The Danger of Drumpf

On Monday, December 19, the Electoral College will convene to vote for our next president. Although it would be a dramatic, unprecedented and frightening action, I support the Electoral College selecting someone other than Trump as president.

I believe that the United States is strong enough to survive a Trump presidency. I also do not have fears that the US will turn into Nazi Germany under a Trump administration. But there are several rational reasons why Trump will likely cause severe damage to the US and to the world:

1. The Iran Nuclear Deal. Trump has stated that he would tear up the Iran deal if elected president. Without the deal, there is nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, short of the US attacking them militarily. Trump said that he would re-impose sanctions on Iran but sanctions did not prevent Iran from moving their nuclear program forward in the past. Iran was simply willing to give up the program in order to end the sanctions. Sanctions, like war, would mostly affect the citizens of Iran--many of whom are kind, peace-loving people who have no ill will toward the United States. Many Iranians know more about our country and our politics than our own citizens do. Those people will suffer most under sanctions or in war with the leadership of the Iranian government hardly be affected. I think that it would be naive to think that there are not people in our government that want to go to war with Iran. It would mean billions more for war profiteers.
2. The environment. Trump has expressed support for the Keystone XL pipeline and he is
   personally invested in the project, as well as the Dakota Access Pipeline. Both of these

   

   Oil Pipeline Spill in the Town of Mayflower, AR

   pipelines threaten the drinking water for millions of people, at a time when there are already millions of people who do not have access to clean drinking water. There is lead contamination in the water in Flint, MI; coal ash contaminates the drinking water for residents in states surrounding the Appalachian Mountains; coal cleaning chemicals have contaminated drinking water in South Carolina and Kentucky; and other oil pipelines have contaminated drinking water all over the country where, "since 1986 pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000 and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages." Does Trump not understand that such catastrophes really hit working people hard when they have to buy bottled water for all of their needs? Perhaps he simply does not care.
3. Homeland Security. For all of Trump's tough talk about defeating ISIS and Islamic extremism around the world, he has not been attending daily briefings by intelligence advisers. Trump famously said that he knew more about ISIS than the generals. He may actually believe that and many of his supporters may also believe it. I am skeptical. With Trump having no diplomatic experience and no foreign policy experience, there has probably never been a president-elect that needs daily intelligence briefings more.
4. The Vultures. Paul "the Vulture" Singer made his first killing when he bought Owens-Corning.

   

   Asbestosis, anyone?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis

   The company was going down due to lawsuits filed against it from hundreds of thousands of people whom it had made sick with asbestosis. Singer was able to buy the company cheap. Then he slowed down the legal cases so that the victims would accept a paltry settlement or die with no compensation at all. Paul Singer made millions off the deaths of those people, then turned his sights to foreign countries. He began buying up the debt of impoverished countries. Tens of billions of dollars of debt had been forgiven to allow the countries to provide drinking water and medicine to their citizens. But now Singer is demanding full payment. Paul Singer's greed for billions is going to kill millions of people all over the world. President Obama and the US State Department had blocked Singer's actions with a court injunction. It is unlikely that Trump would try to block Singer or any of the other vultures from feeding off the corpses of poor countries. After all, Trump made his first killing by hiring illegal Polish construction workers to demolish his building, before building Trump Tower. The workers were not given safety equipment and likely also died of asbestosis.

I could go on and on about Trump but I think those few bullet points are quite enough to consider an Electoral College intervention as a possible remedy. I would love to have a wild, non-politician, unorthodox president to blow the whole political system up. I would just want that person to be rational, intelligent and competent with a good sense of fairness. I don't see any of that in Trump.

If you agree, contact the electors before December 19th and let them know your thoughts.

