Are Political Parties Still Necessary?

I wrote the following response to a question posed on the website Intersect.com that asked, "Are political parties still necessary?

John Adams, the second President of the United States wrote, "The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries." (Balancing and compromise between parties.)

I don't doubt the need for political parties for even a second. Without structured goals, ideals and leadership, out government would quickly fall into chaos. On the other hand, I completely agree with those who state that Congress has lost its way; that millionaires now control the country on not just the National level, but the State level as well. The voice of the commoner has become lost in a proverbial sea of Special Interest lobbyists who are more concerned about their right to pollute the environment, put unpronounceable chemicals in and on our foods and increasingly deny hardworking American the health care we so desperately need. Who is speaking now for the average American? I guarantee you it's NOT my Representative or Senator! They are too busy dancing the DC two-step in order to appease their business lobby financial backers.

The Founding Fathers did not want an exclusive wealthy leadership. They framed the guidelines for elected office with the thought that even the least noticed could lead the wealthiest.

Also, the Spoils System was supposed to have gone the way of the Dodo back in the early 1900's. But, it's back! We see this in Cabinet appointments, National Leadership appointments, passage of laws favoring certain industries as exchange for election backing (money, votes, etc).

It seems that what made this country great, what really separated it from other national governments, is being lost as party fighting (and in-fighting) reaches an all new crescendo as each tries to out shout the other in their quest to "carry the banner of freedom."

So, how do we fix it? Easy--Get rid of all lobbyists; electively replace every member of Congress with those having a real and true desire to serve *the will of the people*, insist that our Presidents abandon any semblance of the re entrenched spoils system, and reduce the powers of the presidency to its original parameters.

Return the power of the government back to the people. That would be a good start.

Will it happen? I doubt it; but it is a worthy goal that is certainly worth working towards. For the sake of the United States, I hope it actually happens.

Fidel Castro Was Wrong?

I was going to try and comment on this story, but have been feeling so bad that I decided to abandon that effort as this piece of news was too important to let it pass by much longer. So, here is a copy of the story as it appeared early on Thursday, 09 Sept 2010. Full credit is given.


By Jeff Franks (Reuters)

updated 9/8/2010 9:36:59 PM ET

HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Cuba's economic model no longer works, a U.S.-based journalist reported on Wednesday following interviews with the former president last week.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba's model — Soviet-style communism — was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

The comment appeared to reflect Castro's agreement, which he also expressed in a column for Cuban media in April, with his younger brother President Raul Castro, who has initiated modest reforms to stimulate Cuba's troubled economy. Goldberg said Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington who accompanied him to Havana, believed Castro's words reflected an acknowledgment that "the state has too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Such sentiment would help President Castro, who took over from his brother in 2008, against those members of the ruling Communist Party who oppose his attempts to loosen the state's hand, Sweig told Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote in a blog on Tuesday that Castro summoned him to Havana to discuss his recent article about the likelihood of conflict between Israel and Iran, with possible U.S. involvement, over Iran's growing nuclear capabilities. He said Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust.

Castro, since emerging in July from four years of seclusion following intestinal surgery, has become an anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world. He fears that if the United States and Israel try to enforce international sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities, nuclear war will break out.
Castro also criticized his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, telling Goldberg "it wasn't worth it at all."

Goldberg described Castro as physically frail, but energetic and mentally acute. During their visit, Goldberg and Sweig went with Castro, at his invitation, to see a dolphin show at Cuba's National Aquarium in Havana. They were accompanied by local Jewish leader Adela Dworin, who Castro kissed in front of the cameras in a possible message to Iranian leaders, Goldberg said in his Wednesday blog. Inside the aquarium, Goldberg was introduced to the veteranarian — a woman named Celia Guevara, Che's daughter.

