only if you think GOP crimes are just fine!

It is narcissistic, perhaps neurotic and most certainly immature to expect everyone you vote for to be precisely what you want. There are no guarantees that any election will please all the people all the time. To believe otherwise is immature, self-indulgent.

At last --the root of the word DEMOCRACY is 'demos'--Greek for 'people'. You have 'a' vote among many. You are not a dictator. But --history will support the warning that a people so self-absorbed that they will not vote for the best possible result but --rather --waits until a 'dream team' is beamed down to them from on high --is done for. I don't recall anyone promising anyone a Utopia.

---

---

The Winter of Our Political Discontent or How and Why You Only have TWO Choices, Two Parties

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Why is the GOP where it is? Simply --GOP fascists turned out!! Why are the Democrats where they are? Don't ask a Democrat! You are likely to get a denial that he/she is a Democrat --rather, a 'progressive'! Don't bother asking what a 'progressive' is. But if you want to know the truth, here goes: a 'progressive' is a Democrat who does not want or dare to admit that he/she is a Democrat! This deplorable situation has resulted because a critical mass of 'Dems' committed what in politics is the unpardonable sin: they allowed the opposition [GOP] to define them! That's why Clinton found it necessary to 'triangulate' a center. Definition of a center in politics: something that is neither here nor there nor sharp but blurry in the middle!

Bottom line: 'progressive' does not mean a thing and will not result in a net gain of votes! The word owes is very existence to the fact that 'liberals' let the GOP get away with branding the word 'liberal'. Liberal is a perfectly good word! It means FREE! Again --LIBERAL means free! Anyone who runs away from 'freedom' deserves to lose an election and until progressives regain the courage of their convictions, they will continue to get 'ass whuppins' at the hands of ruthless and well-financed right wing nuts!

Things can change but only if Democrats regain their party by turning out. The PRIMARIES are more important than the general election. Sadly --the process itself is designed to REDUCE your choices to only two. I don't like it --but that's the way it is! Whining about it on FB will not change a thing. It's a SOP; someone threw us a BONE!

If you want to change America, so-called 'progressives' must --first --take back the Democratic party. But NO ONE is going to tolerate a long lecture on the kinds of reforms that are necessary AFTER the primaries are over!

[Condorcet] He divided the decision process into three stages. In the first stage, one “discusses the principles that will serve as the basis for decision in a general issue; one examines the various aspects of this issue and the consequences of different ways to make the decision.” At this stage, the opinions are personal, and no attempts are made to form a majority. After this follows a second discussion in which “the question is clarified, opinions approach and combine with each other to a small number of more general opinions.” In this way the decision is reduced to a choice between a manageable set of alternatives. The third stage consists of the actual choice between these alternatives.

--Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction, Condorcet, [1793], pp. 342-343)

Condorcet's distinction between the "first and second discussion" seems to me to be analagous to the U.S. primary process. In the first case, Democrats (for example) choose between other Democratic hopefuls. Invariably --enough to skew the validity of the primary as a barometer of public opinion --decisions will turn upon which candidate is perceived to have a better chance of winning in the general election.

Seen on FB: "ALL PARTIES SUCK" Well, that's an excuse to sit out the primaries! If you don't like the DEMS, then organize to take them back. That requires that you get involved. Taking back a party begins in the neighborhoods. It is done precinct by precinct. Sorry --there are no magic wands. There is NO INSTANT GRATIFICATION! That's the way it is. That's the system we inherited.

The French waged a real revolution shortly after 'we' separated from England. I can tell you this --no one was sitting at home pissing and moaning about "...oh golly gee...all the parties are the same...oh woe is me..." They MANNED THE BARRICADES.

---

---

Don't believe the pundits: It's not over 'til it's over!

by Guest Columnist, Doug Drenkow

News flash! Despite what a lot of the pundits might lead you to believe, the election of 2010 has not yet been decided. Until Tuesday morning, it has not yet even begun! (Except, of course, for mail-in ballots, which -- again despite what some pundits had led us to expect -- are running decidedly in favor of Democrats)

Do we want less regulation of the very companies that crashed our economy?

Do we want greater inequality of wealth in our country?

Do we want to increase our national debt by lowering taxes on the rich?

