Day: December 20, 2013

Gerrymandering

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Voting

Today’s focus is on politics in general in the US.  One of our fundamental rights is the right to vote and it appears to be under attack.  These days there is a lot of debate about voting and voting rights.  Even if you deny the attack on voter rights you have to be aware of the game played to insure a certain outcome to an election…..that game/tactic is the one we call gerrymandering.

For those not sure what the term actually means…….

…….a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander.

In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as “majority-minority districts”.

There are two techniques for the act of gerrymandering……these are packing….this is when a minority is in a few districts so that they can elect only a small number of representatives…..and then there is stacking…..minorities are spread thin across many districts so that they can elect NO one……

If you understand the definition then you can understand what is being done…..it is an attempt to create a foolproof win for a particular party.  Do not get me wrong…..I am not blaming one party over another…..this is a process that is done after each census…..about every ten years or so.  And both parties are guilty.

But when did this process begin……was it an original part of the government from the beginning?

To answer the question simply……

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party.

It was said the the re-drawn districts had the shape of a salamander….ergo Gerry after the gov and mander from the salamander and it has ever since been known as Gerry-Mander.

This is nothing, serves NO purpose other than making a loss proof district for politicians…..and in today’s country used to make it harder for some voters to elect a desired representative……it has NO socially redeeming qualities….it has out lived its usefulness, at least in my mind…..but then I am not a bottom feeding politician……time for it to GO!  As a matter of fact it is time for the whole electoral college con to go (that is a post for another day)……..

Let me close with one simple statement……..Remember when the voter pick its candidates….well gerrymandering has made it possible for the candidate to pick his/her voter!

Fact-checking voting laws: a year-end report | PolitiFact

With the upcoming 2014 elections, the mid-terms, you can bet that this subject will get lots of air time….all the debate, the lies, the truths, that head scratching……

I am not a big fan of Politifact….I think their grading system kinda sucks…..something is either true or false….a lie is a lie….no matter how you try to spin it….a lie is a lie!

But this will give my readers an idea of where the debate on voter suppression is at……..at least for now.

Fact-checking voting laws: a year-end report | PolitiFact.

The Selfie

So much has been made about the prez and his”selfie” in South Africa….,I thought this was an excellent ‘toon…..

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/h/B/6/The-Selfie.jpg

I think that it is a bit premature to think the unthinkable….that the TP will self-destruct…..we will see after the 2014 mid-terms…..

Conservative Vs Conservative

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Conservatism

Today is my final day of policy and issues analysis for the coming year……today I want to focus on politics.

Remember Mad Magazine and its strip Spy vs Spy?  Real life has a situation as comical as the strip…..that situation I will call conservative vs conservative.  It seems that the conservative movement is attacking itself…..why?

An excellent question!  It appears that everyone in the “conservative” movement is trying to redefine what it is to be conservative.

I am an old fart and educated in the ways of political philosophy and in my studies I found NOTHING in the modern conservative movement that bears any reflection of the conservatism of Edmund Burke.  Of course we could always say that we, as Americans, have a unique brand of conservatism…….yes we could say that but it would be bullsh*t.

Conservatism….real conservatism means…….a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were.” The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society; since the 1940s the term has been closely associated with preservation and promotion of capitalism and opposition to liberalism, socialism and communism.  (thanx to wikiquote)

But in today’s American political climate, conservs are not true conservs but rather a neo-liberal.    That’s right if you adhere to the percepts of the GOP or the Tea Party you are a neo-liberal.

Think not?  Then answer these questions…….do you hold any of these ideals sacred?

  1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.
  2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government’s role. Of course, they don’t oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
  3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
  4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
  5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”

Do you like the sound of any of the above?  If your answer is yes then you are a NEO-LIBERAL!  Congrats! Did you notice there is NO mention of a “moderate conservative”?  That is a new term coined by the media to explain what cannot be explained.  If you are moderate does that make you a centrist?

Meanwhile back to the conservative movement…..who decides who is a conserv?  There are many sub-species of conservative thought…..there is the liberal conserv…..the libertarian conservs…..fiscal conservs……religious conservs and my fav “progressive conservs……my point is that there are many many strains of conservatism and to belittle someone for not being conserv simply because they will not agree with you is nothing short of MORONIC!

Just like all Americans need to find a way to work together to move this country forward….so should the conservs….if they cannot move forward then they will remain just a minor player that has nothing but NO as a platform……maybe that is what these tools from the Tea Party want….if they have NO plans to govern then it is easy to be a thorn in the foot of democracy…….maybe that is all they aspire to…..there is NO future for the conserv movement as it is today………and unity is not something they understand only on their terms…nothing these will do…….the movement is screwed!