A One-Sided Mocking of BYU

An article in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the PI) by sports columnist Jim Moore was attempting to poke fun of Brigham Young University's football program. To be fair, Mr. Moore usually writes insightful, humorous pieces that help his readers to see another side to whatever subject he is illustrating. However, his article today fell way short of the mark; instead falling into a chasm of ignorance and ridicule. The article follows:

"Steve Sarkisian and I don't have anything in common -- he's a young and successful rich guy who bleeds purple. I'm the polar opposite -- a poor old crimson-bleeder who doesn't have T-shirts that say: "I bark for the Go 2 Guy." Though we're both Cougs, Coach Sark went to BYU, and I went to WSU. At BYU, students are required to follow an Honor Code or risk being expelled from school.

At WSU, if we had a code, I was either not aware of it or not following it very well, preoccupied with chasing coeds and playing countless games of losers-chug foosball at the Billiard Den in Moscow, Idaho. How I graduated is one of life's mysteries on a par with Jim McMahon, the beer-swilling and hell-raising quarterback, being a BYU alum.

The topic of the Honor Code came up at Sarkisian's news conference Monday afternoon as the Huskies prepare for their season opener at BYU on Saturday. I should have asked him football questions relating to the game, but I was more curious to find out if Coach Sark had trouble complying with the Honor Code when he played there in 1995-96."I didn't get kicked out," he said.

If you're properly following the Honor Code at BYU, you're not drinking alcohol, coffee or tea. You're not smoking tobacco or marijuana. You're not carrying a gun on campus. You're not swearing or having pre-marital sex. You're not cheating on tests or breaking the law.

You are also required to follow dress and grooming standards. For men, this means that shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles must leave the ears uncovered. Sideburns can't go below the earlobes nor onto the cheeks. Moustaches are allowed but must be neatly trimmed and cannot extend below the corners of the mouth. Beards are prohibited.

In April, Harvey Unga, BYU's all-time leading rusher, left school after violating the Honor Code by having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend, who was six months pregnant. Unga was drafted in the seventh round of the NFL's supplemental draft by the Chicago Bears.

Asked for the rule that he had the biggest problem with, Sarkisian mentioned the one about facial hair, saying: "I'm not a big shaver."

Sarkisian was a JC transfer who went to BYU because he was a quarterback who wanted to fill the air with footballs and a student who wanted a degree. "I wasn't there to have a good time," Sarkisian said. He was also a Catholic at a Mormon school."Initially that was a little challenge," Sarkisian said. They tried to get him to convert, but Sarkisian wouldn't do it because he was "a happy Catholic." "It took some time, but then there was a great deal of respect (for me and my decision)," Coach Sark said.

When Sarkisian said he had "plenty" of players who could abide by the rules at BYU, I went searching for some.

Strong safety Nate Williams thought he could follow the Honor Code, saying: "If I went to that school and knew what I was getting into, I could handle it. … At the U Dub, we don't have all those rules. We just have to be smart about what we do and who we hang out with."

But Williams has a mini-beard that would be an Honor Code violation, and it's one he plans to keep. "I think I look better with it," he said. "It gets me more girls."

Outside linebacker Mason Foster said he'd be good to go at BYU. "I don't indulge in any of those activities," he said. "I'm a pretty straight-and-narrow guy. If I had to deal with the Honor Code, I'd be completely eligible." "But they wouldn't let you keep your dreads and your beard," I told him. And just like that, the prim-and-proper Foster disappeared. "I'd have to get outta there then," he said. "I couldn't do that." (Jim Moore, Seattle PI 8/31/10)

On the surface one might think, "Yeah; so what? No big deal." However, looking at the article closer, I found it to be a one-sided, un-humorous, offensive piece because Mr. Moore did nothing to avoid stereotyping both BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I wrote to him with the following response:

"Thanks Jim, for writing ANOTHER article that does nothing but perpetuate the "oddness" of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints amongst the general populace. (Just look at the comments on this piece.)

This type of ignorance and slighted view is exactly the slanderous, ignorant media that constantly demeans and disrespects a membership that seeks to live by a better moral standard every day of the year.

Not once in your story did you ask any players (former or current), aside from Sarkisian, who are church members what they thought of the school's Honor Code, and whether or not they had a difficult time accepting or following it. Instead, you highlight only athletes that have had trouble with, or violated the much [media] maligned Honor Code.

