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/

How We Solve the US Energy Riddle

What is our energy future?

Lately, conservatives have been arguing that we need to focus on extracting our fossil fuel energy in the US so that we can become energy independent. The problem with that is: even if we become 100% energy independent, if that energy independence is based on fossil fuels, other countries will continue to have influence on what we would pay for gasoline, coal and natural gas. This is because in a global marketplace, US companies will sell their product to US consumers for as long as it is economically feasible to do so. Once people in other countries increase their demand (and price) for fossil fuels, US companies will be glad to sell their products to them instead... until we can out-bid them and keep the supply here.

Also, I believe that at some point it may be cost-effective for countries like China to refine oil to export to the US. When countries without air quality standards or labor regulations can cheaply refine oil into gasoline and find a way to transport it inexpensively enough, I can imagine that we will be buying our refined fuel from those countries. This may sound preposterous but consider that we already send tons of flour to China for them to mix with melamine and mercury and send back to us in the form of cookies and crackers for us to consume.

Green energy, on the other hand, cannot be exported. Energy from windmills and solar will bring jobs that can't be outsourced. These are the industries of the future. This is where our long-term energy solutions will come from. We can't ignore it. We must embrace it. We should not be afraid of new technology. Of course, in light of our current economic crisis, it may be risky to gamble on somebody inventing ways to make green energy solutions viable in the near term. Green energy has a lot to prove still, despite the fact that it promises some amazing things. Fossil fuels however have a current, real, intrinsic value.

So here is what I propose: we aggressively harvest some of our fossil fuel energy over the next several years. If done correctly, fossil fuel energy could be a good source of jobs and we do need jobs desperately. It is true that fossil fuel projects won't create many jobs on their own. The XL pipeline project, for instance, is only expected to produce an estimated 20,000 job years (yeah, job years, not jobs--that's 20,000 jobs for one year; or 10,000 jobs for two years; or one thousand jobs for 20 years--it's not exactly going to turn our country around). We can create more jobs by over-regulating the fossil fuel energy industries. Most of the disasters that have occurred in the in the past few decades could have been avoided or greatly mitigated if crews and containment equipment were on the ready as oil companies promised they would be. If we actually make fossil fuel mining companies follow through on their legal and contractual obligations this time, there will be more workers to respond to a disaster, meaning more jobs filled, and fewer and far less severe catastrophes. The additional government regulatory jobs would improve oversight of  the operations of the industry. Yes, it is more bureaucracy but it also creates more jobs and reduces environmental impact. It is also likely to save lives (kind of important) and stimulate the economy. We stop funding terrorists and get cheaper fuel prices in the short term.

Anyone uncomfortable with trading more bureaucratic government jobs for more domestic energy production should consider the practice of oil pipeline "pigging" and its record of failure. Now imagine that a pipeline is proposed to run near your child's school or through your favorite hunting area. Government oversight is needed to ensure that safety regulations are closely followed and disasters affecting our citizens and environment are minimized.

Here's the other catch, profits from the new fossil fuel bounty would have to be taxed a bit to offset the environmental damage by funding research into green energy options for the long-term. Drastically reducing domestic fuel prices would only cause more consumption. If we accellerate our production of domestic fossil fuels, we need to devote much of the cost savings to move the whole country forward and not to just be a boon to energy companies. A little tax on the fossil fuel energy income and a little increase on the gasoline tax would be required. Then the whole country can benefit from capital that can be invested in green energy (our long-term solution).

The faster we can get green energy solutions paying off for us, the better. We need to compete with China for manufacturing those products since they are what will be in demand in the future. That may mean subsidies for green energy companies. Perhaps, more Solyndras. But as much as people like to make Solyndra out to be a big deal, the best information out there says that it was not a scandal. It was an unfortunate waste of money but in the bigger picture, most of the investments we've made in new technologies have paid off far more than enough to offset the few that failed. A little more of this will be in our long-term economic interests. In the short term, we suck the fossil fuel energy from this country like a demon sucking the last drops of blood form the skull of its victim and hope that we have the intelligence and dedication to ensure that it is done safely and responsibly.

It is a little complicated and not 100% to the satisfaction of the two ideologies that exist in this country. But I believe that it is a wise, responsible and sensible compromise to accomplish the goals of both sides; giving us all lower fuel prices, greater national security (which requires less military spending), improved environmental protection, more jobs and improved economic growth.

