Top 10 Political Halloween Costumes of 2011

This is the second year in a row I have done this. For the first time, see this facebook page (I don't believe it requires a facebook account, but it might. You don't need to add me as af friend though).

10. "Occupy Chocolate Walnut Street" - the 1% of the "big kids" who get all the trick-or-treat candy need to learn to share with the little kids. 

9. Ron Paul - "The Constitution does not give the President the power to distribute candy to trick-or-treaters at the White House. Therefore, if elected president, I will not do so, as that can only be done by the states."

8. Social Security - Don't buy any candy to give to trick-or-treaters who come to your house. Instead, take candy from each trick-or treater who comes buy and invite them to come by later for more candy than they gave up. Proceed to give each returning trick-or-treater the candy you stole from the preceding trick-or-treaters. Eventually, you will run out of candy and an angry mob of trick-or-treaters will form outside your house and you will go down in flames.

7. A third party candidate: Hand out a delicious candy that is amazingly awesome but that nobody has heard of before. Nobody comes to your house.

6. Vice President Caingrich, under President Perry.

5. A Tea Party Protestor - Yell at little kids who come to your house asking for candy, since it's unjust taxation on the candy-rich.

4. Herman Cain: Yes, Mrs. Jones, I'd like a Kit-Kat, please... Here you go, Hermie sweetie. Next!... Wait, I misunderstood the question. I'd actually like Reese's Pieces.

3. USS Carl Vinson - take the candy you don't like, and dump it in the ocean.

2. Dick Cheney: Give chocolate to quails and shoot tricker-or-treaters because you "were confused about which was which". And quails can't eat chocolate, so double succes!

And now for...

1. THE SCARIEST COSTUME OF THEM ALL.... A three-headed monster consisting of Presidents Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama. 

Make the right choice in 2012. Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Liberty, Success!

Occupy Wall Street Targets Wrong Group

Over the past few weeks, "Occupy Wall Street" protests have been launching up all over the country. From Albuquerque to Youngstown, young protesters have been taking to the streets protesting dominance by the powerful over the masses. In theory, this is a good cause. But, OWS has selected to companies who became powerful through their own success, rather than politicians who gain power in other, less respectable ways. This  borderline-socialist behavior is wrong, and may ultimately be their downfall.

Business owners got where they are by working hard and through years of dedicated work. They put out a successful product, which the people genuinely chose to buy. This is how companies make money. It's the basic economic model. The reason Exxon-Mobil gets to make billions while "Gregory's Gasoline Station" would probably flop is because Exxon-Mobil understands better than I do how to run a gas station. *

On the other hands, the government claims to be "chosen by the people". Yet, for many Americans, they are really just choosing the lesser evil between Democrat and Republican. I've discussed this before, and I'm not getting into it right now. But the fact is, virtually every American could choose at least one power the government has that they feel it shouldn't. Whether that's ending the Wars overseas, repealing drug laws, or repealing the PATRIOT Act,  or anything else, we can all pick at least one part of government we'd like to eliminate.

And who gave the government these powers? Not, We, the People. Except for a few principles outlined in the Constitution ("promote domestic tranquility", etc.), almost none of the powers the government has today were implicitly or explicitly authorized by the people. The power of businesses comes directly from the power of the consumer. Don't like the power foreign cars have in America? Buy a Chevy. On the other hand, short of leaving the country, if you don't like the power the government has, there's almost nothing you can (legally) do about it.

However, there is one thing that would work. You can protest. And if Occupy Wall Street, were instead to become "Occupy Capitol Hill", I think they could be very effective. The power of the government has grown out of control and must be reigned in. This is a far bigger problem than the power of companies, which are largely powered by the consumer.

On a final note, I will acknowledge that there are some cases where corporations have been empowered by sources other than the consumer. However, this "other source" in the vast majority of cases turns out to be the government. So it's either the government empowering themselves, or the government empowering Corporate America. Either way, the government is the one who should be deempowered. That's where something needs to be done.