I've got an idea for you--Instead of highlighting this personal Code of Conduct for its oddness, why not ask what makes living by it so desirable to the 30,000 plus students who attend BYU every year? Or, how might the Honor Code make BYU athletes better players? Did you even ask coach Sark if he enjoyed attending BYU?

Try writing a story that actually presents a balanced view; instead of reinforcing a stereotype that only furthers prejudices and biases against a singular group that has does nothing but promote a higher standard of living that extends beyond a Sunday service.

I have to ask you, if the University of Notre Dame had a similar Honor Code, would you be making light of it? Or is BYU an easy target just because they’re “Mormons?”

The following are comments left on the article by PI readers (I've omitted screen names or personal references):

-"I've visited Provo several times, and even though I was never the type at risk of getting arrested for anything, I sure as hell know I couldn't live there. It's like nowhere else on Earth- like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."

-"I take it...not many Starbucks stockholders in Utah?"

-"like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."Great line, captures the feel of the place perfectly.I still can't imagine many red-blooded 18 year old boys thinking this is where they want to go when they leave home..."

-"Mormon girls are closet freaks. And they're hot! They're not supposed to engage in premarital sex, but there's quite a few that do. They just have to keep it on the low. But yes, it's still worlds apart from most other Universities."

When a supposedly humorous article, supposedly intended to poke fun at a football rival, elicits such negative comments about a singular group, then the aim was way off. Personally, I came away from reading this article offended by the ignorance that Mr. Moore displayed in his attempts to be light-hearted and funny. That's not to mention the ignorant respondents who fell directly into the ever-present anti-Mormon rhetoric. Sorry Mr. Moore--it wasn't funny... just offensive.

Evolution vs. Creation Debate Continues

Today, a study by Rice University professor Marek Kimmel was reported which stated that the mitochondrial DNA commonality of life (the so-called mitochondrial Eve) lived 200,000 years ago. I'll not reiterate the science here; but suffice it to say that the claim "assumes" the model for "estimating" the first matriarchal woman is correct. I responded to the article (and some very opinionated responses) with the following:

One thing I love about the scientists in this whole creation vs evolution debate is how they state evidence as "empirical," yet have little concrete proof--just speculation, guesswork and tidbits of so-called 'scientific data' that shows what might have been (sound familiar?). They talk about evolution in absolutes, yet always steep their comments with qualifiers such as 'might have been; could have; maybe; possibly; theoretically; probably, etc.'

Just like the creationists who rely on faith as their basis , neither side can absolutely prove anything one way or the other. Both sides will yell their point of view at the top of their lungs, yet get no closer to truth.

I have an idea...Instead of each side trying to constantly disprove the other, why not go from the angle that BOTH are valid? It would certainly make for an interesting debate! Founding Father Ben Franklin stated, "Science and religion go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other." How valid is his point?

Let's also remember that the scientific view of life was sparked by the Darwinian theory of evolution just 150 years ago--a thesis that many scientists and academics acknowledge is incredibly flawed. Until that time, all of human history (generally speaking) viewed the beginning of life from a creationist-type point of view. Is the bulk of human history plain wrong in their thinking? Is it a reality that hundreds of [initially] isolated cultures from around the world all somehow, inexplicably deluded themselves with creationism?

Just set aside any preconceptions and really consider the debate from both points of view. What makes you right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground? The thought does bring about some fascinating questions for future debate.

As to which side is right, we'll find out some day...maybe...possibly...well, at least theoretically.


(The following is a respondents reply to my post, as well as my response)


(Respondent) xxxxx00000

"What makes you right? How might you be wrong?"

That is the essence of science. We predict things based on our theories, and then we test our predictions. That is the "scientific method." It works best when we look for the things that would prove our theories wrong as well as those that would prove them right.

(My reply)

Thank you (Respondent), for illustrating my point in the debate. By taking eight words out of context [from my comment], you have demonstrated how science looks at what they see and don't see, without considering the rest.

