Thoughts on four hypothetical questions facing Charlie Crist, the GOP, and conservatives…

The recent defection of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist from the GOP caught some around the country by surprise. But, many have also suspected that a disheartened Crist may have been feeling alienated by a party who once regarded him as a potential party leader, and even a possible presidential nominee. Enter Marco Rubio, and suddenly Crist was no longer welcome. Once Republicans saw Crist hug President Obama, there was no way they could stand to put their support behind him. Unfortunately for Charlie, public bipartisanship is now an easy way to get nudged out of the GOP. Given this developing situation, it’s worth taking a look at four key hypotheticals questions facing conservatives this fall and beyond.

1.) Would an Independent or RINO (Republican in Name Only) version of Senator Christ caucus with Republicans on party line votes if he is fortunate enough to win his upcoming election bid?

2.) Is Crist making a purposeful move to the left (or the Center in 2010)? And by doing so, will he emerge (along with Scott Brown) as one of the few moderate conservatives left standing in the US Congress after the 2010 midterm elections?

3.) If Crist or the Democratic nominee wins in a three way race over Marco Rubio, does that prove, to an extent, that the rise of Tea Party style, fringe-right politics will ultimately hurt the GOP in races beyond this November?

4.) Finally, if Crist is not considered “Republican enough” for the GOP in Florida or elsewhere, is there now enough room in the political spectrum for a new, moderate-Republican third party that would potentially overlap with blue dog Democrats, and also potentially court conservative independents who are more centrist than the rightist candidates currently leading the Republican Party?

KTI welcomes your answers and comments…

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most intriguing House races of the 2010 Election…

Though it’s still relatively early in the election year, there are some close mid-term races about to unfold for critical seats in the House of Representatives that are worthy of advanced billing. The GOP is eagerly looking to repeat the success of the post healthcare defeat midterm election of 1994, but this time around they face more hurdles than they at first anticipated. First and foremost, despite what label Republicans seek to put on it, healthcare reform became the law of the land this year, a huge boost to Democratic morale, and a major hurdle for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Add to that the bipartisan Job’s bill, the Recovery Act, and the upcoming passage of financial reform aimed at cleaning up Wall Street, and it is slowly looking like Republicans will be running against a 21st Century version of the New Deal.

Given this setup, let’s take a closer look, one by one, at the five races deemed the most intriguing by KTI.

#5 – Republican Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana vs tbd
Rep. Cao, mentioned in an earlier KTI article, despite initially supporting the House bill, cast a controversial, largely unfounded vote against the final version of health care reform due to a personal, moral decision on abortion, and is surely in for a fight to keep his seat. Despite his best efforts to explain himself, it may be hard for the electorate in his district to forgive him for voting no on an issue they so heavily favored. His district, with a +25 Democratic lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index), should narrowly go back into the Democratic column, and is an interesting race to watch. After all, Cao was able to win his seat in this heavily African American community largely because of the well-publicized transgressions of William Jefferson in 2008, and not a broader conservative movement.

#4 – Michigan’s 1st District (Bart Stupak’s Vacant Seat)
Following the receipt of death threats in the wake of the health care reform vote earlier this year, Rep. Bart Stupak announced that he would not seek reelection to his seat in the House. As you may recall, he was part of a block of Democratic Congressmen hell bent on the inclusion of specific anti-abortion text in the health care bill. It took an Executive Order by President Obama banning the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions to finally get him, and the so called “Stupak Block,” to join with their Democratic colleagues in support of the landmark legislation. Stupak was a favorite target of the Tea Party, as well as abortion activists, and will seek to join another profession. He leaves an increasingly vulnerable seat behind, in a district with only a +3 Republican lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index) and no political stars.


#3 - New York's 29th District (Massa’s Vacant Seat)
Without getting into too much detail, and as KTI mentioned in an earlier article, freshman Rep. Eric Massa stepped down from his House seat following embarrassing revelations of misconduct which surfaced in the press earlier this year. Despite his best initial efforts to defend himself, Massa managed nothing but to make the job for the next Democrat in line more difficult, if not impossible. Conservative Mayor Tom Reed of Corning will run as the Republican candidate versus a yet to be named opponent. Therefore, given the inherently bad PR situation facing the potential Democratic candidate, and the +5 Republican (Cook Partisan Voting Index) lean of the district, there is a very good chance that this seat could turn back over to the Republicans in a close 2010 mid-term election.

#2 – Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida vs tbd
Few in Congress (our #1 excluded) are as outspoken and candid as freshman Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida. His recent theatre on the House floor has put him into the wingnut news cycle, while his depictions of conservatives are smiled upon by many on the left and equally despised by his political opponents on the right. If Alan Grayson were in a more liberal district, his rhetoric might play much better than it does within his divided jurisdiction in Florida. He has both the liberal to moderate city of Orlando and the more conservative suburbs surrounding the city to navigate this fall. The tilt here is slightly Republican at +2 (Cook Partisan Voting Index), giving Grayson very little room for error in what should be a hotly contested, and newsworthy race in central Florida.

#1 - Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann vs Maureen Reed or Tarryl Clark
Perhaps the most polarizing and confused figure in the US Congress, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, has seemingly gone off the wagon with her borderline hate speech comments which have highlighted her brief tenure in the House. A favorite of the Tea Party, along with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Bachmann has become more and more divisive with every stump speech she gives. Her outdated, anti-minority and anti-establishment rhetoric, along with her constant call to arms in front of her supporters, has given her a sour reputation throughout mainstream America and with more moderate, commonsensical Republican’s. Her district, while leaning +7 in the Republican direction (Cook Partisan Voting Index), is vulnerable to Democratic capture due to these very evident moral flaws which Bachmann routinely projects in her depictions of America as she sees it. For this reason, Democrats are putting a ton of electoral energy into defeating Bachmann this November. Her opponent will either be a competent former Lieutenant Governor and Board of Regents named Maureen Reed or State Senator Tarryl Clark, and both will have the full support of the DNC, President Obama, and Democrats in Congress. Bachmann’s dangerous rhetoric, the DNC’s drive to defeat her, and her uncanny ability to insult reasonable Americans with her outlandish comments, makes the upcoming race for Minnesota's 6th congressional district KTI’s most intriguing House race to watch in 2010.

