... and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.Senate Oath of Office

I've been doing some research for an idea I had, and I came across this page that list US Senators, in order of the percentage of votes that they have missed. Interestingly, the top of the list consists of McCain, Obama, Clinton and Tim Johnson (who was recovering from a brain hemmorage). I don't know about the rest of you, but if I skipped out on 33% of my job, I'd be fired, and fast. (Let alone 43% or 62%.) Seriously, these people are asking for a promotion when they aren't doing the job they were hired for. And we wonder why this system is broken.

In other news, as far as the "Change we can believe in"... Obama as voted along party lines 96% of the time this session of congress. Which means that the senator who is supposed to be representing me has either not voted, or rubber-stamped his party's position almost 600 times. When are we going to actually get some candidates worth voting for?

So, my brother occasionally makes noises about what a freakin' awesome president he'd be. He's wrong, of course. But since I enjoy arguing with people, I'm picking a fight with him right now.

What my brother, and from my point of view the major political parties but especially the Democrats, seem to forget is that, in this country, the people have the final say. All of them. Not just the intellectual elite who live in New York and LA. Not just the ones with money. Not just the ones who agree with what you say. Especially not just them. So, if he wants to earn my vote, he's going to have to convince me that even if we disagree on something, he's at least seeing my side of the issue.

So, I'm proposing a series of debates. I'll post a topic, he'll give his opinion, I'll rebut, he'll respond, I'll respond back. Then I'll let him pick the next topic. We'll see how long it lasts. The first topic is Gun Control. You've got till Tuesday.

A group calling themselves "Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War" disrupted Easter Mass at Holy Name Cathedral. Apparently, they determined that the best venue to voice their opposition to the war was:
A) In a Church
B) In a church that has vocally opposed the war
C) During a service
D) During a service on one of the most important Holy Days in the Christian Faith
E) By splashing fake blood on people at the service who were dressed in their Easter best.

Regardless of your opinions of the war, or the Catholic Church, I think you should be offended by the actions of these people. I don't understand what kind of logic goes on the heads of people like this. These actions will alienate them from people who are religious and oppose the war, and will definitely add fuel to the fire of people who do not oppose the war who feel that protesters are generally misguided and more concerned with getting attention than accomplishing anything useful.

First, the name of their group: "Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War"; I don't know about most people but "Catholic Schoolgirls" brings to mind soft porn more than anything else. Clearly, at least some of the group were not schoolgirls in any sense of the word (being male) and if they were actually Catholic they would most likely have more respect for their faith than to interrupt mass in this fashion. Then there's the choice of venue. It takes no guts at all to protest in a church opposed to the war. You are, quite literally, preaching to the choir. It seem that the only reason to stage a protest in this fashion is because you are afraid of actually having to face opposition to your protest. They knew there would be cameras, but security would be minimal and inclined to be gentle. No one is likely to attempt to shout down your "message". Finally, if you're going to commit a felony to further your political aims you should make sure it counts. The fundamental voice that Americans have is their vote... and felons can't vote. If convicted, these people have sacrificed their long-term voice for a single whisper.

There are people defending them, but I can't help but wonder if they'd be so inclined to defend them if they had staged the same protest in a synagogue, a mosque or a Buddhist temple on a major holy day. While I believe these people have the right to protest the war, and if they truly believe that it is wrong, that they have an obligation to do so. But their actions were misguided at best, and outright stupid at worst. They should be ashamed of themselves and others who oppose the war should be ashamed of them as well.

A former schoolmate of mine recently suggested on Facebook, that Nader should not be running for president. His logic is that Nader has no chance of actually being elected, so his only effect on the race will to be siphon votes away from the two major-party candidates in November. This is likely to most effect the candidate who's positions are most similar to Nader's. While this is, to some extent, true. It ignores the fundamental truth that the two-party system is not a sacred institution in this country. In fact, in my opinion, it's one of the things that's hurting this country. It's become nearly impossible for anyone, in any office to campaign without the support of one of those two parties, and with that, comes the requirement to conform, at some level to the positions of those parties. Can someone who is pro-life, pro-gun control, anti-government controlled health care, and pro-drug-controll reform get on a ballot? Not easily.

Offering people alternatives is always a good thing. If you believe that Nader being in this election is a bad thing, you should probably be equally dismayed by the fact that people have the option to write in candidates. More options are always to our advantage. If Nader "steals" votes for a candidate, it's because that candidate wasn't what the people who voted for Nader really wanted. People are cabable of reasoning out the fact that a vote for Nader (or any third-party or write-in candidate) may mean that the major party candidate that is closer to their positions is less likely to win. If they still believe that a vote for someone else is their best option than they need to be able to express that option.