Or do we want to invest in infrastructure and green energy and other pressing needs in the short run, to increase demand and bring down unemployment -- by the way, the only way to pay off our debts -- in the long run?

Are we going to be bullied by the history-twisting, race-baiting, immigrant-fearing, health reform-hating, climate science-denying, fascism-flirting phenomenon of the Tea Party?

Are we going to give in to the Right-wing political, media, and corporate powers that foment and finance the Tea Party, the very same powers that the Tea Party dupes publicly rail against?

In short, are we going to give our country back to the very same party that drove us into the ditch we're now trying our damnedest to get out of?

Or are we going to say No! to The Party of No, and vote -- and get out the vote -- for Democrats?!

And while we're at it, let's keep up the growing pressure to reform the filibuster rules -- possible only on the first day of the new Congress -- that have killed off more good legislation in the Senate and given the GOP more power than anything else.

Well, as I wish progressive candidates and their supporters across the nation all the best, here are some excellent candidates and strong positions on propositions for our election in California, along with some very good reasons for voting and for getting out the vote:

C A N D I D A T E S

GOVERNOR: JERRY BROWN. He has devoted his life to public service, and done so effectively and with honor. Jerry Brown has consistently worked for fiscal responsibility, environmental protection, diversity, workers rights, new technology, and infrastructure development -- keys to growing new jobs in California -- while being tough on crime, including the "white collar" variety. Even those who have on occasion disagreed with him know that Jerry tells you exactly what he believes; and he's usually been ahead of the curve, out in the lead -- as with his big emphasis on education years before it became fashionable to recognize it as the key to our economic competitiveness in the 21st century. Compare that to his opponent, who has flip-flopped (to say the least) on everything from immigration to abortion. And do we really want to make governor of our great state someone who not only has no experience in government but who also got into big trouble making big backroom deals with Wall Street?

SENATOR: BARBARA BOXER. Sen. Boxer has always stood up for Californians and what's best about California. She has proudly supported economic stimulus money and other legislation protecting and creating clean energy and millions of other U.S. jobs, after-school and education programs for kids, health care reform for all, environmental protections, women's rights, programs for veterans and seniors, and -- overall, as I see it -- standing up for "the little guy and gal" up against formidable powers-that-be. By contrast, her opponent, again someone with no experience in government, paid herself handsomely while shipping American jobs overseas. Are those really the values we want representing California in the U.S. Senate?

LT. GOVERNOR: GAVIN NEWSOM. Yes, he's been an outspoken proponent of civil rights for gay people, and all people. So how is that a bad thing? As mayor of San Francisco, Newsom championed biotech and other new technology jobs, nearly universal health care, solutions for homelessness, and urban renewal. He's a natural leader and will make a great Lt. Governor.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: KAMALA HARRIS. As the first African American woman and South Asian American woman in California to be elected as a district attorney, Kamala Harris has been extremely effective as D.A. in San Francisco, cracking down on crime -- particularly violent crime, as against children -- and working to improve the quality of life, as by increasing prosecutions for vandalism, graffiti, and auto burglary. Harris has brought free legal clinics to immigrant neighborhoods, expanded services for crime victims and their families, and developed programs to prevent re-offending. Like her predecessor, our current Attorney General and candidate for Governor, Kamala Harris will be tough on crime and good for California.

TREASURER: BILL LOCKYER. As State Treasurer, Lockyer has held the unenviable position of having to confront the national recession, the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime. But his smart, hard work with the state's finances has created and maintained more than 100,000 good-paying construction and related jobs and saved thousands of projects for highways, schools, parks, natural resources, and affordable housing. As other investment funds lost trillions when the financial system crashed, Lockyer's prudent investments protected the state's $80 billion investment fund, which actually earned dividends and never lost a penny! He led the national fight against the Wall Street rating agencies that contributed to the crash; and even as credit has dried up nationwide, California has been able to sell bonds at historic low interest rates. Having proved himself "under fire," Bill Lockyer definitely deserves to be re-elected Treasurer of California.

CONTROLLER: JOHN CHIANG. Not only has he already proven himself well qualified for the job, as the state's "independent fiscal watchdog" -- weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse and making the state's finances more transparent and accountable to the public -- John Chiang has courageously stood up to both the governor and the legislature in the state's budget crisis -- denying them accounting tricks and holding their feet to the fire. What's more, John has shown himself to me, personally, to be intelligent and sincerely concerned with the issues affecting everyday Californians. He, too, deserves re-election!

