Category: Politics (Page 3 of 5)

Oh blessed unerring document, we must protect its sacred words – or at least that’s what many on the right in the US would have us believe.  The US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), was a complete, although unfinished, document and one upon which we are still working.  It is not the unerring words of our “founding fathers,” white men who did not implicitly protect, free speech, freedom of religion, physical freedom for people, free press, right to assemble, or the ability to seek redress from the government for grievances .

WTF, I hear you saying.  Go ahead and read it, as it was written, its original text. I’ll wait.

Here’s the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It didn’t say the states couldn’t.  And they did.  States had state religions, banned literature, restrictions on press etc, all the way until the 20th century.

At that time, the federal government did not explicitly prohibit these things, nor protect them as inalienable rights.  It simply said, Congress shall make no law restricting or establishing. I know you’re scratching your head.  You thought the Constitution was sacred, handed down by a Christian God.  Obama wants to destroy it.  He is a tyrant.  He wants to take away our guns.

Want to know who else was a tyrant?

Abraham Lincoln.  He was a tyrant because he wanted to expand the federal definition of freedom to the states.

Want to know something else?  Activist judges were the ones to encroach the constitutional protections to the states. Yes, activists judges (as the right likes to call them) gave you your freedom of speech and press.

When did this happen?

1925.  Did you get that?  It wasn’t until nineteen twenty-five that case law recognized that the Bill of Rights applied not just to the federal government, but to the states.  And it wasn’t even really over at the point.  It’s still being fought about.

So, let’s remember that the Constitution is not sacred in its original form.  It was a complete document, but we’ve been fleshing it out, still working on it, tweaking it to make it better lo these 230+ years.   It also goes hand in hand with just as many years of judicial precedent.

Intentions of our “founding fathers?”  Their intentions were noble, I imagine, but short-sighted.  They left out women, black people, none-land holding whites, did not protect freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, did not prohibit involuntary servitude, and a whole host of things.

Once we see the document as above reproach we cease to grow as a nation as a people.

Our story as a nation and our document are not yet finished and they will continue to be written and perfected.  They are not perfect, just as we are not perfect.

We/it are works in progress.

"Ms. Palin, you mentioned today that the ‘gloves are off.’  It puzzles me and I am curious."

"You betcha.  But why would you not get what we’re tryin’ to do?"

"Um, it’s just that, if the gloves were off, that would imply that the gloves were on at some point, right?"

"You betcha.  We’ve taken off the gloves, and we’re not holdin’ back.  We’re taking it straight to Obama.  We’re going to show the American people what we’re made of."

"Oh, okay, so here’s my question.  Did you wear gloves before?  If so, why?  Why were you wearing gloves when it seems the best method you have now determined is, in fact, sans gloves?"

"Well, the gloves are off now.  We mean business.  We’re gonna hit hard with our message."

"But before, when the gloves were on, you must have talked about it, right?  Were you possibly trying to match your opponent’s elevated tactics?  Did you think that it was classless to attempt to smear or ‘swiftboat’ your opponent?  You wanted to run a dignified campaign, rich in real substantive issues?  Did you believe that the road to the presidency was to be found on high not down low?  There must have been something in the merits of the ‘gloves on’ tactic.  Is this new ‘gloves off’ thing an indication that your ‘gloves on’ approach was failing because of a lack of substance?"

"I’m not going to answer that question.  You want me to, but I’m not.  I’m going to take our message straight to the American people.  You see, you’re smart, but the American people – they might just be dumb enough to buy it."

I don’t think it will make much difference, as Hillary Clinton was heavily favored on the island today.  But I considered it an honor to have contributed something to a candidate that I think will transform the US Federal Government into an instrument of the people once again.

Why can’t I vote for him in the general election this fall?  It’s stupid, but it’s a Congressional thing. Protectorates are legal gray area… kinda
like DC, but not.  We are US Citizens,
technically live in the US, …but NOT. It makes no sense.  I could vote if I lived in Europe, but not in Puerto Rico.  Yet, if I am born in Puerto Rico, I am a US citizen.  I’ll leave you to ponder that.

But first, a short chat with Laura from last night.

"Hey did you see that Barack Obama is resigning his church?"  I remarked.