I have, in the past, voted for third-party candidates. In fact, I have yet to cast a vote in a presidential election for either a Republican or a Democrat. I've done this because when looking at the candidates available to vote for, I determined that my vote was most useful as a motivation to future third-party candidates and for, hopefully, reaching that magic 5% mark in which a third-party candidate can recieve public funding. Neither of the major parties has offered a candidate who I thought would be a good president, so I could not, in good concious, vote for them. I used my vote in the way that seemed most likely to bring about a future that I wanted.

Do you think Nader is a help or a hinderance in this process?

If you live in one of the states that votes today, make sure you go out and make your voice heard. Looking at the pools of candidates on both side, it's easy to see that this upcoming presidential election has the potential to reshape the face of politics in this nation. And politics in this nation is crying out for that change.

Remember my political mantra: Vote your hopes, not your fears.

When the Constitution of the United States was written, the people writing it were not creating a Democracy. They were creating a Republic. They understood that the bulk of the population lacks the time, the ability, or the motivation to make politics the center of their lives. Without a near-expert level of knowledge of politics, it is difficult to make informed decisions about what laws are best for any community larger than your immediate environment. What's best for Chicago is not always what's best for Detroit. The typical citizen of Chicago isn't going to know enough about Detroit to be able to determine what's best for that city. That's why Chicago doesn't get to vote in the Detroit mayoral election. That makes sense to all of us I think. Even in this age of mass communication, this remains true. This is, in my opinion, the primary benefit to a republic. When you vote, you should be voting for someone you believe has the knowledge (and an outlook that you share) to make those decisions. This is why the Electoral College exists. However, several states, Illinois included, have decided that this isn't the best way to do things. They've decided that the current sound-bite and media driven campaign system is the best option, so rather than reforming the system to make the Electoral College work the way it's supposed to, we'll just abolish it. But, even better, we won't bother to go through the process of amending the Constitiution. That's too much like work I suppose. Rather, we'll just do an end run with the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote Act. (That's what's known as the "short title" for the bill.) In which the agreeing states will cast all of their electoral college votes based on the outcome of the popular election. This law will go into effect when it is approved by 2/3 of the states, as is required to amend the Constitution. Wait... no. It will go into effect when more than 50% of the states approve it, demonstrating a majority. Nope. Not that either. It will go into effect when states that control 50% of the electoral votes pass it. (Oh, and by the way, the law includes rules for how other states get to do things. "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President's term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

Holy freakin' crap. Seriously? Are we, as a people, okay with this? What about the states that don't pass it? Well, their popular vote totals will be figured in, but the whole part about the Constitution being the law of the land is clearly out the window. Yes, the electoral college and the whole election progress needs some serious reform. But this seems like it's a terrible way to start. Our political system is broken. The focus has move off of representatives, who are the backbone of this system, and moved to the executives, who are supposed to merely be the hands. We have people who are choosing their presidential candidate based on 30 second campaign ads who don't know the names of their congressional representatives. We have a primary system that is set up to guarantee that the national governing bodies of the two primary political parties have the authority to decide who's vote counts and who's doesn't while insuring that anyone not in those parties won't be seen by the public.

We need to go back to a system where you can vote for someone you know and trust, rather than expecting everyone to have the knowledge of a political science professor, or to vote in a state of ignorance. But the power that's entrenched in this system knows that if the voting population was truly knowledgeable, they'd expect results. If more people understood that elected officials are our employees, there'd be a lot more firing going on. Rather than removing one avenue of electing representatives, we need to start paying more attention to who is representing us, and holding them responsible for that representation. We need more control of our government, rather than giving our govenrment more control of us. And, as always, we need to vote our hopes rather than our fears.

From NewsTarget.com by way of Digg

The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA).

The actuall bill (which despite the author of the original article's authors insistance on referring to as a "law" isn't) is written to create a comittee to study what makes people become terrorists, and to set up an ongoing comission to study this. There are no provisions in the bill for any kind of policing, nor are there any provisions for any kind of enforcement of anything at all. It sets up a comission. That's all it does. The comission is given no authority, only items to research. Law enforcement organizations are not given any powers or authorities by this bill. The comission and the study group are expected to "study", "report", "research", and "understand".

There is absolutely no provision in this bill to "arrest and incarcerate any individual" at all. Seriously. This is why politics in the country is such a mess. Even the people who claim to be paying attention can't be bothered to read the bills that they rail against, and the mass of the population diggs articles like this without doing any research of their own.