Initial thoughts at least vaguely inspired by today's decision to keep sec 5 (pre-clearance) but invalidate sec 4 (who's subject to pre-clearance).
It's without doubt that a lot has improved in nearly 50 years. It's without doubt that there is still racism out there; prejudice will likely always exist (not that that makes it okay). These things should be acknowledged, but they're not central to what I'm focused on right now.
It seems to me that "tilting" election laws for racial reasons is pretty well on its last legs. The generations that experienced a time when it was perfectly acceptable to express clearly racist opinions are aging rapidly now and will soon be dead or consigned to old fogey-dom.
Election law tinkering is very real, but it's pretty exclusively done for partisan political advantage. That set of motivations may have disparate racial impacts, but that's not the primary intent. The intent is to keep "our guys" in office rather than "their guys". But you know what? It's still wrong to "game" the system even if your motives are less despicable.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
SCOTUS nominations
Confirmation battles have sometimes been monumental. Some nominations never even get to a vote. What options would a non-major POTUS have? Why not both "advise" and "consent"?
What I'm thinking is to put it in the laps of the Senate leadership. Produce a list of 10 that both the majority leader and the minority leader will sign off that they will bring to a vote and confirm. POTUS picks any one of the 10. They advise, POTUS decides, they consent. If they dither and fail to produce a list, bash them both regularly & repeatedly over the head (politically this plays so wonderfully into the narrative that the two parties are non-functional), then ultimately do it the old fashioned way (for which you have at least bought additional time for vetting).
What I'm thinking is to put it in the laps of the Senate leadership. Produce a list of 10 that both the majority leader and the minority leader will sign off that they will bring to a vote and confirm. POTUS picks any one of the 10. They advise, POTUS decides, they consent. If they dither and fail to produce a list, bash them both regularly & repeatedly over the head (politically this plays so wonderfully into the narrative that the two parties are non-functional), then ultimately do it the old fashioned way (for which you have at least bought additional time for vetting).
Friday, June 7, 2013
once again, parking some thoughts
If there were to be an [I] campaign in '20, if it failed (or succeeded), what would be the legacy? How could it be made to impact the legis branch? Advocate for L & G house & senate candidates. Their debate is the real debate.
Americans are generally socially tolerant. Gs & Ls agree on that as well. Abandon the R and D divisions over social policy.
Americans are coming around on the drug war (and might increasingly do so if it's end were tied to paying for things we want) and actual wars and military involvement. The Ls & Gs agree and could highlight the important discussion of how best to utilize those savings.
Americans don't want corporate rule. Neither do the Gs and (perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree) neither do the Ls.
Identify and emphasize as many areas as possible where Ls = Gs = most Americans. Contrast that to the petty R / D rifts.
Americans are generally socially tolerant. Gs & Ls agree on that as well. Abandon the R and D divisions over social policy.
Americans are coming around on the drug war (and might increasingly do so if it's end were tied to paying for things we want) and actual wars and military involvement. The Ls & Gs agree and could highlight the important discussion of how best to utilize those savings.
Americans don't want corporate rule. Neither do the Gs and (perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree) neither do the Ls.
Identify and emphasize as many areas as possible where Ls = Gs = most Americans. Contrast that to the petty R / D rifts.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
park temporarily
can't delegate your vote, can't delegate your volunteer work, can't delegate where your contribution money goes. (this could be part of state rep in '16). This is consistent with the theme of compromise by giving (some) of everything to each side: you can't have PACs bundle money (see some rationale/benefits following) but in return, all contribution limits come off, you simply have to do so in public.
Consistent with the idea that chamber rules tend to emasculate the individual legislator, further diminishing the individual legislator and his personal cohort of supporters/donors is the PAC (be it the common interest PAC or the leadership PAC). Your industry group or your political leader is free to advocate for individual voters to financially support specific candidates, but they can't actually do it for you.
stump speech start: Thank you for inviting me here to speak with you this evening. My name is Xxxx Xxxxxxx and I intend to be your US Senator.
Already I'm sure many of you are thinking some variation of either "Who the hell is he?" or "Why would he want to do a darn fool thing like that?". I'm going to try to answer those two questions.