That's how we fix the energy problem. Now, can we go fix the CORRUPTION in Washington?

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

Bill O'Reilly Finally Gets it Right (sort of)

Get your free stuff here!

Following President Obama's reelection, Bill O'Reilly seemed baffled by the voters' rejection of the Republican establishment candidate. Flummoxed by Americans' preference for the guy who couldn't fix the economy over the guy who helped to destroy the economy, O'Reilly offered his assessment of the phenomena declaring that people voted for Obama because they want free stuff and Obama is the candidate most likely to give it to them.

This was the first time I can recall that O'Reilly actually got something right (sort of). As someone who voted for Obama in this election, I will enumerate some of the things I want from the government and believe that Obama is more likely to provide that Romney would have been:

1. When I pay for health insurance, I want to actually receive treatment, not just be a donor to the wealth of insurance companies and doctors (as was previously the case).
2. I want the people who are appointed to regulatory agencies to have the public interest in mind, rather than to merely be former executives from the industry. [Obama gets a failing grade in this category but I believe that Romney would be much worse.]
3. I want the people who head government agencies such as FEMA to be competent and proactive.
4. I want my political voice and influence to have no more and no less weight than every other American, rather than being drown out by billions of dollars worth of political advertisements sponsored by a few special interest groups.
5. I want our country to go to war as a last resort, and in the event of war, I would like the war to be conducted intelligently.
6. I want a country that gives everyone opportunities to succeed rather than being rigged to offer excessive advantages to those who already have.

Forgive me for being selfish but I voted for the guy who is most likely to give me the things I want. I wonder what the people who donated millions of dollars to the Romney campaign want. Somehow, I think their objectives are counter to mine. Bless democracy!

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

How do You Say 'F- You!' to the Tea Party?

Tea Party Citizens vs. the Republican Establishment

How do you say "F- you!" to the Tea Party? Nominate a man for president that has made millions of dollars from bailouts from the federal government, is wishy-washy on abortion issues and agrees with 90% of Obama's foreign policy.

Then have him pick a VP that voted for all the bailouts, voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (yet voted against providing benefits for veterans returning from the wars) and voted for every wasteful Bush era spending program (including the transportation bill with the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere").

That ought to do it!

When the policies and politics of both of the political parties are so incredibly divorced from the ideology of their constituencies, the country is NOT functioning properly.

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

Mitt Romney's Investors

The Wealthy Few or the Welfare of the Nation?

Mitt Romney got himself into trouble a few weeks ago when a secretly recorded video of him was leaked to the press. In this video, Romney made his infamous "47%" comments as well as a bunch of other erroneous, insulting and insensitive comments about the citizens he intends to lead. Without a doubt, these comments were intended for a narrow group of his supporters and something that the Romney campaign wished would never have seen the light of day. But Romney has made other comments that I found to be far more revealing about him and those comments got little to no scrutiny by the press. The comments and their tone were perhaps less overt than the remarks revealed in the clandestine video and were therefore less worthy of attention from the sensationalist journalism pieces produced by our dysfunctional news media. So let's look at some of Romney's words and see if they reveal what his true positions are...

To me, the most damning statement Romney has made in his entire political career came in 2008 as he was running for the Republican nomination. All the Republicans were trying to make light of the economic downturn and looming financial collapse so as not to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Republicans' handling of the economy during the Bush years. George Bush famously stated: "I don't think we are headed to a recession...", while John McCain claimed that "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Mitt Romney added that "People need to realize that this is a great time to buy." [Romney's quote went largely unnoticed so it is extremely difficult to find references to it. The web page linked to (above) is the only one I could find after about an hour of searching. Although it is not a "reliable source" it does prove that I didn't just imagine the quote, and the author of the article seems to have the same opinion I do.]

A great time to buy? Was Romney really suggesting that people who had lost their jobs and were finding it difficult to pay their mortgage go out and sink the rest of their money in the stock market? Or maybe he was suggesting that they use the remainder of their credit card balances to get into the stock market game? I presume not. He was really saying: "Rich people are in a great position to become richer still. So what's the problem?" To me, it was a pretty clear declaration of his domestic economic policy: to help rich people make more money. And if the poor and middle class can somehow find a way to be rich, then he'll help them too.