Thoughts on how the GOP's three day financial reform filibuster has achieved absolutely nothing…

Three pointless days of filibustering (stalling) by Senate Republicans have now passed by; highlighted at first by erroneous claims that the reform bill in question was a “bailout”, then by convenient claims that these reforms were written and endorsed by public enemy number one, Goldman Sachs; finally, after realizing that the public was not buying their theatre, Republican leadership gave in and has agreed to debate their Democratic counterparts on the matter. Why the delay? No reason other than pure petty partisan politics. These four preposterous P’s that drive so many voters crazy were used to postpone what should be a bipartisan plan from taking shape. It is in the best interest of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, and the American public to effectively reform Wall Street. Even the biggest players in the industry will agree that unregulated gambling by fat cats helped contribute to the collapse of the American economy in 2008 and 2009. That being said, there was no stopping the typical 4 p’s approach from being taken by Republican leadership and conservative pundits alike.

Despite obvious bipartisan support for this bill, Senator Mitch McConnell could not help himself from projecting the exact opposite image. His false rhetoric contradicted the hard work being done behind the scenes by members of his own party to finalize a bill that would satisfy the demands of all sides. Despite his misguided efforts, most people agree that the need to take the debate to the Senate floor is both obvious and adherent to the Republican Party’s calls for greater transparency from both the Democrats and the President. Ironically, in a stark change from their claims during the healthcare debate, Republicans decided that they would prefer to work behind closed doors as opposed to appearing to work in a bipartisan manner in full view of their supporters. This change of heart is a curious political strategy. Debate on this matter could be beneficial to all parties, as there is a collective discontent towards Wall Street from the American public. Still, these very same Republicans who called for transparency are the very same people now scared to debate on the floor of the Senate.

The claim is that they needed confirmation that there would be no “bailouts” or “too big to fail” allowed in the bill. But they know very well that these matters were addressed in the bill as originally drafted by both Democrats and Republicans in 2009. They simply wanted to make sure that their individual campaign coffers were protected before braving up and debating the matter. The three days of filibustering produced no new reforms, nor did they change anything that could not have been changed through open debate. These are signs of deliberate stalling and unwillingness to compromise in public. Now that the debate has been cleared for the floor, let’s see if the Republican Party can swallow its pride, debate with their counterparts, and recognize that a bipartisan bill is in everybody’s best interest.

Thoughts on ignorance meets air travel...

In 2010 America, ignorance and cynicism are the regrettable offspring of fear and arrogance. As we saw today, an American passenger on a Delta flight from Paris to Atlanta decided it would be a good idea to speak out loud about explosives, which did not exist, thus causing US Air Marshall’s to detain the individual at fault. The resulting diversion of the flight to Bangor, Maine was ultimately deemed necessary due to a need to screen the airlines luggage. All 234 passengers, and the 13 crew members aboard, were forced to go back through US Customs and bag screening while the suspect confessed to authorities that he had no explosives and was kidding around. Authorities found him to be truthful, and his background check came up clean. This kind of idiotic, ignorant behavior is a root cause for frustration amongst rational, reasonable, and capable Americans who only seek to reach their destination in a peaceful, non-confrontational manner.

Most people on everyday commercial flights are courteous, kind, purposeful individuals who understand the security concerns that our nation and airlines face, and they have no desire to contribute to these problems. Unfortunately, it only takes one, cynical, ignorant minded individual to make the travel experience in our country more trying than it already is in a post 9/11 era. Still, some people don’t quite get it. Even worse, it is folks who know well that they are breaking the law, but somehow think they are comedians with a license to ruin other people’s days. Every time I travel, I see it. There’s the person who doesn’t understand the need for the TSA, or the person who gets wasted at the bar, and suddenly becomes a tough guy in the security line and on the airplane. These are the same people who cut in line on the way out of the plane because they believe that their urgency to get out of the plane is more important than the stranger next to them.

Unfortunately, when it comes to air travel, we are trapped in a tube 30,000 feet in the air with individuals who may or may not be completely oblivious to common courtesy or travel protocol. I am often shocked to see how ignorant some people are to the tense security environment we face today. It is genuinely upsetting for most people to see grown adults who behave worse than three year old kids when it comes to their actions in airports and airplanes. That being said, it’s well known that traveling by air in 2010 is nothing short of a lottery system. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Today’s news was a prime example of the latter.

Thoughts on violent video games and the First Amendment rights of minors…

The Supreme Court announced today that they will review the constitutionality of a proposed California law banning the sale of explicitly violent video games to minors. The bill, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, would impose up to a $1,000 fine on retailers in violation of selling mature rated games to kids under the age of 18, and would also set stricter guidelines on the video game ratings system. Shortly following the Governor’s endorsement, a Federal Appellate court in San Francisco struck down the law. Now, the question at hand is basically this: Based on Supreme Court precedent on this issue, which repeatedly sides with free speech rights in viewing and purchasing video content, will the High court side with the video game industry or with the Governor and proponents of the new law?

As recently as last Tuesday’s animal cruelty ruling, the Supreme Court has made the judgment that minors, as well as adults have a certain degree of rights when it comes to what they choose to do, watch, or say, as it relates to content that is offensive to some, but tolerated by others. The movie industry and the producers of TV shows and other forms of entertainment are financially dependent on a certain degree of violation by kids when it comes to adhering to their ratings systems. Therefore, they have often exhausted their coffers legally to make sure minors are protected under the first amendment when it relates to viewing or playing games and movies. But this time there may be a new precedent set, mainly because the new law is so specific to video games, and unlike the animal cruelty video case, it may be difficult for the High court to overrule this law on the basis of it being too broad in nature.

The reasoning for the heightened possibility of an endorsement of California Assembly bill 1179 by the Supreme Court is driven by the fact that there is an apparent tie between the psychological impacts of violent video games and an individual’s likelihood to tolerate this kind of behavior in their daily lives. Though the evidence is largely circumstantial, there is no doubt in my mind that exposure to violence at a young age is inherently unhealthy and can lead to violent action later in life. Though most can tolerate these images, some who are predisposed to mental illness may not be able to distinguish between the reality of video games and the realities of everyday life. These concerns, and the relatively lax enforcement of the video games rating system, are likely reasons to believe that the Supreme Court could make new precedent with their ruling on this law.

Whether First Amendment rights allow minors to play anything they want as long as they don’t buy it is also at issue. The bill states that this will not be the case, but the court could choose to address the matter in order to set the record straight on the rights of minors to play games with explicit content bought by their parents or guardians, specifically within the privacy of their homes. The Supreme Court will likely rule that the California law sufficiently addresses this matter, and that the First Amendment protects a minor’s right to play games purchased by an adult. The enforcement then lies with the parent or guardian, and their own household rules. This is how it has always been, and in a free country it is how it should be in my mind. However, few can disagree that we have a right to protect children from images that may hurt them mentally. The Supreme Court now has to juggle the pros and cons of this law, but based on recent history, we should all rest assured that the First Amendment rights of minors will be protected at all costs.