* Of course, I could not legally open up my own gas station due to government restrictions. However, this is irrelevant

The Problem with Two Party Conformity, Part 1

First, some brief background introduction on what inspired me to write about this subject. Without disclosing names, or details, in the course of an email to an individual who I know from the University of Connecticut (the specifics are irrelevant and will not be disclosed), who I will assign the pseudonym "Joe", I mentioned something resembling "X is is a good idea because it will encourage Y." Joe responded with something loosely saying "I agree! I also think it's great because X encourages Z. In fact, maybe we could even do A to encourage Z even more". * (I told you I wouldn't be specific). However, Joe had misunderstood me. In fact, I thought encouraging Z was a bad idea, and that we should take precaution with with continuing with X to avoid doing Z.

But, at the same time, I couldn't tell if Joe felt strongly in his support for my (perceived) argument or if he personally disagreed (or didn't care one way or the other) but not strongly enough to tell me so and risk offending me. So, I clarified what I meant by my original remarks, and said that if he really feels that encouraging Z through X (and ultimately A) is good, by all means, do something about it. But if you don't feel too strongly about it one way or the other and are going along with it rather than risk unnecessarily offending me, know that it's not actually my opinion. After all, as I mentioned, plenty of bad ideas live on because many people feel that they are wrong, but are worried what others will think of them if they say so.

The first story I thought of comes from my Jewish education and the Bible. (Not to worry, this isn't a religious article.) I recall from the story of Joseph and his Brothers Reuben thought it was wrong that the rest of the brothers were throwing him in the pit, and secretly planned to rescue him later. Meanwhile, Judah, unaware of his brother's intention and believing Joseph was to be killed, sold him into slavery as the lesser evil. The meaning of course is, had Judah and Reuben spoken up, they could have cooperated and rescued Joseph outright. (Then again, some Jewish scholars claim that Joseph's being sold into slavery ensured the Jewish people would fulfill their destiny. This is beyond the scope of this article.)

Then, I thought about it some more and realized this could be applied to the two party system. Even when I did consider myself to be a strong Democrat, I was still firmly against affirmative action. But what could I do? I can't vote based on just one issue. I could support the Republicans, who I agreed with on affirmative action, or I could support the Democrats who I agreed with all other issues. ** What do you think I chose?

Of course, that's the problem with only having two options. First of all, not all issues are black and white (for instance, when debating whether the definition of "marriage" should include same-sex couples, nobody from the major parties questions the need for a definition at all. But some people do. They get ignored. Is it right? No. But it happens). But the grayness of issues is another discussion for another time.

The main issue is how I'm sure I wasn't the only Democrat in America who opposed affirmative action. But we couldn't do anything about it since a breakaway party would do more harm than good, if it did anything at all. With a more current example, Jews as a demographic group show a strong tendency for support for the Democrats over the Republicans. And I'm sure pretty much all of them disapprove of President Obama's recent statements about Israel. But the vast majority of them are still voting for him in 2012.

If it's one issue, it may be two, or three, or more. But in most cases, those people simply change their views to conform with the party rather than agree to disagree. This is worse. For instance, a Republican who supports most of what the Party stands for, but advocates gay rights and affirmative action and is pro-choice, would likely change those opinions, voluntarily or not, to avoid being perceived as a "bad Republican". Once again, the person was only given two option - Democrat and Republican.

There are several possible solutions to this complex issue. I will address them in another post within a day or two, and may even make another one after that. So stay tuned!



* - Note that this is not intended to be a word-for-word transcript of our conversation. There was more in there than that, and Joe's misunderstanding was certainly reasonable. But to explain why would require disclosing more specifics than either of us are comfortable with me posting publicly on the internet. This is just to give you an idea of where this thought process came from so you will understand the point I am making. As a disclaimer to "Joe" and the very limited number of people who were involved in this specific situation and recognize it as such, the specifics are different, but that's not the point of this. But if you're thinking "Why don't I remember this happening?" it's because it's not a word-for-word transcript.