Scientific method has its place--no doubt. It's an invaluable tool.

However, just because what you see appears to be truth, is it necessarily the whole truth? It's like an accountant who looks at numbers and tells you you have to alter this or that in your business, without ever stepping foot in your business. The accountant will say "Numbers don't lie." The businessman counters with, "Numbers don't show you the whole truth, either." The accountant based his remarks on what the numbers tell him. The businessman bases his counter-remarks on what is happening in-store every day--two very different, divergent points of view. Instead of butting heads, the two find the common ground that benefits both sides.

So, who is right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground?

I am simply advocating an all possibilities approach. After all, both sides have merit; just as both sides have their flaws. So why not consider both?

Why is one side the absolute truth, and the other side completely wrong? Answer that from an objective, rational, non-scientific point of view.

(I got no response.)

Prop 8: A Base Issue Discussed Again

(I wrote the following response to an opinion by Dr. Pepper Schwarz on the SeattlePI.com. Her article sought to sway the reading public that politics should play no part in deciding the issue of gay marriage. She (inexplicably) even went so far as to equate the efforts of the gay community [to get marriage approved] to the 19th century fight against slavery...I didn't touch that part. No sense in legitimizing what is clearly a poor correlative attempt)

Personally, I think that the approval of gay marriages is an inevitability. However, American society as a whole is not yet ready to accept this. Over time this will change.

Unfortunately, the gay community is seeking to literally force society to accept the idea of gay marriage. Therefore, the issue becomes a small minority of the citizenry imposing their will over the vast majority.

Founding Father, and our nation's first President, George Washington said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals."

With the recent ruling in California, this very thing has happened. The people voted, the losing side didn't like it, and got the courts to overturn the common consent of the people, thereby imposing their minority will over that of the vast majority.

A society, not ready to accept change, will inevitably push back against that change; and the fight for equality will take longer than simply allowing for the natural progression of societal acceptance. Give the issue time.

Thoughts and ideas will change and progress, and everything the gay community seeks--equality, in all its various applications--will be achieved.

**As a side note: The reader responses to the article were many, and quite varied. Different responses challenged most every other response by just about every reader. However, of the three dozen + responses that have appeared after my response, there was not a single dissenting opinion to what I wrote.

Prop 8 Follow-up: Overriding The Will of The People

Another strike against the majority of United States Citizens.

In news just released, a Federal Judge has overturned California's Proposition 8. Here's the story as reported on MSNBC:

SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Attorneys on both sides have said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
Anticipating such a scenario, lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 in 2008 filed a legal brief Tuesday asking Walker to stay his decision if he overturns the ban so same-sex couples could not marry while an appeal was pending.

"Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid," they wrote.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples. (MSNBC 04 Aug. 2010)

Here is yet another example of a vast minority imposing their will over the vast majority. The proponents of gay marriage put the issue to a vote; they lost. Instead of continuing their efforts to sway the majority, these folks went to the courts to solve the problem. Now, with appeals pending, the majority of California voters no longer have a say as to what they want. The gay community is seeking to literally force their agenda on everyone else.

I'm not against the gay community from receiving equal rights. I am against them imposing their singular will over the objections of the majority of citizens. The will of the people is supposed to rule the day. The people have spoken; and now the gay community is stomping and crying their way to getting what they want. This is what I don't agree with in their fight.

Thirty years ago the gay community was reviled, ridiculed and harassed. In the years since, people have become more accepting. Over time, the perceptions and fears will ease, and the gay community will end up getting everything they're after.

But, like whining, cry-baby children, they are stomping their collective feet [by way of the Courts] and demanding that everyone else accept them for who and what they are RIGHT NOW! They rail against anyone who thinks otherwise, calling them disgusting names, and spreading words of hatred towards those who oppose them. They cry "Equality!", yet fail to allow open discussion from their opponents. They asked the voters of California to have their say on the issue; then threw a harassing, destructive, demeaning, hate-filled tantrum when they lost.