Despite this fact, opponents from the video game industry will fight the constitutionality of the law at all costs. In a capitalist society, few can blame them for protecting their profits; however, it may be that the industry has gone too far in marketing games intended for adults to minors. They have abused their ability to market to a certain demographic, much like cigarettes, and their time may have come to be put to task. This kind of law, regardless of the reasons for opposition, makes sense when coupled with a conscious effort by parents to manage the content their children play. This combination of forces will make the best of the Supreme Court’s decision and ensure that the government does what is best for the highly impressionable, and technologically savvy next generation.

Thoughts on Arizona’s divisive illegal immigration battle and where it could lead the greater debate…

Today, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070, a state law which requires police to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally. Whether accused of a crime or not, citizens in Arizona must now produce papers proving their legal status should an officer of the law question their right to be in the state of Arizona. In addition, the law makes it a crime to knowingly transport or conceal the identity of anyone who is in the country illegally. Finally, the law enhances all previously passed immigration laws by imposing new criminal penalties on officials and businesses who fail to report illegal aliens. Proponents claim this is a bill aimed at protecting Arizonians and their state’s economy, but the bigger debate on civil rights has predictably taken the nation by storm.

The controversial provisions in this law have opened up heated arguments about the constitutionality of law enforcement potentially racially profiling the mainly Mexican American immigrant population in Arizona. Despite the best efforts of Governor Brewer to declare that profiling will not be allowed to take place, the fact that the population being targeted by the bill is overwhelmingly Hispanic leaves little doubt for most that those with brown skin will be primarily targeted as opposed to their whiter counterparts. Brewer’s executive order, which directs the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) to train law enforcement officers to detect illegal immigrants without profiling, guarantees nothing to minorities in the end. The fact is that this law, despite what kind of training an officer receives, allows authorities to use their individual discretion when questioning citizens who may be perfectly legal citizens. The Constitution, under the Equal Protection Act of the 14th Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, which outlaws unreasonable search and seizure, can be interpreted to prohibit any law which would allow the profiling of any United States citizen. As a result, this law is likely to trigger action by both civil rights groups and constitutional lawyers alike.

In stepping over the Federal Government in the enforcement of the United States border, Arizona’s actions exemplify how the immigration debate has now reached a critical stage where action is required at the highest levels. Some difficult questions now loom: Should the trend towards local enforcement continue without the consent of the US Border Patrol, FBI, CIA, National Guard, the Supreme Court, and others? Will this law, and others that may follow, be deemed unconstitutional under the 4th and 14th Amendments? And finally, will states like Arizona bankrupt their own coffers fighting legal battles with the Feds over the threat of illegal immigration on their state economy and security?

Without a complex immigration overhaul at the Federal level, there is no telling how far local law enforcement will take their mission to rid the border, and elsewhere, of illegal aliens. Though many agree that we must make the immigration process and enforcement more effective at all levels, we should also agree that there must be a more humane way of reforming our broken system. In my opinion, the new Arizona law does nothing but further divide an already split public. Those with brown skin will now feel unwelcome in their current homes, and most likely relocate to friendlier pastures over time. This loss of minorities, most of them legal in status, and some, who may be illegal but work hard daily in the fields and other businesses, will not only hurt Arizona’s already fickle economy, but does nothing but regress the essence of the immigration argument back to the bigger issue of racial discrimination and an inherent fear of outsiders. Therefore, a brand new, comprehensive immigration reform bill addressing the Federal government’s stance on the matter will prove very helpful to all parties going forward.

Thoughts on President Obama's tight rope approach to Wall Street reform…

Following the contentious health care debate, there was no doubting that President Obama and the Democratic leadership would seek a different approach to the passing of the proposed Wall Street reform package. Due to the initial framing of the proposed bill as a “bailout” by misinformed/cynical Republicans and pundits, it became necessary for The President to take direct control of the message before those looking to derail reform got any further traction. He immediately made the facts of the bill the story, not the opposition, and by doing so forced Senate Republicans, who in many ways had helped write the bill, to return to negotiations and admit their rhetoric was misguided. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee said it best when he stated on the floor of the Senate: "The fact is, the bill has taken a partisan turn. There are some bipartisan solutions in this bill, I grant that. But there's still work to be done," Corker said. "Let's finish that work before it gets to the floor. Let's just finish what we started."

However, as a beneficiary of campaign funding from embattled Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs ($994,795 in 2008), President Obama must walk a tight rope when criticizing those who are responsible for some of the worst practices against consumers of investment products. He knows that during his 2008 campaign he received money that was indirectly tied to the very derivatives market which he now intends to regulate. So, in framing the reasoning for the passing of this bill, he has chosen to make the argument that the proposed regulations will encourage firms to take a look at their worst practices, fix them, and work within an ethical, responsible, and increasingly consumer friendly framework. Therefore, the details of the bill, and The President’s ability to sell its contents, are of the utmost importance to his ability to knock down false attacks on both the reforms he seeks and his true intentions in pursuing them.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, as written in H.R. 4173, outlines new commissions and regulations for the following areas: 1) Creates the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), a new, independent federal agency solely devoted to protecting Americans from unfair and abusive financial products and services, 2) Creates the Financial Stability Council to identify and regulate financial firms that are so large, interconnected, or risky that their collapse would put the entire financial system at risk, 3) Ends “too big to fail” by establishing an orderly process for dismantling large, failing financial institutions like AIG or Lehman Brothers, 4) Establishes “Say on Pay” by giving shareholders a an advisory vote on pay practices including executive compensation and golden parachutes, 5) Strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors and regulate the nation’s securities markets (response to Madoff and Stanford frauds), 6) Regulation of Derivatives: the bill regulates, for the first time ever, the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives marketplace.7) Establishes a simple standard for all home loans institutions: They must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold, 8) Reforms Credit Rating Agencies by addressing the role of credit rating agencies in the economic crisis, 9) Requires almost all hedge fund advisers to register with the SEC, and subjects them to systemic risk regulation by the Financial Stability regulator, and 10) Creates a Federal Insurance Office that will monitor all aspects of the insurance industry.