** - I always found libertarianism to be a fusion between the (claimed) benefits of the two major parties. They support limited government involvement in the economy, which the Republicans supposedly do. The accuracy of this claim is doubtful, but supposing each party's claims to be accurate, I would find that a major benefit of the Republican Party. On the side note, libertarianism also advocates low government involvement in personal life, for instance by broadening the definition of "marriage" (or eliminating it), protecting civil liberties, and military non-interventionism. Once again, whether the Democrats actually stand for these or not is questionable, but they claim to. Beyond that is another discussion. 

New Letter to the Editor - Cover all Candidates

Today, I had a new letter to the editor published in the Poughkeepsie Journal. To read it, click on the link (noting that it is spread over two pages, though I am told it is one page on the mobile website) or read below.

I hope that you will provide more coverage of third-party candidates during the upcoming election season than you have in years past.
You may feel that they have no chance of winning. However, you are misunderstanding cause and effect. It is the lack of attention from media that renders these candidates unviable. In other words, the fact that you think they can't win is exactly what is preventing them from winning. If fair coverage were given to other candidates, we would see completely different results on election day.
In fact, if everyone who was fed up with both "major" parties were to vote for a third party instead, no Democrat or Republican would stand a chance. But the press continuously ignores them, lest attention allow them to seize control from what Ralph Nader described as a "two-party dictatorship."

Therefore, I strongly urge both the paper and the voters to pay attention to other candidates on election day. If you are fed up with politics as usual, vote for someone who will bring something different.The Green Party gained full ballot access in New York state and should contest many local offices. The Libertarian Party is expected to field some candidates as well. But whatever your political preferences, vote for a candidate you truly support, even if that candidate is not a Democrat or a Republican. And to the media, provide attention to those candidates. If you truly are balanced, don't decide for us who can and can't win an election.

Gregory Koch 

Poughkeepsie

 I am on medical leave from UConn this semester *, but still hope to submit some letters to the Daily Campus if I can read it online. With the semester starting Monday, look for those on some Fridays beginning next week.


* - I don't want to post full details about this online. If you want them, email me.

How the Mainstream Media Influences Elections

Update: An updated version of this article was included in the Alternative Political Society's magazine, The Alternative. You can view it here (PDF).

Recently on The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer's question about why he did not provide coverage of GOP candidates Ron Paul and Herman Cain. After all, isn't O'Reilly supposed to be the "no-spin zone"?. Bill's response was simply "they have no chance of winning". Aside from the fact that the show still covers unwinnable wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, this illustrates a major paradox of election coverage.

Paul and Cain are not being denied coverage because they have no chance of winning. Rather, they have no chance of winning because they are being denied coverage. Below is a list of current GOP candidates, and the number of Google News articles for the last 30 days referring to each of them as of 2:20 PM on August 20. The names were put in quotes, to avoid articles about Paul Rudd and Ron Berkle from being included in this.

Michele Bachmann: 15,400
Ron Paul: 10,400
Mitt Romney: 17,200
Rick Perry: 23,200
Herman Cain: 5,320
Rick Santorum: 5,520

With Bachmann, Perry, and Romney being hailed as the front-runners, it comes as no surprise that they have far more news stories than Paul, Cain, and Santorum. However, is this a cause or an effect of their lack of success? First of all, Ron Paul finished a close second in the Iowa Straw Poll. But the media still ignored him. Jonathan Martin of Politico.com wrote an article which originally had the headline "Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty Gets Third". After Pawlenty withdrew, the headline was revised to simply note Bachmann's win. However, at no point did it note Paul's second place finish, even though he received 2,500 more votes than Pawlenty.

This attention bias is not new. During the CNN-Youtube debate for the 2008 Democratic nomination, fringe candidate Mike Gravel questioned whether it was "fair" that he had received significantly less airtime than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards had. Indeed, according to the Wikipedia article, 13 candidates were asked to all the candidates, though Obama, Edwards, and Clinton were frequently given more time to answer these. Furthermore, seven questions were specifically directed at Edwards, ten at Obama, and nine at Clinton. So-called "minor" candidates Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich were given five questions each. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, also dubbed "minor" by the mainstream media, were given seven each, the same as Edwards, but many of those were redirects that had already been asked to a major candidate. Gravel himself received six questions in addition to the ones for everybody.