Granted, it is a lot of assumption to lay upon a single off-the-cuff statement made by Romney. But it did prick up my ears, so to speak. I've since been reading articles about the man, and although there are stories about Romney's generosity and humanitarian endeavors, they seem far fewer than the atrocities that he committed while at Bain Capital. Those stories support my initial assessment of the man.

Romney always made money for his investors, even when businesses they acquired failed, all of the workers were fired and their pensions they paid into were cancelled. Even in tragic cases such as those, Romney's investors turned handsome profits of hundreds of millions of dollars. So, in his role at Bain, the investors did very well but everyone else did horribly bad.

Now that Romney is running for president, one must ask him/herself an important question: who are Romney's investors? Those are the people that will do well in a Romney presidency. Will Romney consider himself to be the agent of the American people? Or will he consider people like Sheldon Adelson, who pledged to contribute $100 million to get him elected, and the Koch brothers to be among his primary investors? Once you determine whom his primary investors are, you have to wonder what their goals are. Will they recommend that Romney invest in schools, roads, bridges and programs that will benefit all citizens? Or with they suggest that Romney pay more attention to issues that really matter to them? Continued tax breaks, tilting the free market system to eliminate their competition, reducing regulations to allow business to increase profits by polluting the air and water?

If you did not give $100 million to the Romney campaign, then you are probably not going to be given the same attention as those that did. The issues you care about will likely languish while the very wealthy become wealthier still. Banks may go back to over-leveraging themselves at a ratio of 40 : 1, risking the greater economy. Then they'll take their profits offshore so they don't have to pay taxes to the US government that has given them much of their wealth since 2008. Yes, after the bailouts, your tax dollars went to make those banks wealthier through the Fed's "discount window". And we're still bailing out the banks through quantitative easing measures. And Romney himself has profited greatly from government bailouts.

As I see it, this election is really about which person will, as President, will best serve the entire country rather than cater to special interests. I hope that some of the information in this article will help to fill in the gaps of information that will help people to make a more-informed decision.

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

The Political Woes of a Superficial Society

Do we all realize that we are about to, again, go and vote for the person who hired the best PR firm to manage their campaign? You know, your candidate wasn't standing up on a stage in Iowa with his sleeves rolled up because he was hot or because he felt the look suited his fashion sense. He did it because his image consultant thought the look would go over better with blue collar workers and might boost him a couple of points higher in the polls.

I'm not just talking about our presidential candidates here. It can be said all of them at the federal level, as far as I can tell.

We don't vote for real people, we vote for avatars. What happens when a real person attempts to enter an important race? We're told that they're untrustworthy, dangerous and suspicious. They're outspent in the PR department and they're never given any serious attention. I think candidates like Ross Perot, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader would govern the country in a way that would better appeal to the vast majority of the country but those currently in power tell us not to do what's in our best interest. They assure us that their brand of untrustworthy-ness, dangerous-ness and suspicious-ness is better for us.

The media is partly to blame for this but so are we all. We somehow became a country that wanted to choose our president based on the whom we would most like to have a beer with. Personally, I don't want to know all the fuzzy details about a candidate. I may want to know how their childhood and school life may have affected their world view but I don't care in what region they went to school or what their first grade teacher's name was. That person is there to do a job, and my job--OUR JOB--is to make sure that they do it well. That means we need to look past all the superficial crap and view the issues, the facts and the data honestly and objectively. Somehow I feel that most of the country must be failing at this task.

Some people believe that Obama is a Muslim with no evidence of it and others don't believe that a Mormon is capable or qualified to run the country.

Can't we examine their records with a bit more scrutiny and more lucid analysis? They won't do it in most of the news media. Most of the news organizations are doing fine just the way things are. They make billions off the political ads the ratings spikes amid the hysteria of an impending election. This is a responsibility that we must take on ourselves.

Several years ago I got an e-mail from someone essentially praising the Republican Party for having the more attractive women. Photographed were Michele Bachman, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin (I think) opposing Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno and Madeline Albright (as best I can recall). A similar youtube video seems to also have been created. Only in the world of politics could any of those women be considered attractive but I found the e-mail amusing because in my experience it has rarely been the case that the more attractive people I've known were the most intelligent or most well-informed.

