Month: September 2006

For Sale: Senate Seat

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

Election season is upon us and that means I get to be entertained by campaign politics, which seems like regular politics on steroids. As I was looking at some of the close races being covered by the New York Times I stumbled upon one little blurb in one senate race that needs to be discussed. The article about this year’s senate race in Rhode Island has this little fact at the end of the article:

All told, more than 80 percent of the money in this race comes from outside the state.

This is just wrong. The fact that money has a large influence in our political system is not news but there should be sharp limits on which money gets to have that influence. I think that at least 75% of all money in any campaign should come from those who fall within the jurisdiction being contested. In other words, for a statewide office such as senator or governor, at least 75% of the money in either campaign should come from within the state. For national offices – in other words the president – 25% or less of the money should come from international donors. For congressional seats 75% of the money should come from within the congressional district. The same should hold true for campaigns at all levels of government. In all these cases the 75% limit should probably be applied to every type of donor – individuals, businesses, and special interest groups.

I suspect that this particular problem is most pronounced in senate and congressional races. I would be very surprised to learn that 80% of the money in a presidential campaign came from a foreign country – just as I would be surprised to learn that the campaign for my local school board seat was being financed by a corporation in Kissimmee Florida. Regardless of where the problem is the worst, the rules should be the same at all levels of government.

Tags ideal, money, reactions, State

National

Bi-partisan Government

I read an article earlier today (can’t find it now, but that’s not important) stating that the likelihood of the House of Representatives coming under the control of the Democrats after the November elections has gone from being a long shot to being a distinct possibility. As that has simmered in the back of my brain I have begun to think of the merits of having the government not be controlled by a single party. I began to ask myself, "if I could choose which party would control the Senate and which party would control the House, what would I choose?" I’m not sure how I would answer that, but I think that I would probably choose to have them controlled by different parties.

What I am sure of is that between the presidency and the two houses of congress each of the major parties should be in control of at least one of the bodies – thus forcing the various governmental bodies to compromise in order to make things happen.

The next question I asked myself is, "would this administration be better if their party did not control both houses of congress?" Again, I have no answer, but I am beginning to think that I would like to see if that is the case. I am fairly confident that it would not be a major setback to the country (although it might be a major setback to the Republican party). Sadly, in our current environment I don’t think we would see a real positive change if the House changed hands this fall. Since President Bush cannot run for another term, and since nobody is under any illusion that Dick Cheney will become President, the likely result of a Democrat-controlled House would not be working with the President, instead I would expect the Democrats to just wait out the next two years until we get a new President.

One other consideration is that at least those in the House have some incentive to do something because they will face re-election in another two years. If it were the Senate which changed hands, they might be even more willing to wait since their six year terms would guarantee that most of them would still be in office after the new President took over the White House.

If either the Senate or the House change hands I hope that it will force the Republicans to rethink their position and come back toward the center as a party. I think the Democrats have already been forced into such a position because of their repeated failure to gain control of any government body over the last few election cycles. If one of the houses does change hands, I hope we will see lively debate in Washington rather than stubborn bickering between the parties.

Tags parties

culture life

Cell-Phone Culture

Over the course of the last year I have become very aware of what I call our cell-phone culture. Let me preface my commentary by saying that I have nothing against cell phones. I used to have one, and the day may come when I have one again, but currently I do not have one.

After moving into a new house and a new neighborhood last year, I found it hard to contact anyone in my neighborhood. I have been working with the local Boy Scout troop and I had phone numbers for most of the people but whenever I tried to contact people I could never catch them. I also discovered that there were messages being sent to “everybody” that were not coming to me. Given time I was able to diagnose the cause of both those problems. The messages I was not getting were text messages on cell phones – a loop which could not include me since I have no cell. The problem with me trying to contact anyone else was that I had their home phone numbers which were virtually useless since they all rely on their cell phones for people to contact them.

Since that first identification of the influence of cell phones on society I have identified other effects of the cell-phone culture. I see people around me busily doing much more than people did when I was growing up. There are more soccer games (or any other sport), more music lessons, and dance classes. Families are split in more directions as both parents run separate errands and any older children are busy with their own agendas. The members of the family keep each other updated on their whereabouts with calls and messages from their phones without ever having to see each other. This was all driven home to me this weekend when my backyard neighbor was talking to us over the fence. She had her phone with her and while we were talking she got a message from her oldest daughter. The daughter had gone shopping for a prom dress with the stipulation that her mother had to approve anything she wanted to buy. The message was a picture of the prom-dress-of-choice. No need for mom to come along in order to secure her approval. In fact it was not even necessary to take a picture and show it to mom for approval before going back to purchase the dress. She could go shopping and get the required approval while Mom was outside talking to the neighbors.

Not all of this is bad, but I have concluded that if and when I have a cell phone again I will be conscious to avoid cluttering up my schedule just because I can stay in contact while driving myself crazy and back.

Tags busy, cell phones, insights

General

Good News for the G.O.P.

While I was just catching up on the news, I came across an article in the New York Times declaring that the rank and file memebers of the G.O.P. are not following the dictates of Karl Rove. I think that’s great news. I have thought many times that the Democratic Party seemed to have lost its way. I felt that they had very little to contribute outside of a constant cry of “Republicans are bad, just look at what Kink George is doing.” Lately I have begun to think that the Republican Party should lose their way since the way they seem to be leading the country is looking more and more like a path to self-destruction.

I am not talking about the war in Iraq, or the economy. I am talking about the “us vs. them” mentality. The Democrats seemed to be lacking an “us.” From the Democrats it felt like a “them vs. not them” mentality. Thankfully that looks like it might be changing. I just hope that one or both parties can come to something along the lines of “us and not us” where there is no assumption that “anyone who does not agree with us is anti-American (or stupid, or evil, or any other slanderous generalization).” The parties should stand for something so that I can respect them even if I disagree with them.

With the issue of abortion, most people talk about “pro-life vs pro-choice”. Both sides seem to be for something. Unfortunately, I have heard ardent supporters of each side of the debate talk about “pro-choice vs anti-choice” or “pro-life vs anti-life.” Those are both “us righteous crusaders for truth, justice, and the American way vs those stupid, communist, fascist, devil worshiping, neo-something-or-other social lepers” types of mentalities. They are not constructive, but they are passionate. I don’t mind passionate, but I would hope to have more constructive attitudes come to the forefront of both parties so that we can have some lively national debate on issues, and at the end of the day we still make things happen.

Tags insights, parties, political figures