In the 2010 New York Governor election, the TV networks managed to hold a debate featuring all seven candidates on the ballot. In addition to Democrat Andrew Cuomo and Republican Carl Paladino, five minor party candidates were featured. Howie Hawkins (Green), Warren Redlich (Libertarian), Jimmy McMillan (Rent is Too Damn High), Charles Barron (Freedom) and Kristin Davis (Anti-Prohibition) all appeared in person. This is a change from the standard practice of only featuring the Democrat and the Republican and ignoring everyone else.

The results showed. Hawkins, Redlich, and McMillan all exceeded their parties' highest vote totals ever in a NY governor election, and in the case of Redlich and McMillan, by a large margin. Hawkins managed to obtain 50,000 votes and get the Green Party "major party" status in New York, thus entitling it to easier ballot access in local elections within the state for the next four years. The Libertarian Party came within 1,500 votes of the magic 50K, whereas it had never even achieved more than 15,000 votes before. McMillan, on the other hand, become somewhat of a celebrity, inspiring a sketch on Saturday Night Live. Of course, "major party" and "minor party" status is just as bad as "major candidate" and "minor candidate" differentiation, but nevertheless, helping these third parties gain more attention is never a bad thing. I give a lot of credit to NY1 for organizing this, and to Cuomo and Paladino for agreeing to it, something most Democrats and Republicans would never do.

I hope that in the future, we will stop seeing less of a media bias against alleged "minor candidates", both in the primaries and general elections. I also hope that voters themselves will stop refusing to vote for minor parties simply because they are "minor". The Saratoga, NY newspaper The Post-Star endorsed Andrew Cuomo in that election. However, it said something rather curious about Redlich and Hawkins.

We've been particularly impressed by Libertarian candidate Warren Redlich, a Guilderland town councilman and attorney who distinguished himself at the lone gubernatorial debate with reasonable, well-considered, educated responses to discussion of the state's problems. He is willing to be specific about how he will eliminate several state agencies, end corporate welfare, and cap public sector pay and pensions as a way of stopping the state's wasteful spending practices.
With more governing experience and by broadening his voter base, Mr. Redlich could become a serious statewide candidate in the future. If you're casting a protest vote, Mr. Redlich is your best choice. But now is not the time to install a newbie in the governor's office, even an articulate one with good ideas.

Perennial Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, a UPS worker from central New York, is running on a modified New Deal platform that calls for public works projects and taxing the rich, as well as legalizing marijuana and free SUNY tuition. He's not ready to run the state.

This begs two similar questions. Why isn't now the time to elect a political newbie as governor? Has politics as usual worked yet? And why isn't Hawkins ready to run the state. So they don't agree with his platform. I certainly don't either. But they also obviously don't agree with Paladino's platform, or they would have endorsed him. Yet they don't say he's not ready to run the state. (Interestingly enough, the Daily News did mention that the GOP failed to field a remotely credible candidate in their endorsement of Cuomo. Had they said anything else, that wouldn't be too unusual. They didn't.)


So to summarize, we should judge for ourselves who the best candidates are. And we should be given the resources to consider ALL candidates equally, not just the ones the media wants us to consider. So to both the media and the voters in general - be open to those candidates you consider "minor". With your help, we can make them major.

Economic Journal Article #5http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6144408548910691939

Here is the fifth installment of my economic journal articles for ECO 202 - Macroeconomics at Dutchess Community College. This has been reprinted with the permission of Professor Noreen Van Valkenburgh. I was supposed to publish one a day but forgot to upload one yesterday, so this is the second one for today. Unfortunately, for some reason there is no date on this one.

Subject: Republican proposals for debt cuts

Source: Various

Summary:

Some Republicans in Congress are proposing $45 billion in welfare spending cuts in exchange to raise the debt ceiling. Other Republicans refuse to even do that. And some Democrats aren't willing to make the cuts. So it looks like disaster

My opinion:

We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if the government didn't spend so much. We need to cut spending by a lot more than $45 billion. And yes, some areas will have to go. You can privatize, eliminate, or reduce almost every government agency. If something really is important and useful to the population, the private sector can handle it and be funded by those who want it. This would also have the added benefit of reducing taxes. I am a libertarian and do not feel that most government spending projects are proper. With the exception of law enforcement (which would not prosecute victimless crimes as they do now), courts, and maybe a few other agencies, I would cut everything ideally. But that is ideally. In this case, at the very least, you have to cut more than $45 billion.