But MSNBC seems to have gotten the same e-mail. Because, fast-forward to present day and you can turn on the news station and see some remarkably hot women all feisty and snarky and espousing progressive and liberal ideals. I don't know their names but there are a few. From what I have seen, the Republicans have not kept up in the hotness department. But does it really matter? Are we again going to be swayed by the ideals of the person or group of people who produce the most physically attractive television personalities and candidates and hire the best image consultants for them?

Of course attractive people can have good ideas too. I'm not saying they can't. But it is pretty clear that those with handsome physical attributes often get the most attention. You can point to the hideous Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, etc. but remember, they're rich. And money is a great equalizer in our society.

This is something that we can't fix with legislation or even with education, really. We each have to look past the images that are presented to us and form our opinions with just the facts. But you won't get those from the TV news. It's going to take a bit more effort to dig them up.

We've all heard the saying that we "reap what we sow." Take a look at what we've been sowing and take a look at what we've been reaping. Is it perhaps time to make a change?

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

Mitt is Militarily Challenged

It's time for an updated military strategy.

Let me get this straight: we have drone aircraft that we build for a few thousand dollars that can fly 50,000 feet in the air using solar power which costs nothing, target an enemy and obliterate them with a hail of gunfire and Mitt Romney wants to spend billions of dollars to build a bunch of metal boats to float around in the ocean, burn up diesel fuel, kill a bunch of fish and provide fun target objects for our future enemy drones? Yeah, why don't we go back to using muskets, because, by-golly that's how we did it in the good old days! This is frightening, people. How is it that this candidate has not been laughed out of contention for any military policy position? I hope this is all an elaborate practical joke!

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

More Socialism, Please!

Underachievers? ...Like the banks? If you are a casual follower of politics, you probably have heard that President Obama is a socialist. As a political junkie, this just didn't seem at all accurate to me. Of course, it is not accurate. It is what is called hyperbole--a claim based on some fact that is blown way out of proportion and used to sway voters that don’t follow every step of every political “player”. For instance, you may have heard that President Obama “socialized” the federal student loan program. I had heard this years ago and I decided to research the issue. What I found is that Obama stopped paying banks to give loans to students and instead restructured the program so that the government would give student loans directly, cutting out banks as the middlemen. Of course, the banking industry didn't like that. Apparently the Republican party didn't either, hence, it was labeled a "socialist" program. But can’t such a change only save the country money? How can it not cost less to make loans to students directly rather than have to pay the salaries and bonuses of bankers in exchange for them servicing the loans? A wikipedia.org article states: "By directly lending to students, the government is projected to save taxpayers $68 billion dollars over the next several years." You would think that would make Republicans, and all Americans happy. The only concern I have been able to uncover from critics of the change is that the banks were “assuming risk” that the US government will now have to assume. OK, that is a valid argument.  But does that make the new program socialism? I believe that any thinking person would have a difficult time accepting that assessment. Furthermore, if there was so much “risk” why would the banks be willing to service the loans? I have a hard time believing that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather believe they did it because it was lucrative for them to do it. So then, how could it not be more economical to cut them out of the equation? Most people in the country feel that higher education is important for Americans to achieve the American dream and for the country to continue to prosper. That being the case, politicians will always pretend to care about and promote programs that keep student aid available. When interest rates are high, students are not able to pay the interest fees. To keep higher education affordable, the federal government used to pay banks the difference between the high interest rate and a modest rate that students can actually afford to pay. This was an issue during the 2004 presidential election. Interest rates had fallen dramatically yet the federal government was still paying banks the high interest rate. It was a great deal for the banks. Not so much for the US taxpayer and was no benefit at all to students. So if people want to call common sense, cost-saving measures “socialism”, then maybe we should reexamine our fear of socialism. Or at least re-calibrate our BS sensors to recognize political hyperbole. If Republicans have a better plan for student loans, then show us the plan. Explain why it is better. Resorting to such ridiculous rhetoric indicates a weak political position, poor judgment and dishonest manipulation of facts, voters and the system. When politics reaches this low point, the country is in serious trouble. ~R. Charan Pagan information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker Los Angeles, CA 90017 http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

News Advice from a Political Nerd

Who Supplies Your News?

My Fellow Americans, we have a choice. I'm not talking about the elections, those are pretty much a sham. But the choice we make about where we get our information is critically important.