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

A Possible Triple Trexit

Surprisingly, the press has not called the efforts to unseat Trump a possible "Triple Trexit"

The Takeaway

I'm going to start with the takeaway before I get into the weeds with all this recount and Electoral College business: my guess is that if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump told people to get mad about our broken election system and to demand that politicians address the problems with it, millions of people would go out and protest for the cause. If Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow said that people should protest and demand an election system that is fair, accurate and transparent, millions of their sycophant viewers would comply. But politicians and pundits do not want a fair, accurate and transparent election system. It seems that we are stuck with a broken election system and a political system that cannot serve the citizens of the country because we haven't learned that the issues that politicians try to avoid are the very issues that would make dramatic improvements to the strength of our democracy and our country. Instead, we are told to protest about the Affordable Care Act or gun control issues. People comply while our election system is incapable of producing candidates that are worth voting for. If we had candidates worth voting for, they wouldn't be passing laws that need to be defended. They would be passing laws and instituting policies on which nearly everyone would agree. If politicians passed a law to end the practice of gerrymandering, do you know a single person that would protest such a change? It is past time that we stop taking our direction from politicians and political pundits and instead identify an agenda that serves citizens and democracy, rather than politicians and political parties.

What happened to the Founders' vision of the country?

The Recount/Audit

There are two last ditch efforts underway to prevent Trump from taking office. The first is a recount effort, initiated by Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Jill Stein is leading this effort because 1) in order for someone to start a recount, they need to have "legal standing"--meaning that only someone who has suffered a tort due to the election process (one of the candidates) can demand a recount. And, 2) Hillary Clinton will not ask for a recount because the people who own her (Wall Street banks and CEOs of large corporations) do not care who the president is. Their interests will be served whether Trump is in the White House or Hillary is. Hillary is not going to rock the boat on behalf of her voters when her masters just want a peaceful transfer of power and limited disruption to business operations.

The states selected for recount were selected because the election results differed from the polls before the election and the exit polls. The votes in these states were never counted but were simply tabulated by optical ballot readers that are capable of error and can be programmed to deliver a specific result. It would be stupid to accept the election results when every metric available suggest that they may be in error and when the ballots were never actually counted by anybody.

The recount is not expected to change the results of the election for a number of reasons. In Wisconsin, a hand recount was requested but denied by the courts. So, the same ballots will be run through the same ballot scanners and if there is no significant variation in the vote totals, the results will likely be accepted as correct, even though the ballots have never been counted. There is no way of knowing--other than counting the ballots by hand--if the ballot scanners correctly tabulated the votes in the first place or in the "recount". In Pennsylvania, most of the precincts use electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper record at all. There will not really be any kind of a recount there because there is nothing to count. Basically, they'll ask the machine if it was correct on Election Day, press some buttons and the machine will likely spit out the same answer. There may be an audit of these voting machines as part of the recount effort and that could reveal malfunction or malfeasance.

The recount could change the election results under the following circumstances:

1. If an audit of the ballot scanners and/or voting machines is performed and it is revealed that tampering or hacking had taken place.
2. As I understand it, the ES&S M100 ballot scanners are in use in the states that are going to be recounted. When tested, these machines would give varying results when the same ballots were run through them. For this reason and others, the M100 was not certified to be used in the State of California (thank god). It is possible that the "recount" results could change due to machine error. Were that to occur, we would hopefully get a hand recount so that we would better know who the winner actually was.
3. If spoiled (rejected) ballots are reviewed and assigned to a candidate (when appropriate) it could overturn the Trump victory. This election, 3 million votes were rejected. Ballots can be rejected for legitimate reasons, such as if the voter had marked more than one choice for president, for instance. The machines can also be programmed to reject specific ballots with the intent to sway the election. Then there are semi-legitimate reasons for spoiled ballots. If there are stray marks on a ballot, it can be rejected but the same optical readers are sometimes used in other districts and configured to alert the voter when their ballot has been rejected. This allows the voter to cast a new ballot. In states that have Democratic Secretaries of State, the latter type of machine may be deployed in Republican districts while the former type is used in Democratic districts. In states with Republican Secretaries of State, the opposite is likely to be true. It's one of the ways that the political parties game the system and if some of these rejected ballots are valid and they are reviewed, the election results could change.
4. Provisional ballots are not always counted. The "recount" could include a review of hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots cast by legitimate voters who were removed from the voter rolls and/or hundreds of thousands more provisional ballots cast by people who did not have the ID required by new election laws in specific states, like Wisconsin. The spoiled and provisional ballots far outnumber the margin of Trump's victory in these states.

