Breaking Down the Political Equation



*may not be mathematically accurate

The US political equation, like any other equation, has two sides. When things are not going well in the country, one or both sides of the political equation are out of whack. On one side, the citizens can become uninformed and/or apathetic and vote for incompetent politicians. On the other side, an incompetent government, elected by uninformed/apathetic citizens, will likely become corrupt and do things that harm the country.

I believe that every American would agree that both sides of the equation are out of whack. But which side of the equation are we spending most our effort trying to fix? From my perspective, we spend nearly 100% of our time trying to convince the citizens on the opposite side of the political spectrum to change their minds and vote for the greedy, corrupt and inept politicians that we prefer when compared to the other greedy, corrupt and inept politicians running. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the equation, government has become so corrupt and dysfunctional that our country has been made a mess. Politicians insulate themselves from losing elections by taking money from special interests and by gerrymandering districts. They line their pockets by taking bribes and kickbacks and by taking advantage of their positions to do things that would land your or me in prison. Shouldn't we spend some effort attempting to fix the way government works? After all, how can you be upset with another citizen for voting for an awful politician who then passed a bad bill when they are almost all awful politicians and they are almost all bad bills?

Even a good bill that has the potential to become a beneficial law can be loaded with earmarks that rob taxpayers to fund politicians' pet projects. A politician that votes against the bill can be blamed for its failure to pass in the next campaign. Or, if they vote for it, they will be blamed for helping to pass a bill with wasteful earmarks. It is a no-win scenario for them and for us.

In 2010, TEA Party Republicans introduced a bill that would ban earmarks. Failing to get adequate support from Democrats or fellow Republicans, the bill failed. But what if we citizens demanded that a ban on earmarks be passed? That any politician that voted against the ban would be voted out of office in the next election? We could get this critical change made. And with a ban on earmarks, every politician could better be evaluated by their voting record without opposition to (or support of) earmarks to confuse the intention of their vote. It would make it much easier for voters to understand what policies their representatives honestly support and which they oppose.

How would you reform government?

There are other Congressional rules that need to be addressed to get government to function properly: reforming the filibuster, strengthening the rules regarding gifts from lobbyists and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. Those few changes would have an incredible impact on improving the government.

If thinking of politics as a two-sided equation doesn't really cement things in for you--that our fight is with government and not with each other--then consider this: as an American, I would lay down my life to protect your right to worship and to express your faith--or any other expression--in every way that the First Amendment protects, or to protect your right to vote. I would lay down my life to protect your right to bear arms or to have access to a fair judicial system, should it be required. I would lay down my life to protect your right to have your tax dollars fairly collected, wisely spent and well-accounted for. Shouldn't that be more important than whether we see exactly eye-to-eye on matters of abortion or gun rights or what tax rates should be? I would hope that every American has the same devotion because, if we do, that should bond us like brothers and sisters. Then we can together look at the things that are wrong with the government and correct them. When thinking of those rights that we most cherish, who is the greater risk to them, your neighbor or the government?

If reforming the government sounds too daunting, imagine this: we force all of the money (or at least the dirty money) out of elections. That eliminates most of the corruption. Then, we re-draft the ethics rules of Congress. That eliminates the rest of corruption and eliminates the gridlock, horrible bills, wasteful spending and poor judgment. We get it done with oversight and accountability. I know that it isn't going to be just that easy. It is going to be a lot of work. And it means we all work together to watch what government is doing and keep it in line. But because the work is going to be hard, does it mean that we shouldn't be doing it? Is there one person anywhere who would argue that our efforts are better spent fighting about issues we will never resolve rather than addressing issues we can actually fix?

Click here to read my idea for how we begin to take on such an endeavor. There may be many ways of getting it accomplished. We just need to find the best solution and see it though. I refuse to believe that the status quo is the best we can do. That we can only play the politicians' game. A game that only serves to keep them in power and subjugate citizens to their will. A game that denies us our birthright: a country of our own.

I promise afterward that everyone can go back to fighting like the Hatfields & the McCoys. At least the government wont' be robbing you, molesting you and poisoning you all at the same time. We look at the Middle East and express disbelief at the unresolved conflicts there. But they have real issues over there! Our problems are so minor. We have just need to redirect our efforts.

This message may never get through to the hyper-partisans. Like telling a Bears fan that the Giants are the greatest team ever. But this will make sense to a lot of Americans who, I believe, will soon be the new voting majority.

This is where the Republicans have really failed in the 2012 election. They could have nominated Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul had a chance to beat Obama but even if he lost the election, I think this message of unity and government reform would really carry with Ron Paul supporters. I think it would appeal to large factions of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement as well. And any other pragmatic activists that don't care to classify themselves as any of the above. And, I suspect, a lot of dis-affected Republicans and a lot of fed-up Democrats. All over the country, that's a lot of people and the Republican Party could have positioned itself to be the standard bearer for that group. But it's not too late for them. It may not be too late for the Democrats either. Whichever party embraces the concept of direct democratic action to reform government, and is most cooperative in helping We the People achieve that new directive, will emerge as the stronger party. Realistically, I don't see either party giving up control so that their game can be better scrutinized and refereed. But aren't they supposed to be serving us, rather than the other way around? They have flipped the game and we still haven't caught on.