Most of us turn to mainstream media news for the bulk of our information. To news that is sponsored by politicians, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc., rather than getting news from organizations that investigate those people. Considering that these are some of the least credible and sleaziest people on the planet, how can anyone trust the news that is "brought to you by..." them?

Is that new miracle drug safe? Well, we're going to be talking to the CEO of Merck who's going to tell us all about it!

Are hydraulic fracturing techniques and hydrocarbons harming your health? We'll be speaking with executives from Chevron and Exxon/Mobile to get their opinion.

Good luck with that!

Do you remember when journalists used to investigate? It wasn't that long ago. But the mainstream news organizations realized that investigations cost a lot of money. It's a lot cheaper to hire a television personality to just sit in a chair and yell into the camera.

Greg Palast is an investigative reporter that actually conducts investigations, stakeouts and undercover work. And the information he uncovers is often very different that what shows up in the mainstream media news. One of Palast's investigations revealed that in 2008, BP had an oil platform blowout that was nearly identical to the Deepwater Horizon blowout. It occurred while drilling off the coast of Azerbijan. BP kept the disaster a secret so that they could get a contract to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. We know now how that turned out. BP didn't learn from their previous failure and continued to cut corners on safety (apparently under the advice of consultants at Bain Capital.)

When Deepwater Horizon blew, all of the mainstream media news personalities went to the Gulf Coast to get sound bites, to get the "news" directly from the people that caused the disaster and to get their photo ops with pelicans and otters covered in black goo. Palast went there to investigate and got a different story: BP got the contract to drill in the Gulf with promises that they would have clean-up boats and crews on hand to respond to a spill within hours, not days, of a spill. Ever the spendthrifts, BP saved money by not keeping the boats and crews on the ready. Eleven people lost their lives, thousands suffered losses to their livlihoods.

[Greg Palast is the author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Armed Madhouse, Vultures' Picnic and Billionaires and Ballot Bandits.]

Amy Goodman is an author and host of the daily news show Democracy Now! She is a true journalist and someone that understands what that word means. Democracy Now! is one of the few news programs in this country that has no advertisers, no corporate sponsors and takes no money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The show is 100% independent and financed by its listeners and viewers. The programming is superb.

Amy conducted what should be a famous interview with President Bill Clinton on the eve of the 2000 election. In that interview she challenged and attacked Clinton repeatedly. Most reporters do not ask such touch questions of politicians and instead often give politicians the platform to promote themselves, their party and their objectives. While it makes for poor journalism, news organizations know that if they are kind to politicians, they may get that big exclusive interview when a hot news story breaks. And they make great revenue from campaign ads. If you haven't paid a few million dollars for some campaign ads, do you think they'll be more concerned with serving your needs as a news consumer or the needs of an advertising consumer that did? And will again? We would all like to think that the man in the suit, sitting at the anchor desk is going to tell us everything that we need to know. But when you consider that there are billions of dollars at stake, can you be confident that television ratings and ad revenue won't trump journalistic integrity and the public's right to know?

[Amy Goodman is the author of The Exception to the Rulers, Static, Standing Up to the Madness, Breaking the Sound Barrier and The Silenced Majority.]

Bill Moyers is the host of Moyers & Company on PBS. His show is not always political but it is always informative and some of the guests on his show are some of the most rational, knowledgeable, insightful and intelligent people I've seen on television. Two of my favorites are Mickey Edwards and Kathleen Hall Jameson.

To The Point (Public Radio International) is probably my favorite news program. The host, Warren Olney, takes on the two or three most important issues of the day and brings in the most knowledgeable and reliable experts to debate each side. An entire hour--with no commercial interruptions--devoted to rational debate over the nation's most important issues. Is there any better way to approach an issue?

I'm not saying that people need to give up their CNN, Fox News and MSNBC entirely but--if you're a news junkie and a nerd like me--consider whether you will be more informed by hearing many different voices and points of view. Or whether hearing one voice and excluding all others will give you the broadest perspective.

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

Union Labor and the Battle for the Union

[The following is a bit of a retro piece but I feel that is serves as a good example of how things are blown out of proportion by political operatives in the Democratic and Republican Parties and in the media. Also, Labor Day is approaching which seems like a good time to discuss labor issues.]