Electoral College Correction

The other effort underway to prevent Trump from occupying the White House is a campaign for the Electoral College to select another candidate. This is also not likely to occur but it is certainly a possibility and it could shake out two ways. The Electoral College is supposed to be a safety switch to prevent an unqualified and unfit person from becoming president. Donald Trump can easily be argued to be unfit and unqualified. In polls before the election, 62 percent of Americans responded that Trump was unfit to be president. And it would not require 270 electors to vote against Trump to select another president. If a handful electors decide to vote against him, or decide to award their state's electoral votes proportionally (rather than winner-take-all), then it could result in neither Trump nor Clinton having enough Electoral College votes to win the White House. In this instance, the House of Representatives would select the person to be the next president. John Kasich has been rumored to be the most likely compromise candidate.

The multitude of conflict of interest scandals and breaches of protocol by Trump in the past couple of weeks will make an Electoral College vote against him more probable. The questions raised by our dysfunctional election system and the restrictive voting rights laws could also be factors.

Of the possible outcomes (a recount giving Hillary Clinton victory, John Kasich being selected to be president by the Electoral College/House of Representatives or Trump remaining the president-elect), I would prefer to have Kasich as the next president. But that would set a new, scary and perhaps dangerous precedent: the Electoral College overturning the choice of the people. I believe that Trump is inexperienced and dangerous enough to take this dramatic action, but is he really? Is he dangerous enough to risk turning to the Electoral College to select a president for the country or turn the decision over to the House of Representatives, invalidating the election results? There is no way of knowing, other than letting Trump take the oath of office and seeing how things go--at which point it could be too late to ever rectify the situation. I'm not sure what the outcome will be but luckily, as an American, I am used to having no good options.


If you support the campaign for the Electoral College to overturn Trump's victory, or if you oppose that action, you can send a message to the electors to let them know how you feel. If you support the recount effort to determine who actually won in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, go to Jill2016.com. We have until December 19th, when electors vote, to get this right.

Afterward

If you want to know all there is to know about elections in the United States, you need to follow two people: Greg Palast and Brad Friedman. The pair of journalists are the foremost experts in the country when it comes to voting laws and politicians' schemes to violate them. If you are listening to anyone else speak about election issues, then you are likely getting utter nonsense or, at best, you are getting unsubstantiated speculation for which there is little or no evidence. If you don't know what a caging list is, or a purge list, or what an overvote is, or what an undervote is, or if you don't know what Interstate Crosscheck is, or if you don't know what "fraction magic" is, then you are not aware of the multitude of ways that politicians try to steal elections and undermine YOUR vote. Both parties commit any election fixing they can get away with. Don't hold your breath waiting for a someone among them to encourage you to get involved with cleaning up our elections.

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

No Spoiler Alert

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 172)

Bernie Sanders joining the Democratic Party is a brilliant move at this time. It has been made impossible for a third party to compete in the political system that is rigged by the Democratic-Republican duopoly. But more importantly,third parties have always been considered to be spoilers. They can siphon votes from a lesser-of-two-evils candidate and leave us with the worst candidate winning the election.

With one of our country's most popular and well-liked independent politicians joining a major party, Bernie Sanders is going to re-shape the Democratic Party in very good ways. It will be more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people in ways the party now is not. If Bernie doesn't win the presidency, he and the movement that is growing behind him will continue to re-shape the debate in ways that favor the middle class and Americans that are struggling.