By touting these bipartisan reforms, President Obama should have no problem selling this bill to a public which is fed up with Wall Street betting on their futures. The regulation of the derivatives and hedge fund markets are long overdue. Advisors should be registered with the SEC, and the SEC must have the power to stop the worst practices of financial criminals such as Bernie Madoff and others. With the wind behind his back on the issue, and Republicans in a position which should ultimately force them onboard, there is no reason to expect less than 65 votes for this version of the bill. Senate Republicans, who wrote the 50 billion dollar bank funded side account for responsible deconstruction of failing institutions into the bill, must only look to their leadership for the answers as to why they are against these common sense reforms. The Senate will now debate the intricacies of the bill, and there will be numerous attempts by Republicans, as I mentioned in a previous article, to change the topic or distort the details of the bill in order to prevent a legislative victory for The President. Unfortunately, these deceitful and cynical stall tactics are fresh in all of our minds, and this time Republicans and others who choose the path of “No” do so against the clear will of the American public they so adamantly wish to serve.

In the end, despite his deep ties to the firms he wishes to regulate, President Obama can only be commended for pushing the ball back into the people’s court, and going forward with regulations against the most powerful lobbying forces on Wall Street and in the banking industry. His tight rope walk between his political future and the future of our economic systems are becoming historic in nature. And as for the Republicans, will they eventually support a bill they largely wrote themselves? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the debate in the Senate should once again be contentious.

Thoughts on the short and long-term implications of the upcoming surge in Kandahar, Afghanistan…

As US/NATO forces prepare for the series of targeted offensives planned for June of this year in Kandahar, Afghanistan, it may be useful to examine what we might expect to transpire in the day’s, month’s, and year’s following this pivotal operation aimed at permanently removing the Taliban insurgency from the region. With the US troop surge underway, and efforts being undertaken to work with Afghan leaders to minimize civilian casualties and develop trust, a successful mission is going to be one that not only eradicates the Taliban threat from Kandahar and elsewhere, but also empowers the Afghan people and local tribal governments to eventually take true control of their own cities and their country going forward.

Kandahar lies at the heart and soul of this ages old conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Far before the attacks on 9/11/01, many powerful nations have fought and paid great prices for their efforts to secure this strategically located region of the world. Since we are not in Afghanistan to occupy it, the most important precursor to this planned offensive will be getting on the same page with local leaders and the Karzai government. Afghan forces must trust NATO forces, and vice versus, and without a clear understanding of our intended purpose, both short and long-term, there will be no way to effectively move forward post-offensive. Local leaders must know where to move civilians in order to prevent large scale casualties, and this will require that operational knowledge travel to Afghans who we have yet to establish real trust with. Once a meaningful degree of trust is established, and we carry out the proposed mission as planned/previewed to these leaders, then the momentum can slowly begin to build towards the empowerment of the Afghans themselves, without the United States or NATO forces constantly there to protect them.

Should the planned offensive go without a hitch, and an excess number of casualties are avoided, the door may creak open to proceed toward the long awaited end of the major US mission in Afghanistan. Of course, until there is true stability, nobody will be leaving in mass numbers, but at least if there can be a genuine degree of cooperation between NATO, Afghan leadership, and the United States leadership, the point can be made that progress is no longer an illusion, but a choice in the hands of the Afghan people, not the Taliban insurgency, or the US and our allies. Much like in Baghdad, Kandahar will be a tough fight for those who wish to remove an entrenched, armed, and organized insurgency. But, should the Afghan people decide that they no longer welcome the Taliban, and the Karzai government begins to act to eliminate the threat they pose to the general population, there is a chance that we could finally see an end to this decade long conflict.

Thoughts On the Supreme Court’s ruling on animal cruelty videos and free speech in United States vs. Stevens…

As I scanned today’s headlines, I was immediately drawn to a case which hits close to home as a dog owner and close follower of the courts. Today’s Supreme Court ruling upheld the Third Court’s ruling in United States vs. Stevens that 18 U.S.C. §48, which states “to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The statute addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying conduct. It applies to any visual or auditory depiction “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if that conduct violates federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession takes place,” §48(c)(1),” is too broad and is thus invalid under the protections granted to Stevens under the First Amendment.

At first glance, it seemed unbelievable that the courts would allow such awful depictions to be called protected speech under the Constitution. But upon further examination, it is obvious that the Supreme Court’s ruling has nothing to do with condoning animal cruelty, and everything to do with the need for a more specific law aimed at ending the most disgusting practices at hand. The ruling takes into mind that hunters could be susceptible to potential overreaching application of such a law. Therefore, the 8-1 decision is more of a call to action for Congress to construct a more specific law banning videos of non-hunting related animal cruelty. It is also a call to action for members of PETA, the Humane Society, and animal lovers nationwide to call their elected officials and demand that they work together to make this long overdue animal cruelty law a reality.

Since a certain degree of hunting is necessary to control animal over population, and instructional videos depicting the killing of animals are considered necessary by many to educate future hunters, Chief Justice Roberts and the other 7 in the majority determined that, amongst other reasons, the law was too broad as worded and went too far in impeding free speech. Now that the ruling has been made, there will no doubt be some who will abuse the implications by accelerating the release of dog fighting and crush videos. This is the most unfortunate byproduct of the ruling. But, maybe the fact that more people are now aware that these videos exist will be the fire that ignites the momentum towards a new, more narrowly focused animal cruelty video law. I truly believe that the court made this ruling in order to move the debate forward, not to empower people like Stevens. Now, let’s see if Congress will follow through and step up to the plate.

Thoughts on the impact of today’s taking out of Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders by US/Iraqi security forces…

Seven years after the start of the Iraq War, the light at the end of the tunnel is becoming increasingly visible to American Troops, the Iraqi people, and the families on both sides of the conflict. As the Sons of Iraq (SOI) and the Iraqi Defense Ministry (IDM) gradually assume control of their nation’s security, the elimination of the foreign born terrorist threats from Al Qaeda and other fringe groups will be one of their biggest long term hurdles. Because of a vested interest in their failure by Iranian authorities, as well as other anti-west nation states, the SOI and IDM are likely to encounter constant challenges from groups looking to capitalize on a perceived power vacuum. Ultimately, the fate of the Iraqi people will lie in their desire to unite as a country and bridge their very own complicated divides.

The gunning down of Al-Masri and Al-Baghdadi is an important achievement in the path towards potential stability in Iraq. Both men were directly tied to Osama Bin Laden, and Al-Masri was an import from Egypt whose death exposed high level correspondence which may provide the vital leads we have been missing in the hunt for top Al Qaeda leadership. Al Qaeda in Iraq was created by outsiders after the beginning of the war, and the elimination of this primarily external threat could provide the SOI and IDM with the empowerment necessary to secure the Iraqi population. Their counter-terror training, along with their side by side teamwork with members of the US Military, will allow them to effectively decipher future threats to their country.