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: DAVE JONES. As Assemblymember from Sacramento, Dave Jones has earned a reputation standing up for consumer rights, children and families, affordable housing, early childhood and other education, environmental protection, healthcare, privacy rights, civil rights, equal access to the courts, and economic development. In short, Dave Jones has what it takes to make a great Insurance Commissioner, looking out for us.

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: TOM TORLAKSON. A science teacher -- a second-generation teacher -- and high school coach, Assemblymember Tom Torlakson has fought for school funding, textbooks, computers, campus safety, student health and fitness, after-school programs, student nutrition, and physical education, and against hazing, crimes against children, junk foods on campus, and our alarming dropout rates. As State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson wants to work for safe schools, career and technical education, college prep, arts and music programs, and excellence in school management. A vote for Torlakson is a vote for our kids.

SECRETARY OF STATE: DEBORAH BOWEN. As Secretary of State, Bowen has earned a national reputation for exposing flaws and ensuring security in our electronic voting systems. She has also streamlined her agency and cut its budget, increased the public's access to agency information online, improved voter education, and held private contractors more accountable. Sec. of State Bowen has earned our votes for re-election.

P R O P O S I T I O N S

PROP. 19: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. YES. Regulate and tax the sale of this already widely available substance, like we do alcohol; the existing prohibition, like that we had against alcohol, costs society dearly -- in terms of policing, incarceration, enriching and empowering gangs and drug cartels, and making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Supported by L.A. Co. Dem. Party.

PROP. 20: CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING. NO. Empowers the 14-member state redistricting commission -- appointed by three state auditors, in a very untransparent and unaccountable procedure -- created by Prop. 11 (2008) and prevents redistricting by the Legislature -- accountable to us voters -- and does not guarantee the right of voters to reject boundary maps by referendum. If both this and Prop. 27 (below) pass, then the one with the most votes prevails. Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 21: SURCHARGE FOR PARKS AND WILDLIFE. YES. Pay an extra $18 a year on your vehicle licensing to not only preserve and protect our wonderful state parks (in need of a lot of maintenance) and irreplaceable wildlife, but also to get for yourself a free day-use admission to all the state parks. Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 22: PROHIBITION ON STATE'S BORROWING OR TAKING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION, REDEVELOPMENT, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS. NO. A close call -- a power struggle between state and local governments -- but the facts that it will further hamstring the state budgeting process -- already nearly impossible -- and open the door for "sweetheart" deals with local developers argue against this proposition. Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties.

PROP. 23: SUSPENDS "GREENHOUSE GAS" AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW. NO. Don't let the Texas oil companies behind this initiative tear down our state's leading environmental law and destroy clean energy jobs! Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 24: REPEALS CORPORATE TAX BREAKS. YES. Close a big tax loophole that recently passed but benefits almost entirely a few huge corporations, not small businesses, and restore funding to schools and other vital public services. Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties.

PROP. 25: SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE FOR BUDGET. YES. Make state budgeting fairer and more effective. Restore majority-rule -- and get rid of minority-rule, by The Party of No -- by dropping the requirement for a 2/3 supermajority and requiring only a simple majority (51% or greater) to pass a state budget (although there still will be a 2/3 supermajority required to raise taxes). What's more, if legislators fail to agree on a budget by the deadline, they forfeit their state pay! See also Prop. 26 (just below). Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 26. SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FOR FEES AND CHARGES: NO. Changes the vote to approve certain fees and charges -- as on big oil and tobacco, to clean up their pollution and other health hazards -- from a simple majority (51% or greater) to a 2/3 supermajority; in other words, allows minority-rule, by the Party of No. See also Prop. 25 (just above). Opposed by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties and the CA Sierra Club.

PROP. 27. ELIMINATES REDISTRICTING COMMISSION. YES. Eliminates the 14-member state redistricting commission -- appointed by three state auditors, in a very untransparent and unaccountable procedure -- created by Proposition 11 (2008) and returns redistricting to the Legislature -- accountable to us voters -- and guarantees by constitutional amendment the right of voters to reject boundary maps by referendum. If both this and Prop. 20 (above) pass, then the one with the most votes prevails. Supported by CA and L.A. Co. Dem. parties.

