Categories
National politics

Lawrence Lessig


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
17641656414_57d1086153_k
Photo by Innotech Summit

I was surprised to hear that Larry Lessig had declared that he would run for the Democratic nomination. Having followed his work on intellectual property law for years I have always liked Larry because he has proven to be someone who has a solid understanding of the information age – which is uncommon among elected officials. With that background I was really hopeful that he would be a good candidate.

Unfortunately this promise killed any chance of being endorsed:

If elected, he says he will be the first “referendum president,” promising to serve only as long as it takes to pass his Citizens Equality Act of 2017 — a bill aimed at reforming campaign finance, voting rights, and Congressional representation. Once the bill is passed, Lessig said he would then step down, handing over the reins to his vice president.

Sadly, Larry isn’t running to be president, he is running to enact a particular piece of legislation. I can’t endorse Larry Lessig for president. Even if the legislation were correct and very important (which is a matter for debate) I would consider it irresponsible to endorse someone in hopes that he chose a good vice president to succeed him.

Categories
National politics

Ted Cruz


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
20759800503_c7da1ad1bd_k
Photo by Gage Skidmore

Ted Cruz isn’t running for office, he’s applying for a new job. At least, that’s the sense I get from his campaign. Rather than spending his time talking about what he will do his message is “here are my values – the things that drive my decision making process – and here are the actions I have taken based on those values.” The message to voters is, “if you like the values I believe in and the way I’ve defended them please give me the opportunity to do so as President.”

I like that approach to campaigning – rather than the “let me discern what you want and then promise to be the candidate of your dreams” approach.

Ted’s values centered approach and his open “judge me based on my past actions” attitude make him a candidate deserving of consideration. I endorse Ted Cruz for president.

Categories
National politics

George Pataki


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
17647463149_780390f010_k
Photo by Gage Skidmore

George Pataki seems to be running for president simply because there was no clear front runner for the GOP nomination. His campaign website doesn’t even talk about issues so I’m left to conclude that his platform is “as a former governor of New York my name has been in the media much more than the governor of Idaho so I may as well give this campaign a shot since my name has been floated as a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate in previous election cycles.”

If voters want to know where Pataki stands on anything they either have to follow campaign news very closely (because he gets hardly any coverage in the crowded field) or else they have to go to his Wikipedia page – where they will find a significant number of positions that really don’t agree with much of the national GOP voting base. (That’s only a strike against him because he’s seeking the GOP nomination – otherwise it wouldn’t play into my evaluation for this series.)

I went into this with no opinion of George Pataki but I conclude that as a candidate he is simply a placeholder in case the voters reject all the candidates who are really trying to win the nomination. I can’t endorse George Pataki for president since he gives me absolutely no reason to think of him as anything more than a fallback option.

Categories
National politics

Bernie Sanders


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
19197967404_940970d9a2_k
Photo by Gage Skidmore

Bernie Sanders has been a tough candidate for me to decide on. He has the personal and political experience to be taken seriously. He has a vision that he believes in to sell to potential voters (as opposed to candidates who just have a pet issue). From all appearances he is a man of integrity who can be entrusted with whatever office voters choose to elect him to.

The hard part about deciding if he deserves an endorsement is that his vision for the nation seems to be unrealistic. If I were a voter who agreed with the vision that he is peddling for America I’m afraid that if he were elected I would find myself disappointed by a President Sanders who was unable to deliver much of anything on his vision for the nation. What he wants for the nation is so different in some fundamental ways from what we have built here that I think the best historical outcome he could hope for would be to have historians look back on him and declare that he was way ahead of his time.

Categories
National politics

Rick Santorum


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
8568110312_614795b69a_k
Photo by Gage Skidmore

In studying Rick Santorum I remembered that he had run for President in 2012 but had forgotten how well he did in that race and how much of a political track record he had before then. One thing that really stuck out to me about him is his commitment to his principles and values. Rick knows what he believes and isn’t afraid to defend what he believes even where it runs counter to popular opinions. His priorities include fighting for mainstream Americans, espousing conservative social values, and promoting a limited view of government.