As we draw down our troop presence, we must be mindful of the difficult journey taken by so many to reach this point. When President Bush declared “Bring em’ on,” little did he know that his fiery rhetoric would lead disenfranchised Iraqi’s to take up arms against our mission as liberators, and little did he know that an Al Qaeda presence, which didn’t exist previously, would be created to capitalize on his words and an increasingly susceptible population of former Iraqi Republican Guardsmen and Baath Party Members. Coupled with an influx of radical Islamic and anti-western clerics, the recipe for what transpired over the past decade became apparent to everyone who was watching closely.

Under the Obama Administration, and during the post-Surge era of the Bush Presidency, there has been a concerted effort to unify the Iraqi population and to bring in all religions/sects into the emerging political structure. By empowering all Iraqi’s to have a stake in their own futures, we can help them plant the seeds of a prosperous economic future and successfully transition into an era of partnership with a freely elected, all inclusive Iraqi Government. Today’s eradication of these leaders was a big step amongst many taken and needed, but much work is left to be done between now and the planned exit of American forces later this year.

Thoughts on the GOP’s unfortunate response to Chris Dodd’s Wall Street Reform bill…

Today, Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, put their cards on the table with regards to Wall Street/financial reform. While all parties on both sides can agree that new consumer protections are necessary going forward, it already seems as if Republicans are destined to rerun the partisan dynamic of the health care debate by saying no upfront to the proposed bill. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut is the sponsor of the new bill, which aims to protect consumers of mortgages and credit cards by setting up a regulatory committee within the Federal Reserve that will make sure Americans are getting a fair deal, and also sets up a system to wind down failing companies to prevent bailouts from being necessary. To do the later, the wealthiest banks will pay a tax which will create a $50 billion dollar fund to be used to bring large failing banks and financial institutions down easy.

Instead of going forward on the sources of common ground that exist in the bill, McConnell did the exact opposite. He pointed out that he believes that the bill does not go far enough to prevent future bailouts, a description which does not seem to hold water given the second provisions implicit purpose. This move immediately puts the process in a familiar place. Rank and file Republicans will replicate the sentiments of the Minority Leader, while Democrats are likely to be forced to fend off myth after myth about a common sense bill that should be passed in a bi-partisan form as written. It seems way too convenient for the Republican leadership to all of a sudden become the anti-bailout party after ignoring the need for real regulation for decade after decade. Once again though, it seems that reasonable ideas of the few bi-partisan actors left in Congress are being framed into partisan talking points, which will only lead Republicans down the road to yet another defeat on a bill they should be for in principle.

If the passed and proposed reforms in both health care and finance prove to be effective, it will be a hard sell for Republicans to explain to voters why they were against reforming these two broken systems, amongst the many other reforms they have rejected. The minority party cannot accept its current status in second place, thus there is no honest desire shown by Republicans to compromise with the majority party on anything non-unanimous. This is unhealthy for a proud democracy like ours; where it is expected that we disagree on many things, but where it is also expected that we do what is right for our citizenry despite our politics. We should act to reform our weaknesses in the name of making America a better place for generations to come.

In an election year such as this, it is fairly predictable that the Republican establishment will do whatever possible to prevent President Obama from advancing his ambitious agenda. They will likely once again threaten the use of the filibuster, and even threaten to shut down the government over the funding of healthcare reform. It is then up to the voters to determine whether this is how they want their nation governed. Will we allow petty politics to impede progress? Or is it time to encourage the leadership of both parties to acknowledge the damage their partisan behavior has had on the already fragile reputation of the legislative process? As we watch the debate over financial reform and Wall Street regulation play out, it will be interesting to see who acts predictably, and who sides with common sense bi-partisan solutions to the costly banking and financial sector problems we face.

Thoughts on corporate personhood and future elections…

From the legendary arguments between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton regarding the role of money in our new born democracy, to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and finally the most recent Supreme Court rulings on corporate electioneering communications, the ongoing debate over how the rights of interest groups and corporations should or should not exist in relation to the rights of individuals has been a constantly evolving one throughout our history. Most recently, we have seen the bitter emotions of this long running battle culminate with shaking heads during the State of the Union Address, and the emergence of yet another highly divisive chapter in our politics.

The debate has also generated some important questions: First, Given their inherent monetary power over individuals and small business owners, should corporations be able to advertise on behalf of candidates and special interest causes within 30 days of a general election and 60 days from a primary? Second, should companies who have foreign shareholders be allowed to put ads on the air which could, in theory, represent the interests of countries other than the United States? And finally, do the legal definitions of a “person” under Chapter 1, title 1 of US Legal Code, basically allow corporations, whether for profit or non-profit, to act as individuals with all of the protections granted to individuals under the Constitution? To answer these questions, we must look at the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act, set the rules of the game up to protect the individual voter from being overrun by powerful corporate lobbies. To do this, the act put a federal ban on corporate financing of political campaigns, and prohibited corporations from airing ads that named federal candidates within 30 days of a general election and 60 days from a primary. Despite the laws set forth in the BCRA, the non-profit corporation Citizens United decided to go ahead and try to air an anti-Hillary Clinton film featuring her image on DirecTV before the 2008 Primary Elections. This action would have been in direct violation of McCain-Feingold., but after district courts upheld the precedent set in BCRA and upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, Citizens United appealed their case to the highest court, claiming their film was factual and non-partisan, thus the fate of corporate advertising in federal campaigns was once again put on trial.

In a complex 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overruled the provision of McCain-Feingold that prohibited corporations from broadcasting electioneering communications that mention a candidate within the previously mentioned timeframe. Therefore, in the upcoming midterm elections, and the 2012 elections, barring a reversal by the Supreme Court, corporations will be able to put their monetary power behind partisan campaign advertisements.

Advocates for the ruling will mention that the court did not overrule the parts of the BCRA which ban political contributions by corporations and full disclosure in advertisements a law, but there is no denying that the individual person is in no way as powerful as a corporation with a given interest. They will also mention that by limiting corporations, we would also risk suppressing the media, which is an argument made by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion.

As we move closer to the2010 Election, there could be an historic level of corporate advertising for candidates from all parties. Though it is made very clear in the law that no campaign funds may be collected from foreign corporations, there is nonetheless a sense of dissatisfaction amongst many that these changes to McCain-Feingold have allowed us to get very close to this kind of long distance financing. The full power of TV ads will be put on display, as individuals will see millions spent to sway public opinion in the name of corporate interest. Candidates will have little choice but to become prisoners to the powerful corporate special interest, as there will be no way to compete monetarily without adjusting to the new rules of the game.