"He did? Wow, I bet black voters aren’t going to be happy about that." 

"I don’t know," I said,  "I think that they understand he’s doing what he has to do. He’s quiet, he’s not angry, he’s dealing with all this with maturity and grace.  It’s probably necessary in order for this whole issue to go away.  It’s the mature thing to do.  It’s like he has to kowtow to whitey, put his head down and endure indignities in order to achieve the prize of lasting change.  Up to now things aren’t so different than they were in the days of slavery.  Am I making any sense?"

"Yes," she said becoming animated. "It’s like Jackie Robinson integrating baseball.  He had to put up with all kinds of nasty behavior, but he let it roll off.  He didn’t fight back, he just quietly went about playing baseball as best he could.  He made his "blackness" a non-issue."

"Wow, that’s a great point, so here we are in the 21st century looking at beginnings of a painful integration of US politics.  How Barack handles it will set the tone for the future for good or bad."  I cracked a grin at the irony of it all.  Here’s a man trying to elevate the debate; there’s no blackness or whiteness but justice, honor, and integrity. And all anybody wants to do is to portray him and his "posse" as a bunch of radical angry black militants, and barring that, that he’s a closet Muslim.  They’re so desperate to character assassinate him, they even dig up a crackpot white Catholic priest and trot him out on youtube.

I sighed.  For now, mainstream America is still scared of the angry black man.  They see an animated, angry preacher who happens to be black and it scares them.  It’s an old and upsetting dynamic; the politics of fear, same ol’ same ol’.  It disgusts both Laura and me.  I hope it disgusts you too.

We voted for change today.  Please, America, let’s elevate the dialog.

Recent changes in the tax code of Puerto Rico have caused me to rethink a long held opinion about the nature of our politicians. The Jenius, over at his blog, rightly predicts that the underground economy in Puerto Rico will perfect itself as taxation wriggles into all legitimate economic transactions. Small micro companies will just take what little business they have further underground away from the grabbing hands of government, and more of them will do it better.

Medium-sized brick and mortar shops will either shoulder the burden or pass the cost on to the customer. Either way with rising prices, already pinched consumers will be forced to buy from the lowest supplier, those 800 pound gorillas with their cheap global supply chains and volume discounts. If small business owners try to compete on price their already compromised position further erodes to the point of survival mode. They are then either pushed into gray areas of the underground economy or out of business entirely.

The big global players are already earning money hand over fist, and if their position is eroded only slightly by rising consumption taxes, they have a number of options. They can negotiate tax breaks for their local hiring, get government handouts to build new facilities, low interest loans, you name it. They have the clout and the cash to get what they want, whether it be cheap goods, cheaper labor, or cheap government.

So where does that leave us?

I always thought that bad government policies through incompetence or malice had an effect to drive out entrepreneurial spirit, to foment low level corruption, and give unfair advantage to large imported global players (pharmaceutical manufacturers, retailers, fast food, national chains etc). But now I’m notso sure it’s incompetence or even malice.

What if their aim is to kill off the last of the local companies for us, as a favor to pacify us and give us jobs, to give us what we want, to work for the man, and play on the weekends, to be kept, taken care of, and have no responsibilities? Maybe these politicians know something we don’t want to admit or care to face:

We want to be kept and taken care of.

We would rather work for Wal-mart than try to start our own business, and the best to which we can hope to rise, the pinnacle, the ultimate, is to be a general manager in someone else’s plant, to be validated by the higher power the foreign national, the colonial overlord.

I hope it’s just incompetence… although at this point I’d even take malice.

Please tell me I’m wrong, please Puerto Rico?  Tell me it’s not what we want.

Ha! I was looking for information to clear up just what my status is as a veteran, having been mobilized for Iraqi Freedom in March of 2003.  We were on active duty for 89 days before Bush declared victory and sent everyone home.  Ahem.

So, because I’d like to know, I’m looking around for information about benefits (if any) to which I am entitled for my obviously worthless 89 days of active duty service in time of war.  I was wrong, dead wrong, it turns out. 