If you can't see that the government side of the equation is more seriously askew than our side, and more easily-correctable, then I suggest you reexamine your math, science, history, perceptive attributes, sense of reality, etc. The student that wants access to safe, available abortions isn't selling out your future for campaign cash. The NRA supporter that wants to own an arsenal of guns isn't bargaining with corporations and industry to poison our air and water and to protect their own wealth. Politicians are doing these things. When will we stop marching to the voting booth to defend them from other politicians involved in the same schemes? When will we find the courage and conviction to take them on? Can we get control of government any other way?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Guns are for Killing People

Most guns are really for killing people. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Does anyone think that there are no people that may need to be dispatched? (The random shootings we've seen present proof that there are.) Are there no people that may need the protection of firearms?

When people ask me why I own a gun, my response is "To kill people." I'm no hunter. But I know that people can be dangerous. And I know that an un-checked government can be dangerous and erode personal liberties. It is the DUTY of responsible citizens to be armed and able to protect themselves and to provide that check on government power.



Crime Requires Some Legislation

 Having said that, I'd love to know how many liberals and non-partisan anti-gun nuts think that we could or should ban firearms in the US. My guess is that it is somewhere around 2%. So, if most of us agree that guns are necessary and an American right, why are we fighting an insane battle over whether we are going to have guns or ban them outright? Again, I see the most extreme and most irrational ideologues shaping the debate. Can we reel the debate in to what is actually relevant? Can we talk about how we can expand gun rights while making it more difficult for dangerous and irresponsible people to get them? Wouldn't that satisfy the other 98% of us? Can we talk about preventing legislation that focuses on the way a gun looks? Can we re-think bans on large capacity magazines and other gun features (essential for protection against a potential large, oppressive force)  to put more emphasis on screening and testing gun buyers?

I'd also like to point out that President Obama has said very little about gun control as president and the one gun law he signed actually EXPANDED gun rights and was endorsed by the NRA. I firmly believe in fighting the battle of preserving gun rights and even expanding gun rights. But can we do it with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE rather than PARANOIA and MISINFORMATION?

The NRA has really gone off the deep end with their wild and unsubstantiated claims regarding Fast and Furious and other lower profile conspiracy theories. We should always be skeptical of government and those in power but believing un-proven fantasies is not a logical or responsible course of action. EVER.



Dang, I wanted to include this quote but according to en.wikiquote.org it is "bogus"



The NRA has a good and important function: to promote RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and gun SAFETY. Unfortunately I feel that they have largely abandon that mission to become a more politically influential organization. Politics and politicians are not going to fix this or any other issue. RESPONSIBLE, KNOWLEDGEABLE and PROACTIVE CITIZENS can. Are there enough of us to come together to find the correct balance? Do you prefer to leave this important task to politicians and organizations whose aspirations are political in nature rather than LOGICAL?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017

http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

America's Ugly Face

You may have noticed that there are a lot of people screaming at each other and speaking rather disparagingly of one another. We sometimes blame politicians for setting the tone but they are really just saying the things they say to appeal to their constituencies. They demand blood and politicians had better deliver!

America has gotten a very ugly face. I think that the thing we all have to realize is: that person on the opposite side of an issue from you--that is screaming as loud as you are--is doing so because they are as passionate about helping our country succeed as you are. That is why their doing it. Shouldn't that passion and desire to aid our country be something that binds us more than opposition over some issues should divide us?

People, I am telling you that if we could focus, with laser-like precision, on the issues on which we all can agree, we can solve most of the problems and we would all be a lot happier, healthier and wealthier. Is that not a prescription for a better quality of life? It's like we caught a shoplifter and are roughing him up outside while the mob is moving our entire inventory out the back door.


What face would you make if your wealth increased by 62%?

So what am I talking about? For instance, members of Congress can buy and sell stocks, based on knowledge of the company or the industry that they are privy to due to their work in the legislature. In the world we all live in, that is called insider trading and it is against the law. We get thrown in jail if we try it, politicians do it with immunity and their only risk is throwing out their backs as they carry away the loot. What makes things even worse is that members of Congress can actually vote on bills that could affect their investments. If a bill comes up for a vote and it would improve the lives of most Americans, but would hurt senators' and House members' stock portfolio, will they vote against their own pocketbook and for the American people? Or will they vote to increase their own wealth, at the peril of the rest of the country? When you consider that the US is in pretty bad shape but politicians in Washington, DC have never been wealthier, it is understandable that we may have some suspicion about it. Washington, DC became the wealth capital of the country a couple of years ago.

Nancy Pelosi was recently in a strange position. She purchased stock in Visa before a bill proposing to regulate credit card companies was scheduled to be introduced. The bill never made it to the floor of the House and Pelosi's stock went from $44 per share to $64 per share. That made a cool $100,000 that she could toss on her pile. John Boehner owns "considerable portfolio of stocks in oil companies, financial firms and pharmaceutical companies" and we all know how he votes when bills related to those companies come up.

How can we allow this to happen? How can we sit by as our elected representitives use their positions for their own financial gain, while the interests of the American people become secondary, are ignored or are thrown under the bus? I propose that all members of Congress must freeze all stock trades while serving. Any members of the House or Senate that does not go along with implementing this reform would be voted out in the next election. But to accomplish this, we must all stand together. We must direct our attenion on such issues and agree to a truce on issues that divide the nation. Those are the issues that rob us of our power and bolster the power of elected officials. They seem to have figured this out. Why are we so late to the party?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/