To start off, I have to give credit to my high school sophomore year World Cultures teacher, Miss Couvert. I was in her class during the late 60s, very much during the Cold War. Even so, Miss Couvert got me thinking about Russians. Not the communist leadership. I'm talking about the everyday man-on-the-street Russian. The one who had to stand in line for groceries and when she got to the front of the line she just wanted bread. It didn't matter to her if it was wheat or rye, she was just glad if after he long wait in line they had any bread at all. In contrast, I knew I could go to the store with my mom and there'd be 6 or 8 choices of different breads from different bakers. Thinking this over, I was pretty sure the average Russian was mostly concerned about the quality of his own life. He didn't think about me any more than I thought about him. I recall feeling sorry for the average Ivan who had a grim life and an overbearing government that wasn't delivering for him. Which just made me that much angrier about the damn communists in charge.
Now I'm a lot older and Miss Couvert is probably retired. American and Russian grocery shelves have a lot more choices than many of us can afford. Instead of 3 or 4 TV channels to choose from there are hundreds available in both countries. And I doubt I could count how many different sources we can go to for our news.
(pretty happy w/ above; below still needs lots of work)
I want to work towards how much better lots of choices works to provide us what we want. Yet despite that, when we have limited choices we sometimes cling to them fanatically (see sports). These two combine in politics - limited choices are sub-optimal yet we're fanatical about our "side". Maybe get in a dig about "our crook" and "cute hoors"? Working then round to how our limited choices are reinforced by out policial rules, not so much the ones that directly impact us, the ones that emasculate the elected. Heard towards proposals.
I also need to work towards the point expressed here.
(End of notes; poorly worded draft continues below)
It's interesting how we react to the number of choices presented to us. If I'm interested in the music of Bach and I look online, among the millions of sites there are many places to buy his music, places to discuss his music, places to listen to this music. If I look on TV, my choices are counted in hundreds and I doubt I could find a Bach channel but certainly there are classical music channels that sometimes play Bach.
Consistent with the idea that chamber rules tend to emasculate the individual legislator, further diminishing the individual legislator and his personal cohort of supporters/donors is the PAC (be it the common interest PAC or the leadership PAC). Your industry group or your political leader is free to advocate for individual voters to financially support specific candidates, but they can't actually do it for you.
stump speech start: Thank you for inviting me here to speak with you this evening. My name is Xxxx Xxxxxxx and I intend to be your US Senator.
Already I'm sure many of you are thinking some variation of either "Who the hell is he?" or "Why would he want to do a darn fool thing like that?". I'm going to try to answer those two questions.
To start off, I have to give credit to my high school sophomore year World Cultures teacher, Miss Couvert. I was in her class during the late 60s, very much during the Cold War. Even so, Miss Couvert got me thinking about Russians. Not the communist leadership. I'm talking about the everyday man-on-the-street Russian. The one who had to stand in line for groceries and when she got to the front of the line she just wanted bread. It didn't matter to her if it was wheat or rye, she was just glad if after he long wait in line they had any bread at all. In contrast, I knew I could go to the store with my mom and there'd be 6 or 8 choices of different breads from different bakers. Thinking this over, I was pretty sure the average Russian was mostly concerned about the quality of his own life. He didn't think about me any more than I thought about him. I recall feeling sorry for the average Ivan who had a grim life and an overbearing government that wasn't delivering for him. Which just made me that much angrier about the damn communists in charge.
Now I'm a lot older and Miss Couvert is probably retired. American and Russian grocery shelves have a lot more choices than many of us can afford. Instead of 3 or 4 TV channels to choose from there are hundreds available in both countries. And I doubt I could count how many different sources we can go to for our news.
(pretty happy w/ above; below still needs lots of work)
I want to work towards how much better lots of choices works to provide us what we want. Yet despite that, when we have limited choices we sometimes cling to them fanatically (see sports). These two combine in politics - limited choices are sub-optimal yet we're fanatical about our "side". Maybe get in a dig about "our crook" and "cute hoors"? Working then round to how our limited choices are reinforced by out policial rules, not so much the ones that directly impact us, the ones that emasculate the elected. Heard towards proposals.
I also need to work towards the point expressed here.
(End of notes; poorly worded draft continues below)
It's interesting how we react to the number of choices presented to us. If I'm interested in the music of Bach and I look online, among the millions of sites there are many places to buy his music, places to discuss his music, places to listen to this music. If I look on TV, my choices are counted in hundreds and I doubt I could find a Bach channel but certainly there are classical music channels that sometimes play Bach.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
guns & 'compromise'
We tend to think of compromise in terms like these:
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise at 60%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise at $12 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise at 5 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that everything happens half-ass.