I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican. I consider myself an "independent voter" and I support "independent" candidates because they often look at politics from a different perspective than the two main parties. It's not so much about a different ideology. But I am not suggesting that an Independent Party should attempt to rival the two main parties. I understand that doing so would likely be futile and counter-productive. Now that Bernie Sanders has joined the Democratic Party, he will transform it into a party that more resembles what it should be.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 176)

The Republican Party needs to do the same with theirs. I've not read a better blue-print for how the government should be run and how our politics should operate than in the book Reclaiming Conservatism by Mickey Edwards, the book to which the name of this blog is a tribute. Why isn't the Republican Party taking themselves in that direction?

Instead, their choices for politicians are ridiculous characters that are equally shady and corrupt as the Democrats. The Republican Party could be a great party by following the correct blue-print. But corruption keeps Republican Politicians from adhering to a more sensible game plan, such as the one that Mickey Edwards lays out in his book. The Democratic Party is currently engaged in this struggle, because of Bernie Sanders.

If we can't figure out how to end corruption, then we cannot ever re-shape the parties. It takes a change in perspective, rather than ideology.

People's ideologies generally do not change. I don't debate issues with people because I think I am going to convince a conservative to vote Democrat or for a liberal to vote Republican. I aim to point out where both parties are failing us and how best to change our political perspective so that our interests are better served. The majority of Americans need to step up, do what politicians cannot and guide this country in the direction that it should be going. This is the remedy that the Bernie Sanders campaign is offering.

BERNIE by Ted Rall (page 174)

We've seen the result of what happens when we leave politicians to making up the rules. Billionaire bankers get bailed out when they behave so recklessly that they crash the world economy, then they pay themselves multi-million dollar bonuses with our tax dollars. More than 125,000 people are prevented from voting in Brooklyn, NY and 27% of the voting population (independent voters) are barred from voting due to onerous rules. In Phoenix, AZ, officials close polling locations in poor and middle class neighborhoods, resulting in absurdly long lines and a very excessive burden for tens of thousands of voters. Every member of Congress has an annual operating budget for their office of up to $4.7 million--am I the only one that finds that excessive?--and why is it that when there are financial troubles, the people that caused them (politicians) are not asked to make any cutbacks?

Let's change our political perspective so that those kinds of issues are prioritized. If we follow the agenda of the Democratic and Republican Parties, such issues will never be addressed. Those legal loopholes and election deficiencies are in place for a reason: to serve the interests of the politicians that created them.

The correct change in perspective that is needed right now, is one that focuses on ending corruption. Policy changes are always going to be perceived as affecting someone's liberty. But nobody's liberties are infringed upon when we attack corruption, when we fight for election integrity, for equal justice for all citizens and for serious fiscal conservatism that looks at all wasteful spending as unacceptable, or when we hold politicians accountable. They are the priorities of a well-managed country.

If we can shift the direction of the two parties, we can have two parties that work for our interests instead of theirs. But it will take a change in our political perspective, not in our ideology.

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

A New Political System...

Q: Who is better at ridding the government of corruption,
Democrats or Republicans?
A: "No". (also accepted: "Neither", or side-splitting laughter.)

Here's an idea: let's re-examine the efficacy of a political system whereby multi-millionaire, career politicians are elected to create public policy.

These people never find any common sense solutions to problems because there is often no money to be made in doing so. From what I have seen, they instead run around chasing after billions of dollars with which they intend to further enrich themselves and their cronies, thereby bolstering their political power and allowing them to continue the cycle.

Citizens that wish to eliminate corruption will face
sophisticated resistance from special interests that
have nearly limitless resources!

A good candidate on the other hand, would be good at identifying wasteful programs and finding ways to eliminate them, and identifying needs of the people and coming up with viable and sensible ways to address those needs. Their focus would be on the correct targets: creating a fairer system and a government that is accountable to the people. The status quo politicians focus more on progressing their political agenda to increase their wealth and political power. That distinction--between a hypothetical non-partisan, solution-based politician and the status quo politicians--is far greater than the minimal differences between liberals and conservatives.