Going forward, it will be a trying time for the little man, the small business people who can’t afford to advertise their cause, or the politician who wants to stick to his core values but knows he has no chance of winning an election without giving the go ahead for partisan corporate ads. It would also seem that in a thriving democracy every citizen should have the equal right to advocate their cause with the benefit of an even playing field. This is not the case after the Supreme Court’s latest ruling. There will likely be more competition for ad space created by corporate giants, and the richest Americans will likely benefit from the opening of the advertisement loophole, but, in the end, the realistic ability of the common American to be heard over the drowning power of corporate interests may be lost for now.

Thoughts on America's love for comeback's and underdog's

In a time where the conversation of the day often leaves us divided and bitter, there is no denying our collective love for a good comeback or underdog story. Whether it’s in politics or sports, there is a certain level of respect that we all feel for an individual or team that overcomes bleak odds in an unlikely return or rise to legitimacy. From Lance Armstrong and the 2010 Butler Bulldogs, to Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton, stories of amazing perseverance through adversity have the ability to transcend politics, and bring us together as Americans.

We are also an extremely forgiving country, built on the principle of second chances for those who are at an inherent disadvantage or have devastated their lives through mindless mistakes. When we see the media give a team or player slim odds in a game or political election, there is a unified sense of commodore that develops amongst us as we root for the underdog or comeback kid. The cinderella story is a favorite in America’s great history, and so is the tale of the celebrated individual returning from the depths of American media purgatory.

As we see Tiger Woods return at The Masters this week, it is already apparent that the comeback/underdog phenomenon will continue. Though The Masters is an extremely controlled sports environment, the reception and the forecasted tournament ratings do not lie. If Woods stays in contention throughout the weekend, there is no doubt that ESPN and CBS will see a huge leap in viewership, as the return to golf by Woods may be the biggest sports comeback story since Lance Armstrong at the Tour De France.

Following three months of relentless paparazzi and endless media coverage, Tiger is returning to the toughest mental sport of all, Golf, with the immense weight of his terrible private transgressions and their negative effects on his family, friends, and fans buried deep in his every thought. The immensity of his popularity transcends race and borders, and his comeback to golf is giving traditional foes a chance to unite during a difficult time in our politics, and enjoy the comeback of a troubled golf legend.

For those who are entrenched in the divisive world of day to day news and politics, the chance to take a brief break from the recent ugliness of the past few months is a welcomed one. The comeback story of Tiger Woods is a great example of the resilience of the American spirit, and thus attracts us to the common respect we all share for great achievement. We love the underdog because more than likely we’ve been in their shoes. Our imperfections are put on trial every day. Therefore, let’s enjoy another chapter in the great American comeback story, and unite in the name of sport and second chances.

Thoughts on airline baggage fees and taxes

For those choosing to travel by commercial airline, whether for business, pleasure, or for personal matters, the past decade has been marked by a flood of inconvenient policy changes implemented by leaders in the airline industry. With security threats, weather delays, and flight cancellations overwhelming the mainstream travel conversation, an infuriating phenomenon has occurred directly under our collective noses. These pesky “baggage taxes,” which popped up in response to high gas prices in 2008, have effectively gouged travelers out of billions of dollars over the past three years. In addition, traditionally included amenities, such as beverage service and snacks, are disappearing in favor of increasingly expensive, nickel and dime styled “a la carte” cabin services.

On top of the baggage and a la carte fees, the airline industry taxes its customers at a rate that averages nearly 20% of the cost of a ticket to fly. The average cost in taxes for a $300 dollar flight is approximately $65, which when you add that to the cost of checking bags, makes traveling by air in 2010 a modern day exercise in being ripped off. Consider that as of today there are four separate taxes on a typical flight within the United States. There’s the standard 7.5% Federal Ticket (Excise) Tax, which should really be where the taxes end, the Passenger Facility Charge, the Federal Flight Segment Tax, and the Federal Security Surcharge. All of these taxes are applied at the time of purchase, adding a sting to any great deal one might find online or through a travel agent.

To make matters worse, the increasing bag fees and taxes only mark the beginning of the hollowing out of the intrinsic value of a plane ticket. For example, Spirit Airlines is pondering charging for carry-on baggage, and Ryanair, based out of Dublin, Ireland is planning to charge 1 Euro or 1 British Pound (about $1.33 or $1.52) for using the bathroom on flights lasting one hour or less. If, as was the case with checked baggage fees, other airlines follow suit and start charging for every amenity in the cabin, there will be a huge devaluation to the value of a ticket. The ticket used to mean a beverage and a meal, and one bag checked with no charge, now the only aspect of travel covered by an airline ticket is the travel itself. Only a few airlines, such as Southwest Airlines and Jet Blue, seem to truly value their mission statements, and the implicit services that should come with the price of a ticket.

Going forward, other airlines need to take a hard look at what they stand for. Are they just buses in the air, with peddlers for crews? Or is quality of service still important? Do they value the experience of the passenger, or just the zero’s on their bottom lines? Is a once great industry becoming trivialized by the in air gimmicks of its leading airlines? Going forward, the future of the airlines depends on their willingness to return to an era where the trust of the customer matters. As is the case with many aspects of our society, the time has come to end the worst practices of the airline industry.

Thoughts on President Obama's decision to reduce the role of nuclear weapons...

Nearly 15 years after the indefinite ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by 189 nation states in May of 1995, The United States and Russia are now on the verge of taking a substantial step in reaching the second major pillar laid out indirectly by the original NPT protocol. On April 8, 2010, President Medvedev of Russia, and President Obama of the US, will sign the newest version of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), effectively calling for the reduction, by nearly a half, of the nuclear weapon stockpiles of each country, as well as setting a new limit of 1,500 deployable warheads starting in 2017. These steps fall in line with the NPT’s non-proliferation and disarmament pillars, essentially paving the way to achieve the treaties ultimate goal for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Today the Obama Administration announced the findings of the Nuclear Posturing Review (NPR), which puts the nuclear policy consensus adopted by the United States Department of Defense on the table for the entire world to see. Essentially, the NPR report states that the United States will not seek to expand on, nor create new stockpiles of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In addition, the United States will not seek to deploy nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear nation which has signed on to the NPT. However, the report also acknowledges the need for the US to maintain a trimmed down, yet deployable stockpile of nukes in the case that a non-treaty abiding nation should attempt to proliferate with their own weapons on the United States or its allies.

