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/