This candidate may be rough around the edges, s/he may not have Mitt Romney's tailor or John Edwards' image consultants but s/he would have a propensity for finding viable, common sense solutions. An approach such as that--focused on eliminating corruption and government waste--would allow us to reduce government spending while providing plenty of money for a sound safety net for the nation's truly needy people. The conservative citizens and the liberal citizens could both get what they want. Instead, we are told that the way to succeed politically is to fight each other to prevent the opposition from getting anything they want. Honestly, I don't see the wisdom in it. Do we really want lower taxes AND NO public assistance for veterans and military families? Do we really want public assistance programs for needy people WITH NO attention to the fiscal responsibility or sustainability of those programs?

Neither party has the right answer so the game has become to change the question from "What is the best policy?" to "What wins elections and generates campaign contributions?" Where are our interests represented in that? They are not. So, we either need to change the system or we will be destroyed by it.

I may be shouting this message to an empty coliseum, but I'm not going to go down without shouting. I don't care if the message of government effectiveness and efficiency over political idealism is never embraced by the Democratic or Republican leadership or by the pundits (who are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than to find common ground or solutions to problems). I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue against the logical soundness of the position. And I hope that the majority of the country will soon come to the same realization.

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

How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 2)

In my last blog post--How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)--I linked to an article that explains how the country has been harmed by those whose wealth is used to influence politics in a way that is unfair to the majority of us. That article very brilliantly enumerates the ways that this oligarchy has been detrimental to the greater economy and even to the long term interests of those in the so-called 1%.

The aforementioned article offers some great insight into the macroeconomic issues facing the country. This week, I'd like to focus in on a microeconomic aspect that ties into the previous article and illustrates the stark danger of the plutocracy that our country has become.

So, imagine that there is a business in a community and the business is doing well, paying all of its employees and therefore the entire community is thriving because everyone is working and everyone has money to spend. Then let's say that someone sees this all going on and decides: I would rather have all that money for me! That person buys the company, runs up its debt to pay himself hundreds of millions of dollars then, when the business cannot repay the new debts, closes the business, fires the workers and files for bankruptcy, hanging the company's debts on the taxpayers (some of whom were just fired from the company). Seem fair?

Of course, that scenario is not hypothetical. It is how private equity firms, like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, sometimes operate. I bring it up because I often see comments from people online, suggesting that people who voted for President Obama may now be regretting their vote, as if Romney/Ryan was a viable alternative. I also bring it up because people still blame the poor economic recovery on the housing bubble, bank bailouts, the "takers" getting too much welfare, Obamacare, the wars, etc. Although most of those things may also be to blame, the business practices of private equity firms is certainly one of the most destructive forces and it is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed. It is also an issue that is largely ignored by the mainstream media, while people are all-too-eager to talk about the other possible causes. We are not going to have a strong economy again as long as people are more inclined to chase large, short-term profits as opposed to long-term growth and stability.

Personally, I could not vote for a person like Mitt Romney. The types of business practices he was involved in at Bain should be illegal. We certainly don't need a president that champions such business practices and might perhaps help others make out the way he did: by essentially stealing wealth from the common worker.

This relates to Joseph Stiglitz' article because, through the magic of plutocracy, such unethical business practices have not only been made legal, but the profits from such travesties are taxed at a rock-bottom rate, far lower than you or I pay on our income we receive from working and producing things. You see, when you or I request things from government--like tax relief, clean air and water, transparency and accountability in government, etc.--government usually yawns. But when a very wealthy and powerful person approaches government and asks to legalize theft and then get a sweetheart tax break on those ill-gotten gains, the government tends to listen and bend over backwards (and bend us over forward) to accommodate them.

We citizens in the so-called 99% are the majority in this country. And it is supposed to be a democracy. Therefore, if the majority of us are intelligent, we could come together to demand changes to the system so that it is no longer rigged against us; we can make destructive business practices illegal and we can make profits from "carried interest" deals taxed at the full rate. If...