Voting is power to the people! Use it or lose it. Vote and get out the vote!

---

---

Why Democrats Must Change or Perish

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP is a disciplined monolith. Even when the GOP screws up and runs an idiot like George W. Bush or John McCain, there is the danger that he will win because, on election day, the GOP will close ranks, hold their noses and vote the party line. Liberal Democrats for whom Clinton or Obama are too conservative will pout and stay home. Worse --conservative Democrats will join the evil minions and vote for a Bush Jr or a John McCain.

The Democratic party, meanwhile, doesn't have the luxury of settling for a 'base hit' in a game in which there are only home runs. For the Democrats, that is! The GOP has the luxury of just putting a man on base! Democrats don't have the luxury of nominating anything less than a JFK or an FDR.

The left wing world wide is a disorganized amalgam of differing opinions, sitting ducks for a disciplined, Nazi-like top down party like the GOP where issues are not derived from the people but from focus groups, consultants and think tanks who literally manufacture issues based upon how well they 'test'. What really hurts is that for their talk about 'the base', the GOP owes its allegiance to the richest one percent of the US population, a moneyed segment that plays and wins because it writes the rules.

Voting green ...is a luxury of the middle class, who will more or less fare equally well materially under either major party. Yes, there are social issues, but keep in mind that Bush was chosen as the GOP's dream candidate in part because is soft on abortion. Middle-class women are the key swing voters in this election, an there are a lot of pro-choice soccer moms who lean Republican.

The most active segment of the GOP base is pro-life, but the majority of people in this country are not and the Republican thinkers and money men know it. Bush is not a 'stealth' candidate; he comes from Eastern moneyed Republicans; his dad despised the Christian GOP activists (and the feeling was mutual). Gore knows this, which is why he feels the need to protest (too much) that Bush really is pro-life ---it's been the Democrat's hole-card for so long he can't bear to feel the tactical advantage slowly slipping away from him.

--Nate Blakeslee, Texas Observer, Nov 3, 2000

There are two options left to Democrats.

• Find a long term wedge issue that will split the GOP right down the middle. Exploit it!
• Support sweeping electoral/election reforms that will ensure that every vote counts in every race --borda counts, range voting, abolition of the primary system, direct elections et al

The current system sucks! The GOP has the money to endure and rebound. Democrats, always scrambling for money, are a party of speedy sprinters in a long distance race. Democrats may change but risk becoming GOP-lite. They have little choice, then, but to change the rules, but how?

Why I moderate comments

• SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
• Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

Also see:

• A Spiritual Mind Movie
• How the US Became a Vassal State of China
  
• Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes
  
• The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World's Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism
• Dissecting the Scrambled Brains of the GOP
  
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization
  [w/LINKS]
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization [PDF]
• How the GOP Pays Off its 'Base' of Elites
  

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Spread the word

McCain's 'Gaffe' Appeals to Throw-back Base

McCain did not 'gaffe' when he denounced an 'over head projector' at the world famous Adler Planetarium. McCain was, rather, sucking up to the GOP base of Palinesque reactionaries and 'anti-science' types.

McCain won't lose a single vote despite the fact that the Adler never got the money that McCain says it got. This is not about projectors or money. It's about the problem McCain has with 'truth'. The item in question is hardly an 'over head' projector.

Last night, during the presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, Senator John McCain made the following statement:

McCain: “While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks he (Senator Obama) voted for nearly $1 billion in pork barrel earmark projects. Including $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?”

To clarify, the Adler Planetarium requested federal support – which was not funded – to replace the projector in its historic Sky Theater, the first planetarium theater in the Western Hemisphere. The Adler’s Zeiss Mark VI projector – not an overhead projector – is the instrument that re-creates the night sky in a dome theater, the quintessential planetarium experience. The Adler’s projector is nearly 40 years old and is no longer supported with parts or service by the manufacturer. It is only the second planetarium projector in the Adler’s 78 years of operation.

Science literacy is an urgent issue in the United States. To remain competitive and ensure national security, it is vital that we educate and inspire the next generation of explorers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math. Senator McCain’s statements about the Adler Planetarium’s request for federal support do not accurately reflect the museum's legislative history or relationship with Senator Obama.