The Scott Walker recall is another one of those issues that just begs a response because the rhetoric has gotten so extreme and silly. Is this really the epic battle of a free America vs. socialism? Is it the last stand of the common man, the worker vs. fascism? Let’s examine it:

Has anyone considered that this argument, this battle needs to be constant? Honestly, how does either side win? The government beats the union workers and forces them to work for peanuts and no health care or retirement benefits? Or the union workers win and get a 25 hour work week with full benefits and an extremely generous salary? What would either scenario mean for the greater economy?

Government jobs are supposed to be low wage jobs. They need to be. A government does not run effectively unless it is run efficiently. Once people's wages rise too high, we are all overly-burdened by the cost. There are a lot of government employees that are not in unions and they are not complaining about their pay and benefits. That's because they are well compensated for their work. These are politicians, scientists, judges, high level federal law enforcement personnel, etc. You see, if you want a big salary and nice benefits, you need to try to become one of those people. The educated, the invaluable and those that work risky jobs or jobs that require their attention 24/7. Driving a street-sweeper isn’t very risky and doesn't require much of an education. Most anybody can do it. Therefore the person hired to do that job should be compensated as such.

The flip side is that you can't just hire Hillbilly Harold to be a crossing guard if he's going to stare at the young girls and creep them out when they walk past and try to rub up against them when they're waiting for the light to change. You'd better be damn sure that whomever you hire for a rock bottom salary with limited benefits won't conduct themselves in a way that opens up the city, state or federal government up to liabilities, PR nightmares or other black eyes. After all, in order for the government to run efficiently, it has to run effectively.

Also, it takes time to train a new person, does it not? Even simple jobs have many nuances. In my street-sweeper driver example, what are the routes a driver must learn? What are the procedures? What does s/he do if there's a car in the way? What does that switch next to the fuel gauge do? At a point it is economically beneficial to pay a person enough that they won’t want to leave for quite some time. This balance is the free market at work.

So here's how I bridge the gap: we need to pay people enough to attract employees that will conduct themselves appropriately as they carry out their duties. They need to be paid enough that we can attract people who will be good representatives of our cities, states and of our country. The jobs need to pay enough that we can attract people who will be good stewards of our government resources (our vehicles, equipment, tools, funds, other employees and citizens). I think we may need to give up the idea of collective bargaining for government workers in favor of contractually-mandated bargaining power for each individual. Otherwise, the worst worker gets the same pay and benefits of the best workers. I believe that this is another area where we need to re-think things fundamentally to come up with a better system.

So people, this issue is a fight that we are always going to have. We must continually seek to find the correct balance of how much of a salary we should pay someone so that the government is running at its most efficient and most effective. It's not about which people want to destroy the country by suckling off the government teat vs. the people that want to suppress everybody they can to take all of the money for themselves. This is about hiring people we can trust to do the government's work and allow them to live a life of dignity for doing those necessary jobs. Why are people acting like you need to crush the other side to save the country? What's the point? The argument will never be won and just go away. It is the constant tug-of-war that is the political process.

If you're so passionate about it, form a citizen review board to evaluate the compensation of people in your community. Then pressure the government so that your findings will have influence. If you don't get the political influence you believe you deserve then shine the light on the politicians, get media attention and get others to vote people out. Otherwise what you have is politicians on the left catering to unions and politicians on the right trying to destroy them. And they want you to act as their minions to help them do something that will ultimately harm the country. Why play that game?

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

Ease Up On the Propaganda, Dude!

If you are paying attention, you probably heard that GE earned over $10 billion in profit yet paid no Federal taxes in 2010 and actually got a tax benefit from Uncle Sam. That turned out not to be wholly true but GE has heavily invested in lobbying the federal government and usually pays a tax rate of about 7% whereas many other businesses may pay as much as 40%. This is pretty outrageous but even more so when you consider that GE has moved thousands of US jobs overseas. It doesn't seem like a company that deserves (or needs) a giant tax break to me. So I get a little put off when I see GE's advertising campaign that seems to serve as a PR (public relations) initiative. One ad talks about how the medical devices that GE makes have helped people diagnose and/or treat their cancer. It's a feel-good commercial for sure. It tugs at your heartstrings and makes you feel good about how this company helped to save the lives of people. The commercial makes GE sound much more like a company that deserves a big tax break from the federal government. But what if there was a smaller company out there that is working on a better machine? A machine that is more accurate, more convenient and more cost-effective? This company is hypothetical as far as I know but such a company would not be able to afford to compete with GE for special favors from Uncle Sam. Therefore, their better machine would not be available for anyone.