 

Economic Journal Article #4

 My apologies for not posting yesterday. I'll be posting two of these today as a result. In any case, here is economic journal entry #4, written for ECON 202: Macroeconomics at Dutchess Community College in Summer 2011. These have been reprinted with permission of Professor Noreen Van Valkenburgh.

Topic: Obama gives a speech on the debt ceiling crisis

Source: TV 

Date: July 11

Summary: President Obama gave a speech today discussing the approaching of the debt ceiling. He said that he would not sign a short-term solution. Also, the Republicans are not cooperating without significant cuts and no tax increase.

Reaction:

This is ridiculous. The government defaulting on their loans would be a disaster, but we can't keep spending like this. And the so-called $45 billion cuts are a joke. We would still be running a huge deficit and the debt would keep rising. The cuts should not just be limited to Medicare. We also need to cut our massive defense budget. We could cut it by 90% and it would still be the world's largest. The Republicans need to start cutting their own spending, not just the Democrats'. And they need to cut a lot of it. Most of our spending is wasteful. There is the pyramid scheme that is medicare, but there is also NCLB, and the huge military, and three unnecessary wars. Republicans' programs are not immune from their cuts. No program is immune. I don't want to see the government default, but we need to cut spending significantly. Earlier this year, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) ran the "Chinese Professor" TV ad, which has been compared to such legendary political ads as "Daisy Girl" and"Morning in America". It featured a professor at Beijing University in 2030 giving a lecture to a history class. He discusses the fall of "great empires" - the Greeks, the British Empire, and … the United States! He explains how they all "turned away from the principles that made them great" and describes America's financial failures - stimulus spending, universal healthcare, the list goes on and on. He then concludes his lecture about the USA by saying "now, they work for us." If this possibility isn't enough to send shivers down any American's spine, I don't know what is. Cut spending now!

Economic Journal Article #3

Here is my third economic journal article from ECO 202: Macroeconomics. Published with permission of Professor Noreen Van Valkenburgh.

Title: Obama: "Real Differences" remain on Debt Deal

Date: July 5, 2011

Source: cbs News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20076990-503544.html )

Summary:

President Obama said today that Republicans and Democrats are working towards a deal with the debt ceiling deadline fast approaching. He said that the Democrats agreed to tens of billions of dollars in concessions in exchange for Republicans allowing certain other programs to stay. The deal apparently needs to have some basic framework laid out by around July 22 to avoid massive economic and government chaos.

My reaction:

Both sides' reactions are far less than sufficient. Our national debt is about $14.5 trillion and the deficit for the last year alone is roughly $1.5 trillion and rising rapidly. $10 billion in reductions won't come anywhere close to lowering the debt. It will lower the deficit by about 0.6%, which is not going to help much at all. And the debt will still continue to rise and this country will fall worse into financial turmoil. Eventually, other foreign nations are going to demand payment on the money we owe. And unfortunately, we don't have the money. With Medicare essentially acting as a pyramid scheme with the younger investors (taxpayers) paying the older ones' profits, and social security functioning the same way, the problem is only getting worse. Not to mention the wasteful government spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bombing targets in Libya and Pakistan, plus the defense budget almost the size of the rest of the world's combined. We need to reduce government spending far more drastically than either side is willing to do. The problem is, politics is a business. And no politician wants to be accused of cutting "Hundreds of billions dollars of government services" even if those services either are useless or could more efficiently be handled by private and/or local authorioties. Any politician that agrees to massive cuts stands almost no chance of being reelected. That is, unless a libertarian/Tea Party movement sweeps the nation and the government is significantly downsized and spending massively reduced. If that does not happen in the next few years, the great nation of America will fall from glory to shambles.