These sentiments were shared in President Obama’s comments on the findings, where he stated “we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations,” and on our readiness to respond to military threats; “so long as nuclear weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the United States, reassures allies and partners, and deters potential adversaries.” Also confirmed by the President’s statements was his continued support of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, pledging to uphold the guidelines of the ban on testing nuclear weapons systems, despite the opposition by some that the treaty is being abused by countries like North Korea and Iran.

These moves by the Obama Administration are part of a broader goal of ridding the world of nuclear threats. The policy changes also acknowledge the shift in concern from nation against nation proliferation, to a focus on disarming rogue states and removing potential nuclear terror threats. The questions raised by more hawkish lawmakers revolve around whether we will be perceived as weak due to the slimming down of our warhead stockpiles. Will rogue nations feel more empowered by our decision to pursue a non-nuclear based national security strategy? Or, as many centrist believe, will this action by the United States move to further isolate nations, such as Iran, who have non-peaceful nuclear ambitions? Though many will say we are made weaker by participating in the NPT and other global anti-proliferation efforts, an argument can be made to the contrary which leads us to rediscover our core values and the ultimate purpose of our military.

If we are to emerge as the 21st century’s leader in core democratic values, as well as in pure military might, we may want to consider the impact of being a believable role model for other emerging democracies and rogue states. Those nations who seek to become part of a nuclear weapon free union of nations should be able to look to the United States as the ultimate example of nuclear responsibility. By setting a new precedent for non-nuclear engagement, and by relying on our powerful conventional arsenal of weaponry and drone technology, we can effectively position ourselves to move forward the pillars of the NPT in the years to come.

We should ask the bigger question of whether today’s action, coupled with a return to the pre-Bush principals of not pursuing conflict preemptively, will ultimately lead rogue nations towards the pursuit of peaceful nuclear ambitions. Only time will tell if this will be the case, and our future actions will dictate whether we can truly lead this effort going forward. Still, there is now a chance that we will look back in great pride to the historic events of today and April 8th as unifying landmarks in the ongoing pursuit of global peace and prosperity by the United States and its partner nations around the world.

Thoughts on human space flight, the NASA budget, and our exciting travel future…

Today’s successful launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery marks the fourth to last journey in the storied, yet costly history of the NASA Space Shuttle Program. The current mission’s primary destination, the International Space Station (ISS), awaits the American crew and their Multi-Purpose Logistics Module in low earth orbit (LEO). Operating at a staggering cost of nearly a billion dollars per launch, the Space Shuttle Program will be retired later this year in favor of the newer, more cost effective Russian Soyuz spacecraft as a means to visit the ISS. Following the September 8, 2009 findings by the Augustine Commission on Human Space Flight, President Obama announced budgetary decisions had been made that would focus on bringing down the cost of LEO space flight, along with renewed interest in private sector development of the next generation of spacecraft. Therefore, we are now at an important crossroads for both NASA officials and those who will ultimately decide which direction to take our LEO space program.

Currently, the cost to hitch a ride to the ISS on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft is approximately 50 million dollars per seat. This puts the cost for six astronauts at between $300 and $400 million per trip, or what amounts to nearly a 600 to 700 million dollar savings from the current cost of launching astronauts and scientists via the Space Shuttle. Since there will likely be a minimum five year gap between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the anticipated initiation of the next generation Orion spacecraft program (Run by Lockheed Martin), NASA will most likely choose to team up with the Russians for rides to the ISS in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, private sector space companies around the world, such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, may offer NASA intriguing, cost effective, alternatives and models for successfully transporting mission crews and equipment to and from the ISS; and eventually to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

This collaboration will need to be accelerated should Russia, as expected, decide to hike up the price per seat for a ride on the Soyuz given our demand and the gap between now and the proposed Orion launch in 2015. As mentioned above, NASA’s future collaborations with the private sector will be of vital importance for the development of future means of human and robotic space flight. In November of 2009, Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo had its impressive model debut at the Mojave Air & Spaceport. Launched from a specially designed transport plane called a “MotherShip”, SpaceShipTwo will prelude the larger SpaceShipThree and will break ground in the testing required to allow civilians to travel to and from other spaceports via sub orbital space in the near future. Based on the surprisingly low current per person cost of $200,000 for a test ride on SpaceShipTwo, it could be feasible for NASA, and other national space agencies, to significantly lower their mission costs in the future by adapting these new found forms of space travel to low earth orbit space flight.

In 2007, realizing the need for a genuine collaborative effort going forward, NASA and Virgin Galactic entered into a symbolic memorandum of understanding regarding the need to work together to progress human space flight and to share their meaningful innovations with each other. Along with the continuing Lockheed Martin Orion/Altair project for an LEO springboard to the Moon and Mars, payloads, and ISS missions which would launch from the Ares I rocket vehicle, NASA will one day have the welcomed alternative of launching to LEO via a “MotherShip” for crew trips only, and larger robotic payload transport missions. This exciting future for human space flight is expounded by the prospect of a two hour flight from London to Sydney via the proposed SpaceShipThree from Virgin Galactic. It’s not a science fiction movie anymore; in the next twenty years we will more than likely see both commercial and government spacecraft traveling from destination to destination in sub orbit in the same fashion as jet liners today. The anticipated ability of spacecraft to cruise into LEO in the future, launched by the much less expensive MotherShip method, has the incredible potential of transforming space travel from both a budgetary and practicality standpoint.

Given the promising future of the international Spaceport concept, the impending retirement of the US Space Shuttle, and the newly outlined objectives for NASA under the Obama Administration and the Augustine Commission, the critical next steps in human space travel and exploration are most likely to be dependent on effective collaboration through contract work with commercial space travel companies and space agencies across the globe. No matter what direction the President and Congress decides to take with regards to future human space travel, we can at least rest assured that there is a conscious effort to lower the blinding cost of spaceflight without compromising the future of space exploration. By looking to the ingenuity of the less budget restricted private sector for the future development of multifunctional spacecraft, there is no reason to believe that NASA will have any trouble accomplishing its long term goals in spaceflight and exploration. In the short term, the reality of the current budget situation dictates that we transition to more cost effective methods of achieving our goals in space. We’ll have to do this by taking our fiscal medicine, launching ISS missions with the Russians, with the knowledge in the back of our minds that the next generations of US spacecraft are on the verge of usability. This knowledge, and the important fact that modern technology is quickly catching up with the costs of reaching space, give great hope to the prospects of both astronauts and civilians in their quest to reach new heights, achieve great things, and visit distant destinations that will transform the way we think of the universe and each other.