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

How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)



Can you afford a lobbyist? Will you get a fair shake without one?

I would like to share a link to a single article that I believe every American should read. The article puts some intellectual firepower behind the discontent of the 99% movement, which they themselves could not articulate and most did not fully understand: that the country has become a plutocracy which harms democracy, justice and fairness. Furthermore, the greed of the 1% and the income and wealth inequality that currently exists in the US is not only harming the country and many in the 99% but it is harming the 1% as well. Since people in the 1% control almost all of the news media in the country, they were able to mis-characterize the 99% movement as lazy free-loaders. Similarly, they re-directed the anger of the TEA Party movement from the abuses of big banks to instead demanding from government that the taxes on the rich can never be raised. The article brilliantly explains why our current economic structure is bad for everyone, including those currently benefiting from it.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality

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

Incompetence or Corruption?

Who Runs Our Government?

I'm always intrigued by the notion that our country is in such bad shape because politicians are incompetent. Ask the people on Wall Street if they feel the government is incompetent. You will likely get a different response than you or I might give. Ask the labor unions and the CEOs of large corporations how they would grade the performance of our politicians. Celebrities get the attention and reverence that could have a positive impact on the government if it were bestowed upon someone that has new ideas and real integrity. Likely, all of these special interest groups would grade the government's performance higher than you or I would. You see, they all get what they want from government, you and I do not.

UNITY! (with Direct Democratic Action)

So how do we change that situation? How do we become more powerful and influential than the special interest groups? It is not logical to pool our money in an attempt to out-spend the wealthy with campaign contributions. Nor is it logical for us to hire lobbyists to battle the corporate interests and unions that have their meat hooks in politicians. The only way to take on special interest and reform government so that it works for We the People is to unite. When we do, we will become bigger and stronger than the special interest groups. We can prevent corporations from lobbying government to get tax breaks and government subsidies. We can prevent big banks from getting bailed out when they make risky bets for quick profits. We can prevent unions from having undue influence in government and in the industries in which they operate. We can prevent corporations from overturning laws that protect consumers and other citizens to maximize profits. We can even find ways to reform campaign finance laws so that celebrities have no greater voice or more influence than any other American.

To accomplish it means that we have to let go of the divisive issues that keep us at odds with each other. We need to start being more understanding of one another and more open to ideas. We need to work together to expose the schemes of government and special interest groups. We need to find common ground on the many issues which the majority of us would agree. Because, if we do...

Victory!

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

8 Profound Points About Gun Control That Nobody Seems to Have Considered

America and Firearms: Forever Intertwined

The gun legislation issue is so simple! Or is it?...

THE SACREDNESS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Supporters of the Second Amendment will always argue about the importance of it. The Founders of our nation expressly wrote  our right to own firearms into The Constitution because they felt it to be of special importance. And although I also agree, I too realize that the Second Amendment is no more sacred than any other right Americans have, including the rights to basic safety, security and peace of mind. Americans have every conceivable right (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others), regardless of whether it is written into The Constitution or it is not. And although our Founders and our citizens may find certain rights to be more important than others, none are more sacred than any other. All must be respected.

LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES: Limiting the capacity of gun magazines means that a shooter will have to stop to reload more frequently (unless the criminal has decided that obtaining illegal large capacity magazines is a more taboo crime than murder) and give bystanders more opportunity to tackle and subdue the shooter. This makes perfect sense. Except that if there is a prison break and I have to defend myself against a dozen or more felons that wish to do me harm, I don't want to be tackled and subdued while I attempt to change magazines. This is the big flaw in the left's argument about large capacity magazines. The prison break scenario is unlikely to occur but who knows what threats a person may have to protect themselves against? Rioting following an earthquake or other natural disaster, an eruption of gang violence or a drug deal gone bad. It is just not reasonable to punish the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to prevent a criminal from having something that they can get easily on the black market or secondary market anyway. Thirty round magazines for rifles and ten round magazines for pistols is a good compromise.