The Adler has approached the Illinois Congressional delegation the last few years for federal assistance with various initiatives. These have included museum exhibitions, equipment and educational programs we offer to area schools, including the Chicago Public Schools. We have made requests to Senators Durbin and Obama, as well as to 6 area Congressmen from both political parties. We are grateful that all of the Members we have approached, including Senator Obama, have deemed our activities worthy of their support, and have made appropriations requests on our behalf, as they have for many worthy Illinois nonprofit organizations.

As a result of the hard work of our bipartisan congressional delegation, the Adler has been fortunate to receive a few federal appropriations the past couple of years. However, the Adler has never received an earmark as a result of Senator Obama's efforts. This is clearly evidenced by recent transparency laws implemented by the Congress, which have resulted in the names of all requesting Members being listed next to every earmark in the reports that accompany appropriations bills.

--Adler Planetarium, Statement About Sen John McCain's Comments at the Presidential Debate [links to PDF file]

The GOP put together the coalition from hell --anti-intellectuals, gun nuts, bigots, chauvinists, child pornographers, anti porn zealots, fascist oil barons, radical fundamentalists and Palinesque believers in claptrap -- a flat earth and Alley Oops who co-habit with dinosaurs.

The miracle is that when all of them get together in what is called the GOP National Convention, they STILL cannot win the White House unless they steal it!

---

---

How McCain's Palin Pick Makes 'Age' Issue Number One

McCain's choice was motivated by the fact that 'age' had already become an issue and he hoped to blunt it. If McCain had chosen well, it might have been unfair to ask: what if the old codger should die in office? Now, it is irresponsible NOT to ask that question. McCain's Palin pick --focus group designed to blunt the criticism in the bud --has backfired. The campaign is now all about age.

A wise choice for McCain would have been someone with proven experience and moderate politics. Had McCain made such a choice, the 'age issue' would have been blunted, perhaps taken off the table entirely. Instead, McCain blundered before getting off the blocks, a first bad decision that may be chalked up to age and the age issue.

What kind of 'President' would the extremist Palin become? A Palin presidency is simply unthinkable. Certainly --she would never have risen to prominence so quickly were not McCain concerned about age. Instead of putting the issue to rest, he has put it on the front burner.

As an extremist, Palin makes Goldwater look moderate. She is a denier of global warming, a doctrinaire opponent of a women's pro-creative rights, a proponent of enforced teaching of creationism. McCain's death could hasten a new dark age.

Let's look at the record of the person who might very well be put in the position of leading the United States of America.

• She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.


• Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.


• She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.


• Palin thinks creationism (theology --NOT science) should be taught in public schools


• She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.


• She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.


• How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position. [h/t Ron Foster]
  

Some quick notes about the issues involved should a right wing extremist assume the nation's highest office upon the death of senile President.

Neither creationism nor 'intelligent design' is science. Both are slick PR approved versions of 'religious' theology'. Constitutionally, folk can teach their children anything they want --at home! But the Constitutional separation of Church and State makes the teaching or propagation of 'religion' at tax payer expense unlawful. That is the standard that must also be applied to so-called 'Faith Based Initiatives'.

Like the evil hackers who try to 'sneak' malicious programs onto your computer, the axis of creationism/ID cloaked creationism to disguise their religious ideology, to make it appear to be science when in fact it was and remains religious dogma. It was hoped that as 'science', religious ideology could be taught stealthily in publicly financed schools at your expense. You would pick up the tab though you do not believe it.

Palin's big oil policies conform to the GOP party line. With Her assumption of the nation's highest office upon the death of an aging McCain, the big oil cabals will not merely retain but consolidate their ownership of the nation. They own her. Now --what does that make her?

At last, her extremist, anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-environment positions may expose her pro-hypocrisy agenda.

Sarah Palin's 17 y/o daughter Bristol is pregnant. Pass it on.

There is no truth to the rumor, however, that Palin's four month-old child with Down Syndrome is Bristol's daughter.

The McCain campaign is saying that McCain already knew about the blessed event before he made his running mate choice eight days ago. If that's true, then it seems to suggest that McCain really is as ethically blind as he proved during the Keating 5 scandal. But somehow, I doubt that McCain would've been in possession of information that intimate. According to John Cole at Balloon Juice, Camp McCain hasn't even begun vetting her, yet.