He doesn’t generate the kind of excitement and headlines that other candidates consistently deliver but I suspect if I were to meet him on the campaign trail I would see a candidate with a firm grasp of the issues he was addressing based on putting in the work to study the issues and wrestle with some of the complexities.

Rick appears to be better prepared and more experienced personally and politically than many candidates who run for President and I find it very easy to endorse Rick Santorum for President.

Categories
National politics

Donald Trump


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
5440390625_feab8a9520_z
Photo by Gage Skidmore

It would have been so easy to not give The Donald a fair shake in my candidate evaluations and simply say that his arrogance and tone automatically disqualified him as a candidate. Considering how much support he has even as his sophomoric personality has been on public display I think it is important to treat him as a serious candidate and study his campaign itself rather than the media coverage of his campaign.

Categories
National politics

Evaluating Presidential Candidates


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
16572095095_52ba79bf7e_z
Image by Donkey Hotey

Eight years ago with two crowded presidential primaries I did a long series evaluating each presidential candidate. I evaluated every candidate I could find, not just those in the two major parties. It was an interesting exercise although I opted not to do it again in 2012. I wasn’t planning to do it for 2016 either because I had expected Hillary Clinton and the following GOP candidates (in no particular order) to be the focus of the race: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, and possibly Bobby Jindal. With the way the race has been shaped by other candidates I’ve decided to do it again – specifically, I decided to do this after watching both Scott Walker and Rick Perry have the life sucked from their campaigns by Donald Trump who is a vastly inferior candidate to either of them (having tipped my hand on Trump I should probably do my write-up of him first). Last time I evaluated 38 candidates, this time I will only do candidates from the major parties.

Categories
National pictures

Confusing the Point


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Edward Snowden
Image by: DonkeyHotey

This may be the most obtuse argument I’ve read regarding Edward Snowden. I don’t want to be too hard on Jay Evensen but the logic he uses here is terrible. A conspiracy theorist could come up with many sinister motives for such a poor argument against Snowden but I’m sure it’s something much more mundane like trying to meet a publishing deadline.

Let’s break it down.

First we have an attempt to discredit Snowden based on his connection with Russia.

{Snowden} chose exile {in Russia} because he faces charges of espionage in the United States for revealing things he felt were so egregious he no longer could keep quiet about them. And yet neither he nor his friend, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, seem concerned enough about the blatant abuses in Russia or other countries to dig deeper and expose more.

But it’s no longer convincing, or even noble, to claim a sort of relativistic neutrality while hiding in Russia.

There are two parts to this. The first is that Snowden had a choice of where he took exile. This argument requires that we ignore the fact that while Snowden chose exile because of the charges of espionage in the U.S. he was unable to fly to any of the other locations that offered him exile. Russia was functionally his only option. The second is that Snowden should be exposing Russian digital espionage. This argument relies on ignoring the fact that Snowden’s revelations about the NSA are not based on some super hacker skill on Snowden’s part. Snowden’s information was based on him holding a position of privileged access within the NSA which he would never have within Russian intelligence.

Then we have an effort to defend the NSA by saying it does necessary work.

The U.S. government spies on people. We get it. The NSA is a huge agency with the resources to build a profile on just about anybody it chooses. We get that, too.

But why does the NSA do it? Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?

Does Snowden care at all about the security of the nation he fled? Does he think the NSA should stop spying altogether, or can he imagine a reason why a spy agency might be important in a dangerous world? What would he consider proper spying?

Again this comes in two parts. The questions for Snowden can’t be asked sincerely unless you have only listened to the non-Snowden side of the story. He has been very clear that he recognizes the necessity of espionage activities and that the reasons behind his actions were the systemic abuses whereby the agency overstepped their constitutional authority (which someone might argue is occasionally necessary) and hid their actions not only from the American public at large (which is certainly necessary to some degree where espionage is concerned) but also from the very congressional committees with oversight over their actions (which is a red flag of the first order in all cases).