Are you convinced that you're getting a fair share?

This is the danger of having a plutocracy- a country where very wealthy are able to buy what they want from government at the expense of the general public. This is the reason that everyone should demand fairness in the tax code and the electoral and legislative processes.

Another disturbing piece of propaganda comes from Chevron. Their TV ad mentions that they donate money to schools to teach kids science. Great! Such donations rarely come without strings attached. And I certainly have to wonder if the stings attached to this deal will be tied at the other end to textbooks that have no mention to the environmental damage related to fossil fuel energy. I know for sure that letting companies that deny the science of climate change shouldn't be teaching science to our kids.

You almost have to admire what seems to me to be a well thought-out strategy: industries pushes for tax breaks and offshore their profits so that the government goes broke. And when government can't afford to educate our kids or provide health care to our citizens, well here comes big business to lend a helping hand! Do you think these businesses will be too important to fail when we are dependent upon them for education funding and cancer detection and research?

So industry and the wealthy appear to be well-organized to ensure that their interests are served by government and that their propaganda is disseminated to convince us of the benevolence of the whole situation. What do you think will happen if we are not also organized? Do you think we may get steamrolled, bamboozled and taken advantage of? You really don't need to wonder. Our public schools are bankrupt and under-funded while corporations reap record profits and pay record low taxes on that wealth. Most of the wealth in the country has gone to the top .01% while the wages for the rest of us have stayed flat (when adjusted for inflation) since the 1970's. Has there really not been a single US worker that contributed to that explosion of new wealth? Shouldn't those who helped to create that wealth also get a small piece of it? Apparently not, under our current system.

How did this happen? How did our government and our political system stop serving us in favor of serving the wealthy few? After all, we have the power to vote to hire and fire these politicians. When corporations are considered "people" and money is considered "speech" politicians are going to turn to the "people" that have the most to "say". I won't try to claim that every politician is a greedy, corrupt person but every singe one of them depends on campaign contributions to get re-elected. Do you have a few million bucks you can contribute to a political campaign? If not, your representative will be talking to George Clooney, Foster Friese, Susan Serandon and the Koch brothers instead.

Some of the wealthy people that have the privilege of having great influence over the government may be less self-serving than others but the mere fact that you can't talk to a politician today unless you are a millionaire, and probably won't be able to have any serious influence unless you are a billionaire, should be disturbing and infuriating to all of us. Do you accept being marginalized in your own country so that a privileged few can steer our country in a direction that serves their interests and/or ideology?

I strongly believe that our only chance to recover control of our government is for us to stand together and demand changes. Together we are bigger and stronger and more influential than the industries, the celebrities, the corporations and the media. I know that political pundits have often said that those people who are politically to the left or right of you are "loonies", "pinheads" and "brainwashed fools". But don't we all want the same basic things from our government and our country? Justice, fairness and a comfortable lifestyle with a shot at earning great success and wealth? A government that is more efficient, more effective and more accountable to us? Can we work together to achieve those things or shall we continue to fight with one another over disagreements? How successful has that been so far? If we work together we can achieve the things we all want. When we fight with each other we have to accept what the politicians give us.

In the past several years upward mobility has slowed to a crawl. Few people in the lower class ever move up to the middle class. And few in the middle class ever move into the upper class. When we go into full reversal and only the very wealthy maintain or advance their financial positions and the rest of us slide backward, will you then be motivated to change things? Will you have finally had enough? Will it be too late to change things? Our time is now. Our birthright--a country of our own--is at stake. Are we Americans or are we merely shadows of our brave and ambitious forefathers?

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

Revolution Now? (part 1)

Gas explosion; San Bruno, CA

In my last post I suggested establishing a 21st Century Continental Congress to wrest power from current political forces and demand common sense reforms to government and to laws and regulations. You may be wondering why I am recommending such a radical solution to address our country’s problems. I’ll be the first to admit that I have more comfort and convenience than any person has a right to. I’m not downtrodden or feeling oppressed. I have actually prospered in this country and I feel secure. But what I lack in my life is justice and I demand it. I demand justice for myself and for My Fellow Americans whose tax dollars are squandered on wasteful government spending. I demand justice for the citizens of other nations who suffer at the hands of US (military and financial) foreign policy. And because I feel that government corruption has reached lethal proportions.