What's wrong with this picture? If your children acted this way, they'd be put in time out, have extra chores to do, be grounded, etc. Yet the Courts are allowing this childish behavior to continue. So much so, that it's now looking more and more likely that the tantrum of the gay community will result in the forcing of their will upon everyone else. This is just wrong!

Federal Judge Walker has chosen to side with the minority over the will of the people. Because of this, every heterosexual American will soon be forced to accept a thing they are not yet ready to accept. And to the gay community, that is just fine! So long as they stomp their feet in a whining, temper tantrum, childish way, and they've gotten what they want, then everything is just fine. They'll have their equality, in the eyes of the law; but it will be decades before they have their equality, in the eyes of the people.

Civil Rights For Air Travelers--Follow Up

Just about an hour ago, MSNBC released a story about the images from airport body scanners being saved by federal agencies. This policy by the agencies involved goes directly against what the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been telling the citizens of the United States. The following is the story:

"Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News.

The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail.

According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse.

The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout.

The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing."

As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote.

The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET report notes that while the machines are built to "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide networked "high-speed transfer of image data," the system are built with filters to "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."
(by Wilson Rothman, MSNBC.com 08/04/10)

The following is my brief response to the article:

"Why is Congress allowing this to happen? Why is the President NOT putting a stop to this? Why is the ACLU NOT suing the TSA over this? Our Civil Rights, as guaranteed under the provisio of the Constitution of our United States, are being attacked by a Federal Agency--and no one is asking "Why?" Write your Senator and House Rep! Write the President! This HAS to stop!"

Is this alarming to anyone? Are you reading this and say to yourself something like, "I can't believe this is actually going on?" If it is to you, please, please, PLEASE, write to your elected Congressional leaders and let them know how you feel. If the majority stay silent, then we will lose our liberties as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Please, Make your voice heard!

Arizona and the Immigration Debate

(The following is a post I made on MSNBC in response to a story about the current Arizona immigration law. I literally read every comment on the site prior to writing my response. The issue is obviously a hot-button topic, because many comments were filled with anger and resentment on either side of the issue.)

In its simplest, The Federal Govt. has failed to properly confront the problem; so The State of Arizona is exercising its State Constitutional RIGHT to address the issue of ILLEGAL Immigration.

Special Interest groups have flooded the media with propagandized statements about the Unconstitutionality of the law; and the media in turn splash image after image of sad looking illegals in an attempt to sway public opinion. Special Interest groups be damned if they side with people who have sidestepped the legal requirements toward citizenship.

President George Washington, one of our Founding Fathers said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." The Arizona law, passed by consent of the people, is indeed being trampled on by individuals and Special Interest Groups who seek to impose their personal will upon the majority of the citizenry. How, in any conceivable logic, can these individuals be granted such power?

The current problem exists not because of Obama, but because of President Ronald Reagan giving blanket amnesty to some 2.5 million illegals in the mid-eighties simply because no one was willing to properly confront the issue at that time. With his amnesty proclamation, the proverbial floodgates were thrown wide open, and the current immigration problem we have today was begun.

All the citizens of this country are asking is that anyone entering this country do so having used the proper legal channels, and go through the citizenship process as currently mandated by Federal Law. Anyone who screams "human rights!" in defense of those people who fail to enter legally, does not truly support the wishes of the citizens of the United States, nor the laws that govern us all.

What price do we, as a nation, pay if the problem of illegal immigration is either ignored, or swept aside in favor of "rights" that non-citizens have in this country? What possible outcome exists that benefits Americans if our public infrastructure is bankrupted by the growing tide of illegal immigration? Benjamin Franklin, another of our Founding Fathers stated, "Even peace may be purchased at too high a price." In this case, what is the price for peace if our nation's leaders turn a blind eye to, or our courts allow for the "rights" of non-citizens to prevail?

However you feel about this issue, no matter which camp you're in, the very basics of the immigration issue are about what is legal, according to US law, and what is illegal. That's it. Anyone screaming anything more than this basic definition is efforting a personal agenda.