PEEKING INTO THE FUTURE: I have often criticized peoples' understanding of politics as being very one-dimensional. One way to view the gun issue in a way that is multi-dimensional is to look into the future and build likely events into the calculus of your political decisions. At some point in the future, I'm sure that there will be ray guns that can render someone unconscious from several yards away. The victim will wake up from the attack with no lasting injury, aside from the fact that they may have just been raped. If you think we have a problem with "roofies" and rape now, imagine if a would-be victim would never even have to be in close proximity to the attacker to be rendered unconscious. Whenever there are advances in firearm technology, how they are bought, sold and regulated should be examined to ensure that gun-owners' rights to have and use guns do not infringe on other citizens' rights to reasonable safety and peace-of-mind.

ASSAULT RIFLES: Banning assault rifles is kind of like banning automobiles that can go faster than the speed limit. The statement "Why does anybody need an assault rifle?" is similar to "Why does anybody need a sports car that can go 200+ miles per hour?" I find the look of assault rifles to be very attractive and they are fun to shoot. Even if I never need one for self-protection, I enjoy the look of the weapon and I enjoy shooting them. Shouldn't it be within my rights to own the kind of weapon I find appealing if I am able to demonstrate that I can own the weapon responsibly? How wrong and un-American would it be to say that people cannot own a sports car because they can go too fast and could therefore cause injury or death to others? Nor can you own a replica sports car because it looks just like one that can drive fast? Nobody would accept such restrictions on our liberty and we should not do so with regards to firearms either.

UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: I am rather certain that if automobiles were around during the founding of the nation, our forefathers would have considered them to be sacrosanct. They may have even been addressed in the Bill of Rights. "The automobile, being necessary for the freedom of travel and an important convenience, the right for citizens to own and operate a motor vehicle shall not be infringed." the language of the Eleventh Amendment might read. But does that mean that anyone can own a car, regardless of age or ability to drive safely? Does it mean that people shouldn't have to obey stop signs and NO PARKING signs? I doubt the Founders would have put every potentially acceptable regulatory measure into The Constitution.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF OVERLY STRICT GUN LEGISLATION: Recently, the technology to build a plastic gun by use of a 3-D printer was developed. Although the weapon is crude, it is just the start of what is to come. Before long, far more sophisticated weapons will be able to be constructed in the homes of private citizens and strict gun legislation will accelerate those ambitions. When something is made illegal or made prohibitively expensive, alternatives will surface and flourish. In this case, sophisticated weapons that are constructed and traded by private citizens with no governmental oversight. Such weapons cannot be detected by X-ray machines, (assumingly) have no traceable ballistics and have no serial numbers. Dealing with such weapons is going to be incredibly complicated and we are certainly not ready to take on that challenge now or in the near future.

THE NON-EXISTENT SLIPPERY SLOPE: The "slippery slope" argument is usually put forth when there is no argument of real merit available. The idea that extending background checks for firearms is a "slippery slope" to the government keeping a gun registry is ludicrous. We have a defense against such an assault on our Second Amendment right. It is, our Second Amendment right! Nothing says that you don't plan to ever exercise your Second Amendment right more than claiming that something could be a threat to it. If the government wants to go to my local gun store to take records it has no rights to, I would be there, with my firearm to tell them that they cannot do it. Are we going to participate in this democracy or are we going to just phone it in? We can be more prudent about where we draw our DO NOT CROSS lines.

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY: Gun owners often declare that their ownership of firearms is necessary to protect the country from the government becoming tyrannical and eliminating our freedoms. Those who support aggressive gun control legislation point out the futility and ridiculousness of armed citizens defending the country from government resources such as Apache helicopters, nuclear weapons,  fighter jets, drones, etc. This is going to take some time to unpack so, bear with me…

[Now, I speak purely hypothetically because I don’t believe that we have a government interested in bringing about tyrannical rule at this time. As much as I feel that government is corrupt, wrong-headed and dysfunctional, I don’t think government is attempting to subvert democracy or declare martial law. I do think that many people in government and those forces that influence government would want to do so if they felt they could. But we are a long way away from that becoming a reality.]