What about compromise in terms like these:
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise and I get this one at 70%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise and you get this one at $10 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise and I get my 4 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that a full fair try is accorded to at least some remedies.
With the above in mind, I think about guns.
1) The NRA can list who they think shouldn't get guns. That's our list; everyone else gets an unquestioned right to carry.
2) Whatever circumstances the NRA thinks gunowners should have - concealed carry, open carry, churches, gov't buildings, whatever - they get (of course, private property is governed by the property owner).
3) The gun lobby gets to close all the loopholes on the registration of gun purchases; that gun show loophole is gone. Every gun that's purchase/gifted/traded is recorded as to who gave what gun to who.
4) Everyone who receives a gun (if the gun lobby wants this) must also receive mandatory firearm training beforehand or shortly afterwards. This can be such that a small percentage (cannot be >5%?) fail and will become ineligible to own a gun until they do pass the mandatory training.
5) The gun lobby gets to set whatever rules it wants on traceable ammunition, serial numbering of guns (with penalities - including loss of gun rights - for having non-compliant weapons), whatever might assist law enforcement after a crime.
6) And perhaps a traditional halfway compromise is appropriate that would ban assult weapons and armor piercing bullets; no grandfathering of what's already out there - a mandatory gun purchase program for newly illegal munitions.
7) Of course stiff penalties for violations of any of the above.
Of course this leaves untouched the whole mental health aspect. At this point, I don't know enough about that topic to offer anything useful.
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise at 60%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise at $12 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise at 5 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that everything happens half-ass.
What about compromise in terms like these:
* On item A, you want 50% and I want 70%, we compromise and I get this one at 70%
* On item B, you want $10 billion and I want $15 billion, we compromise and you get this one at $10 billion.
* On item C, you want these 7 items banned and I want 4 of them banned, we compromise and I get my 4 items.
* etc.
This basically ensures that a full fair try is accorded to at least some remedies.
With the above in mind, I think about guns.
1) The NRA can list who they think shouldn't get guns. That's our list; everyone else gets an unquestioned right to carry.
2) Whatever circumstances the NRA thinks gunowners should have - concealed carry, open carry, churches, gov't buildings, whatever - they get (of course, private property is governed by the property owner).
3) The gun lobby gets to close all the loopholes on the registration of gun purchases; that gun show loophole is gone. Every gun that's purchase/gifted/traded is recorded as to who gave what gun to who.
4) Everyone who receives a gun (if the gun lobby wants this) must also receive mandatory firearm training beforehand or shortly afterwards. This can be such that a small percentage (cannot be >5%?) fail and will become ineligible to own a gun until they do pass the mandatory training.
5) The gun lobby gets to set whatever rules it wants on traceable ammunition, serial numbering of guns (with penalities - including loss of gun rights - for having non-compliant weapons), whatever might assist law enforcement after a crime.
6) And perhaps a traditional halfway compromise is appropriate that would ban assult weapons and armor piercing bullets; no grandfathering of what's already out there - a mandatory gun purchase program for newly illegal munitions.
7) Of course stiff penalties for violations of any of the above.
Of course this leaves untouched the whole mental health aspect. At this point, I don't know enough about that topic to offer anything useful.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
youtube
If a 2018 campaign is going to be even marginally successful, I won't be doing web videos on my own. Someone with more time and expertise will need to take over at some point. That said, initially it's probably going to be me. And 90% certain it'll be just me if there's a 2016 campaign (and web video is just one more element to "test drive" with a brief, limited-involvement 2016 run).
So.... probably ought to look into some sort of video cam (Flip cam?), maybe a decent microphone, perhaps even some lighting?? Certainly ought to set up an account on youtube, probably keeping everything uploaded there private.
So.... probably ought to look into some sort of video cam (Flip cam?), maybe a decent microphone, perhaps even some lighting?? Certainly ought to set up an account on youtube, probably keeping everything uploaded there private.
you can't really expect to win, right?
Since my campaign isn't about my ability to predict election outcomes, what I expect doesn't matter. What matters is that voters expect that the candidate with the most votes will win and I intend to be that candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)