On September 9th, 2010 in San Bruno, California, a natural gas pipeline exploded and killed 8 people. You can read about it here. [an excerpt from the article] On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses. These types of incidents occur rather frequently. I could recount hundreds of similar incidents. Americans killed due to lax government oversight and inappropriate collusion between government and big business. So where are the arrests? Where are the CEOs doing perp walks for taking money from a public safety fund to pay themselves millions of dollars?

So now that we all understand that our lives can be at stake when government does not work effectively--and I assume that most of us have little faith in government cleaning up its own act--is it unreasonable to demand that government do its job? Is it unreasonable to take dramatic action to ensure that the government does?

Hummer after IED blast

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we supplied our troops with Hummers which are inferior vehicles when pitted against the main threat, the improvised explosive device (IED). Other vehicles available could have been deployed to protect our soldiers from IEDs but were sent to the war front in far fewer numbers than the Hummer.(1) There are a few reasons for this: cost, government bureaucracy failings, logistics, military ineptitude and lack of fore-thought.(2) But I am suspicious that our politicians look at such issues, to some degree, from their own point of view and not ours. To them, the Hummer was perhaps a perfect solution. Sure, it didn't do much to ensure the safety of our soldiers, but the contract to provide them was already in place. People were already making money on the program. More money for the war profiteers means more money in the campaign coffers of politicians come election time. And the more Hummers that got blown up, the more that needed to be purchased. It was a feedback loop and a war profiteer's wet dream and I question if it is not another example of government corruption reaching lethal proportions. After all, in World War II automotive plants throughout the country were converted to produce war planes within a couple of years. What has kept us from producing and delivering the needed war vehicles in the Middle East?

Here is a bit more about how a new Continental Congress might work to reform government: delegates would be appointed by majority vote of the constituents of their district (districts and constituencies to be determined) and would propose reforms to current laws, regulations and Congressional rules that do not make sense, or propose laws, regulations and rules that do make sense. Once drawn, the proposals must be approved by the delegate’s constituents by a simple majority vote (>50%). The proposal would then be presented to the other delegates and must pass by a super majority (>75%), with each delegate in the Continental Congress getting simple majority approval of each proposal from their constituents. Once a proposal has been ratified as outlined above, it would then be presented to Congress to be implemented.

Any Congress member that opposes any of the proposals would be voted out of office in the next election. That’s where the impossible part comes in. We would need backing by a huge number of the citizens of the country. Ideally, the “constituencies” combined would number 100 million or more, although the objectives would likely be accomplished with as few as 30 million people. Any number greater than 30 million would represent a voting block so large that every politician would be at our mercy. No longer would lobbyists and big campaign contributors have undue sway over our elected officials. It is the way we flex our power and protect our own interests.

So how do we get 30+ million people on the same page? We have to look past the general arguments of the two parties and focus on the minutia of government function, regulations and budget line items. Here’s an example:

Conservatives want to cut spending in general. Liberals want to cut military spending. Here, the two sides can agree because there are a lot of wasteful military spending programs that can be improved or eliminated. We have military programs that are out-dated and only remain funded because they make a few powerful people money. The F-22 was the poster child for wasteful military spending. You can read about it here. That program has finally ended but there are others that can be examined. If we can eliminate similar programs we could save billions of dollars in wasted government spending. Some of that money can be re-allocated into research and development of new, modern-era weapons and surveillance systems that will make our military more effective at a lower cost. Are we really so entrenched in partisan ideology that we are unwilling to accept a win/win scenario (a more effective military for less money) when it is in our power to achieve it?

If Grover Norquist can strong-arm Republicans with his ridiculous oath that prevents them from eliminating any tax loophole, then we can certainly strong-arm all politicians to adopt common sense reforms that will help to eliminate corruption, promote transparency, make our elections accurate and over-seeable, reduce spending and ensure in a better, more efficient government.

I could live my convenient, comfortable life and not bother rocking the boat. I could occupy my time with enjoying my toys and distractions but my commitment to justice precludes me from doing so. It may be an impossible mission but I am convinced that direct democratic action is the only way to fix our government. And I will advocate for it for as long as our government is dysfunctional.

[please join this blog or return for part 2 of this post...]

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/
(1) http://jalopnik.com/5542789/the-m1117-guardian-
(2) http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008317.html