It is erroneous to think that the aforementioned government resources would include the soldiers required to operate the machines and weaponry. Our soldiers swear an oath to the country and to The Constitution, not to the government. No soldier should ever commit acts of aggression towards the citizens of the United States. If the government turned tyrannical and ordered attacks on citizens, soldiers should (and I believe most would) disobey those orders and fight with citizens to restore democracy and order.

If tyranny became the goal of government officials at some point, they could conceivably contract a mercenary army like KBR or Academi (formerly Xe, Blackwater)—provided those American contract soldiers have greater allegiance to their company, their government and/or to money than they do to their country. Our government could also hire foreign soldiers but those fighters would need to be trained to operate the machines and weapons that would make the government such an imposable force.

Looking beyond the hypothetical, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the future of the nation and how citizens can get control of government. I believe that we are long overdue for a revolution of some kind and I am hoping for a non-violent one. I believe that it is not only possible but necessary.

Those who do not believe that gun ownership is a realistic check against government tyranny sometimes bring up the government actions against the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX as evidence of the futility of citizens standing against government. Although the Davidians lost one battle (their lives and compound), they won a very significant battle which was to make themselves an example to other citizens about how the government can treat its citizens. People like me took notice. We saw the propaganda and lies the government told to explain how those people, including women and children died. It further eroded my trust in government and gave me more motivation for finding a way to achieve a non-violent revolution to address what I feel are serious and potentially disastrous flaws in the constructs of government and in how it operates. The killing of the Branch Davidians didn’t spark a revolution, likely because they were an odd group--if not potentially dangerous to the community--they were arguably potentially dangerous to themselves and to the children living in the compound.

The government should have no reason—aside from greedy self-interest—to oppose a non-violent revolution, intended to restore democratic principles that have been perverted by special interests over the years. If the government did oppose such an effort, all citizens of the country would have to ask why the government would oppose common sense reforms that are supported by a majority of the population. People would have to wonder why the government would want to oppose fellow citizens who were simply interested in making corrections to government machinations that would lead to a freer citizenry, more effective government, a more prosperous nation, a more just society: a more perfect Union.

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

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/

A Cry for Class Warfare

Can you afford a lobbyist? Do you think you'll get a fair shake without one?

I know that we are supposed to feel ashamed by the term "class warfare" but let’s get real for a moment: the very rich in this country and the large corporations steer our government. We all know this. They promote and lift up candidates whom they want elected. They write their own loopholes into the tax code. They write their own regulatory legislation. They have arranged for their corporate executives to head the regulatory agencies that are supposed to keep them honest and moral. They have corrupted and tilted the free market system in their favor. These are serious crimes against the citizens of this country. In many cases their actions are against the law (whether they actually get indicted and punished or not). But in some cases wealthy companies and individuals have written the laws governing their actions so that they can, almost literally, get away with murder.

And the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission Supreme Court case gives these psychopathic "citizens" the ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to elections. This is certainly a recipe for disaster. The very rich in this country will be able to easily buy the politicians that they want to advance their agendas. Where will that leave us? If we ever intend to gain control over our government we must first get control of the money. That does not mean that the majority of us need to own a majority of the money. We simply need to have input on how money is allowed to influence elections, governance and the legislative process in OUR country.

Behind every bad government policy that gets passed, you will likely find a lobbyist that pushed for the legislation at the behest of a wealthy and well-connected corporate sponsor. Our country is where it is because it was steered to this place by the ruling class. This includes politicians, the very wealthy, powerful corporations and the few individuals that control almost all of the media in this country.

I’m sure that many people have not considered these points in reference to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Most of what they've heard about the movement has been packaged and delivered by mainstream media news and opining pundits. All of whom are wealthy individuals and work for powerful corporations.

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