Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
It has been a big week on the foreign policy front, with the death of Libya's dictator and President Obama's announcement today that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of this year (leaving roughly 150 to guard the embassy). But before we get to all of that, I've got some domestic advice for the president's re-election team.
Last night, at yet another Republican presidential candidate debate, Herman Cain was roundly criticized for his simplistic 9-9-9 tax plan by his fellow Republicans. I have to admit, it was a little bizarre (in a "Nixon goes to China" sort of way) to see Republicans disparaging a tax plan for being "regressive." Ron Paul was unafraid to actually use this word, and while several other candidates avoided the term they in essence leveled the same charge: 9-9-9 would wind up increasing taxes on the poor and the middle class. Being Republicans, though, they didn't also speak of the other side of this coin -- the fact that 9-9-9 would lower taxes on the wealthy and really lower them on the ultra-wealthy. But still, it was odd enough to see candidate after candidate speak of their concern for the tax burden of the lower-class and middle-class, since this is usually a Democratic argument. Perhaps all those 99 Percenters out there demonstrating in the streets are getting through to the Republican politicians? Stranger things have happened.
The issue of what, exactly, "three co-equal branches" means in American government -- and, more importantly, what happens when two of them disagree -- goes back a long way. Further than Franklin Roosevelt, further even than Abraham Lincoln. The first president to truly tangle with the Supreme Court was actually Andrew Jackson, who fought the court on two separate issues: Jackson's policy of "Indian removal," and the Second Bank of the United States. The first one is where Jackson responded (according to legend -- he may not have actually said this) to a court ruling against him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" By doing so, Jackson was stating his open defiance of a Supreme Court decision, and pointing out that the Executive Branch actually controlled the levers of federal power, and not the Judicial Branch.
Because Mormonism is in the news again, due to a Rick Perry supporter calling it a "cult," I thought it was high time to re-run the following column.
The last time we wrote, Rick Perry had just jumped in the race. Since then, nobody else has gotten in, while two prominent names decided to sit this one out. Several candidates caught fire, and several also burned out (at least, poll-wise). So it goes, on the campaign merry-go-round.
The idea behind that title is: "When the People lead, the leaders will follow." I read this on a bumpersticker a few decades ago, although I must admit I haven't bothered to research the phrase's origins. Wherever it came from, the idea is a simple (and amusing) one: when the so-called "leaders" aren't leading, then the People will step in and do it for them. Eventually, the "leaders" will wake up to what is going on and get on board themselves, pretending to have led the movement all along.
Like many other Americans, I thoroughly enjoyed watching historical documentarian Ken Burns' recent Prohibition series, on PBS. But I was disappointed by its abrupt end. Burns took the easy way out and didn't point out that right around the same time the legal federal prohibition on alcohol ended, the prohibition of marijuana was ramping up in a big way. And, while the alcohol-targeted Prohibition ended, this prohibition remains. In, fact, it is getting worse, as the Obama administration is continuing a crackdown on anyone who is approaching the problem in any sort of sane or rational manner -- including local and state government officials.
A corporate leader passed away this week, and millions mourned his passing and celebrated his life.
Barack Obama's poll numbers in September were not good. In fact, they were pretty bad. Obama fans looking for good news will have to be content with the fact that at least Obama seems to be slowing the trend of his dropping numbers somewhat. This isn't exactly a turnaround for him, but September was a lot less of a drastic change than the three months which preceded it.
The media, of course, likely won't believe Christie -- at least until he says "No" several more times. Last week he gave a speech that created a media frenzy, and in the question-and-answer period responded to the twenty-millionth time he was asked exactly the same question that there was a "mashup" video available online of him saying "No" over and freakin' over again, and anyone who was interested in the answer should just go review this video. The media forgot to report this, and instead focused on what they decided was a more ambivalent answer to being asked the same question for the twenty-million-and-one-th time. "Christie Might Run!" was the headline they decided to go with. They were bored, quite obviously, and attacked with the ferocity of a shark pack with chum in the water. The fact that there actually was no actual chum didn't even seem to faze them.