CNN reports that Palin's child with child will keep the baby and marry the father, as if making such a decision while still in high school bespeaks Christian family values. Naturally, the Palins are insisting on everybody respecting their privacy (Read: Don't write or speak about it).

You know, like the GOP would've respected Chelsea Clinton's privacy if she'd gotten knocked up in her junior year of high school.

--Family Values

As Lloyd Bentsen famously chided Dan Quayle --"You are NO John Kennedy" --we might remind John McCain: "You are no Ronald Reagan":

Reagan at his age was much more graceful. McCain's shoulders are stiff and painful from years of North Vietnamese torture, and he doesn't deliver a speech that well.

At the instinctive level with the contrast between McCain the stove up old codger and Obama's lithe articulate just old enough youthfulness, it's no contest. The ideological pros and cons of the people McCain considered have been done to death. But how about this totally non-ideological analysis:

McCain/Lieberman--two old farts. Sure losers against Obama.

McCain/Romney-- no chemistry, makes McCain look old, Romney himself is classy but sort of a stiff.

McCain/Pawlenty-- another lose/lose proposition. Pawlenty points up McCain's age without bringing much pizazz.

--A different take on the Palin choice

The GOP is literally owned by big oil. The GOP, therefore, must be anti-environment, pro Iraq war, pro-Bush dictatorship. By picking Palin, McCain proves that he is anything but a 'maverick'. McCain is not his own man. McCain is hardly a 'straight-talker'; his words are vetted by the robber barons of big oil. McCain is just another GOP kiss up to the Military/Industrial establishment --the folk who bought you Viet Nam and Iraq. If you like George W. Bush, then vote for John McCain and get Bush's third term!

The Palin Choice is so bad that one is justified in asking if McCain is already showing signs of senility. Was he influenced by what he might think is a pretty face hiding an extremist, right wing mentality? This choice smacks of desperation. Reams of GOP propaganda in its wake have kept many a flack, many a paid liar employed. McCain has proven that he been bought and paid for by the folk who OWN the GOP. Maverick, my ass!

Essential reading:

American essayist Gore Vidal says that despite the US claim that it is making the world safer by perpetuating democracy, the country never had any democracy.

In an exclusive interview with Press Tv correspondent, Vidal said that the United States has never had democracy and the word never was used in the US constitution, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence.

Vidal also said that America has fallen into the hands of a small group of people that only care about global dominance and making money from US tax payers by waging wars.

The renowned essayist made the analogy that the democratic national convention in Denver is symbolic of a falling empire and observed that the hyper expensive entertainment-based campaigns and the current state of the US as being overextended in multiple wars and no budget surplus to finance them, all bode ill for that nation's future.

Vidal noted that despite Obama's promise to deliver universal heath care, the heath industry would oppose his plan and insure he will not be able to deliver on his stated goal.

When asked about US policy toward Iran by the rival candidates, Vidal responded that McCain is a warmonger that will likely wage war on Iran.

Gore Vidal: US never had democracy

More about Palin from Democracy Now:

Max Blumenthal of The Nation reports: Last week, while the media focused almost obsessively on the DNC’s spectacle in Denver, the country’s most influential conservatives met quietly at a hotel in downtown Minneapolis to get to know Sarah Palin. The assembled were members of the Council for National Policy, an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy.

--Report: Secretive Right-Wing Group Vetted McCain’s VP Candidate Sarah Palin

Additional resources:

• Amy Goodman Arrested by Fascists at the RNC
• Sarah Palin Lied About Her Visit to Ireland
• McCain Voted AGAINST all Katrina Aid
• Amy Goodman Arrested at RNC
• Right Wing Lunatic Fringe Loves Palin
• McCain's Palin Pick Proves His "Put My Country First" Hypocrisy
• Maker Her Whine
• Nazi link in 'plot to assassinate Obama'

Published Articles

• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part I, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part II, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part III, In Fascist Dictatorships Telling the truth becomes a crime
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part IV, the state forces an 'existential' choice
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part V, Public Opinion Becomes Irrelevant
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VI, The government places itself above the law
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part VII, The Government Denies 'Due Process of Law'
• Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State Part VIII: Atrocities are justified with lies, myths or propaganda

Subscribe

GOP, Bush, Evil, Tyranny

Spread the word