Using “Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?” as an argument here would be like saying of the John Swallow case that raising money is necessary to run a campaign so even if he got money from payday lenders it really shouldn’t be a big deal. That argument completely misses the point of the outrage which isn’t that Swallow got money from payday lenders and that the NSA was spying. The reason for people to be upset in both cases is the way John Swallow and the NSA both went to great lengths to hide their activities from the very people they were supposed to be working for and the organizations that were authorized to provide oversight for their operations.

It occurred to me as I reviewed the article that the point Mr. Evensen wanted to make was that Russia was a greater threat to liberty than the NSA. If so, this was not the way to try making that argument.

Categories
culture National politics

Saving Social Security


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Photo by 401(K) 2013

A comment by Doug Wright on his show this morning got me thinking. Doug talked about how incensed he was by a comment made by someone running against Harry Reid that her father never cashed a social security check because he refused to take a handout. (I’m assuming he was referring to Sharron Angle but I’m too lazy to confirm that because the identity of the person he was quoting has no bearing on my subject.) Doug was incensed because of the characterization of Social Security as a handout considering that “we have all paid into it.”

The thought that struck me was that perhaps Social Security should be charity – as opposed to an expectation. The way the system is currently set up, everybody who pays into Social Security expects to receive checks from Social Security when they retire. That’s not entirely true of my generation, many of whom are highly skeptical that Social Security will still be around when we arrive at retirement age, but it is historically true. How much of our Social Security solvency problem would evaporate if we were to add means testing to the social security calculations such that those receiving payments would receive reduced payments or no payments depending on the amount of wealth they had available (regardless of whether they were tapping into that wealth).

Categories
National politics

The Issue of Secession


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Image by The COM Library

We just had an election. Once it was over some people began talking about seceding. This is not the first time the United States has faced such a situation. I was reminded of that after seeing Lincoln. As we talked after the movie Laura asked why we fought rather than just letting the southern states leave. We talked about some of the implications of secession – it is certainly not a simple topic – but as I have been thinking about it I came to the conclusion that the fact that there is no provision for secession in the Constitution might need to be changed at some point. With that in mind I decided to draft such a provision to further explore the nuances of the concept of secession.

I would like to make it clear that I am not in favor of seceding at this time nor do I foresee a time when I would favor it but I think that creating a clear path for secession might be useful in making the possibility more understandable for those who might wish to consider it. In fact, if crafted correctly it might even serve as a deterrent to some who might pursue the idea without due consideration.

I based my draft on the concepts embodied in the provisions for the admission of new states (Article IV Section 3). Specifically I wanted to promote self determination, a deliberate process, and continued order. Here it is:

States may petition the Congress to secede from the Union. The Congress must vote on a treaty of secession within two years of the petition or else the petitioning state may offer its own treaty of secession which the Congress must vote on within 10 days. The President may not veto a treaty of secession unless he is a resident of the petitioning state or the treaty was drafted by Congress within the two years allowed. Secession shall not be completed until after a one year waiting period which begins after the Congress and the Legislature of the petitioning state have ratified a treaty of secession and after the Legislature and the people of the petitioning state have each voted in favor of secession in separate votes conducted at least 350 and no more than 400 days apart. If the treaty of secession is ratified more than four years after the vote of the residents of the seceding state, the residents of the seceding state must approve the treaty of secession in a popular vote during the one year waiting period.

During the one year waiting period the seceding state shall have all the rights and obligations of all other states in the Union. If the President is a resident of a seceding state the vice president shall assume the office of president at the beginning of the waiting period for the duration of the term.

Seceding states may be readmitted to the Union in the same manner as new states at any time but must remain independent from other political unions for a period of five years following their formal secession.

Parts of states may secede from the Union by first following the procedures to become a new state. In cases of a partial state secession a treaty of secession must be ratified by the Congress and the Legislature of the newly approved state and the one year waiting period must be observed but the people of the new state may vote in favor of secession prior to the creation of the new state and the legislature of the new state may vote in favor of secession anytime within the first 400 days after the creation of the new state regardless of when the people of the newly created state voted in favor of secession.

It was interesting to see what details came to my mind as I tried crafting this provision. I would love to hear from others if there are issues I have failed to address or if there are things you would change about this draft.

I’d also be interested in hearing any other thoughts about secession that anyone would care to share.