The above revelations about future space flight lead us to bigger questions about the future of humanity as it relates to visiting other worlds; will the international nature of space exploration lead to a more “world based” view as opposed to “nation based” viewpoints? Will the next generation of Americans actually get to fly on these proposed spacelines such as Virgin Galactic, taking hours out of international travel? And finally, are we closing in on a need for an increased focus on international space regulation, given the prospect of increased security concerns for satellites and other low orbit communication objects? The next two decades are sure to provide the answers to these important questions; in the meantime, let’s take some time to appreciate the ever expanding nature of human intelligence and scientific innovation.

Thoughts on the politics of fear and homegrown militant groups…

Over the past few weeks, there has been a sharp increase in the mainstream media’s coverage of domestic born militia groups. These fringe groups have existed for some time, tending to loom in the shadows while leaders they support are in charge, only to pop up when leaders they perceive as a threat to their liberties are in power. The 2008 election of President Obama has fueled the fire for some of these mainly conservative militias and impressionable activists who fear that the end of times is coming, and that a socialist big brother type government is coming to get them. Recent action from groups such as the “Hutaree” and the “Guardians of the New Republics”, have reopened the conversation on the cause and effect of militia groups in modern day America.

On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss the members of such organizations as crazy, confused, and mostly talk, but when a militia begins to act out on their credos, we must remember our not so distant past and apply the lessons we learned from domestic based terror incidents such as the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas. With political conditions that are all too similar, if not more intense, the time has come to put a collective clamp down on these groups before their radical messages reach the wrong ears.

The fact is that none of these armed militias are truly capable of individually or simultaneously challenging the United States Military in a fire fight, but their calls to action are a cause for concern to those whose jobs it is to protect our elected officials and government workers in the workplace. These groups tend to do all of the talking, but none of the action, relying on lone wolves to carry out their dirty work. Militia leaders prey on these fearful souls, and are actively looking for those who will take the fall in order to become a “hero” of their particular cause. Fanning the flames of these types of movements, though indirectly, are certain political leaders who have chosen to use hateful discontent for political gain. This is not only irresponsible and borderline illegal under the Smith Act, but extremely dangerous given our fragile history.

Though it is not scientifically provable, the provoking actions of the past year by Republican members of Congress, along with targeted fear speak from primarily Conservative talk show radio hosts, has no doubt indirectly resulted in a call for action to paranoid homegrown extremists. Given today’s revelation that the GNR sent letters to 30 US Governors, telling them to “leave office within three days or be removed,” and the recent arrest of the Hutaree Militia in Michigan, the responsible action by political leaders and talk show hosts is to condemn these actions, not to promote them through dangerous rhetoric.

Representatives Boehner, Cantor, and Bachmann in particular, along with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and other fringe feeding radio and TV hosts, are increasingly guilty of fueling the fires of domestic discontent. From drastic claims of Armageddon and “death panels” during the lead up to the passing of health care reform, to the inciteful waving of “don’t tread on me” flags in front of an angry mob-like crowd in the capital by Republican members of Congress, the first year and a half of the Obama Presidency has been marked by increased fear mongering by fringe activists and pundits. Distorted political scare tactics fed by irresponsible elected officials and media people in a position to reach millions of Americans every day, who put their stamp of approval on the behavior of the radical few.

We don’t want to see a repeat of our tragic history, and lose more of our best leaders due to unfounded fears and hate. If we see a friend, family member, or colleague engaging in incendiary or hateful commentary, we should let them know that we have already traveled down this path, and the results were devastating to our country. In 2010, we must be smart enough to realize the amazing power of our words. Whether you do or don’t support a politician, policy decision, or certain ideology, we must all agree that violence and hate are not the answer to attaining a better union. Let’s hope that our leaders in Washington DC, state capitals, townships, and in the media will take heed of their responsibility in keeping the discourse of our debates and conversations civil. Only then can we avoid the same tragic consequences suffered by generations before us.

Thoughts on the 2010 United States Census…

With regard to the powers granted to the Congress as they pertain to counting the total population of the United States, Article 1, Section 2 states that for determining the number of Representatives and Electoral College Votes for the individual states: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." Therefore, as we discuss the various details of the 2010 Census, we must be mindful of both its intended and unintended purposes.

The Congress, through these above mentioned powers, can decide what questions are asked of the people, while also determining the budget of the Census Bureau. They also dictate the detailed terms of each conducted survey. The Census, like many other parts of the Constitution, has evolved to include previously excluded populations; such as American Indians, women, and African American’s. The Census Bureau is ultimately in charge of executing the enumeration process. In addition, under privacy laws, Census data does not become part of the public record until 72 years after the date of a given Census. Therefore fears of private information being made public are completely unfounded. To put this in perspective, consider that the results of the 1940 Census will not be made public until April 1, 2012.

Still, many people continue to give in to misinformation fermented mainly by fear of government intrusion. Some members of Congress, such as Rep. Michelle Bachmann, said they would refuse to fill out the entire 2010 Census form because of dreamed up fears about the role of the now non-existent ACORN in the door to door counting process; stating in June of 2009: “I think what the threat of ACORN would be the deluding of the ballot box and the effectiveness of our vote," she said. "They will be in charge of going door to door and collecting data from the American public, this is very concerning.” Ironically, despite her apparent fear of ACORN foot soldiers, she voted “Aye” on H.R. 1096: A measure encouraging individuals across the US to participate in the 2010 census. It’s this kind of obvious, fear driven cynicism that is dangerous to the integrity of our government, and a giant disservice to the information seeking citizens of that official’s district or state.

The fact of the matter is; in order for our elected officials to effectively garner the appropriate level of funding for national, state and local projects, an accurate head count of the number of individuals in a given district, state, and the nation must be done as required by the Constitution, and for responsible democratic governing. Without the Census to guide money streams, there would essentially be huge disproportion of funding for communities across the nation. In addition, the future funding of local schools, hospitals, law enforcement, roads, and more, are at stake.

There are only two reasons not to fill out the Census; fear and laziness. As of the writing of this article, only 54% of Americans had mailed back their Census form. This low level of initial participation is both costly and inexcusable. There are only 10 simple questions to answer, and it takes you no more than 10 minutes. There is a even a return envelope with free postage included with your Census package. Those who are a frugal, yet still hesitant, should take note that it will cost an additional allotment of taxpayer funds to foot count those who refuse to mail in their forms.

The information we gain also allows us to know more about ourselves as a people, and provides agencies with valuable demographical information that we can use to improve the quality of life for all Americans. If you truly care about your community, and feel vested in the future of your state as well as your country; do the right thing, be counted, fill out and mail in your 2010 Census form today.