War it is not, never been.  Funny, it tastes like war, though.  I smack my lips.  It’s kinda bitter with a smokey flavor.  They call it a war, use it to justify "wartime" suppression of civil liberty and routine ass-wiping with the Constitution, but let’s not fight over little words, shall we.  We’ve got a war to fight.  WTF?! There you go again with the "W" word.  Geez!

Then I found this on the Office of Personal Management for the US Federal Government:

War Service Creditable for Veterans Preference.  In the absence
of statutory definition for "war" and "campaign or expedition," OPM considers
to be "wars" only those armed conflicts for which a declaration of war was issued
by Congress.  The title 38, U.S.C., definition of "period of war," which
is used in determining benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
includes the Vietnam Era and other armed conflicts.  That title 38 definition
is NOT applicable for civil service purposes.

Thus the last "war" for which active duty is qualifying for Veterans preference
is World War II.  The inclusive dates for World War II service are December
7, 1941, through April 28, 1952.

I blinked.  I read it twice.  So, the OPM for purposes of preference, only considers those that fought in WWII (The last declared war) to be veterans.  Those ranks are getting pretty thin, I’d say.

I read it again.  So what this is saying is that the last armed conflict for which the people of the United States had a say was WWII (I always knew that, but to see it put so bluntly was startling).  Put another way, the last time our duly elected representatives in Congress declared war was 1941.

Doesn’t that seem funny to anyone?  Funny, not in the "ha ha" sense, but funny in the "we’ve lost complete control of our country" sense.  From Truman, to Lyndon B, to Reagan to Bush Sr. to Bush Jr.  we have engaged in one "conflict" after another, all of which were deemed to be of "utmost" national importance, but not quite enough to get the endorsement of the American people with an official declaration of war.  These conflicts were important, we were told – important to whom?  Obviously though, they were not important enough for the failsafe vote in Congress to sanctify the "war."  Don’t worry your puny little minds with these big and complicated issues of "national security" we were/are told. 

We will protect you.

And don’t worry about the messy little details like Americans dying and being maimed.  It’s all for a good and noble cause, just not good and noble enough for a vote of the representatives of the people of the United States of America.  Details details.

Imagine if you will a place where the boundaries between Legislative and Executive where blurred, wrapped, and crossed with the Judicial – a place of sound, a place of fury, and place signifying nothing.  You have just stepped off the boat one thousand miles southeast of Florida… somewhere into the Twilight Zone.

Tomorrow, in the semi-autonomous territory and commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a referendum will be held.  Imagine if you will in our parallel sister Twilight Zone where odd and bizarre things occur, if president of the United States, decided to hold a nationwide referendum.  At stake was the decision to change Congress to a unicameral assembly or change the form of government to a parliamentary system. 

Imagine it!  NOW!

What do you mean you can’t? 

What’s that?  You say that the president has only some limited powers over the Legislative Branch?  You mean he has veto power, which can be overridden by a 2/3 majority. You say he can set executive policy, govern the military, and write the budget?  Well, I guess.  Bush has overstepped his bounds on occasion, but even he has not tried to void the Constitution (well, without a good reason… okay, I’ll concede that too… sheesh).

So how would one go about changing the structure of the legislative branch of government?

First, the Congress would have to propose, debate, and vote on the change (2/3 majority in both houses).  Next step would be for 3/4 of the states’ legislatures to ratify that change.

I can’t imagine it’s too much different in Puerto Rico, but tomorrow, there is a referendum on changing the legislature from bicameral to unicameral.  Huh?  Wouldn’t it just be great that if every time the president didn’t like what Congress was doing he could call a nationwide vote and threaten to disband it?  What the?

Well the short of it is that in Puerto Rico the governor can’t do it either, but what he can do is propose to spend $4 million tax of tax payers’ money to execute what amounts to a poll.  If the people were to favor a unicameral legislature, the next step would be for the legislature to vote on it, then do whatever process is required to amend the Puerto Rican constitution.  Oh, yeah, but we have one more step here.  All changes to our constitution must be approved by the United States Congress.

The only reason for a vote tomorrow on this issue is pure and simple intimidation of the legislature.  It is nothing more than executive branch thuggery.  Personally, I couldn’t care less what system the legislature runs.  It couldn’t get any worse. 

But don’t kid yourself.  If anyone votes either yay or nay, it is a vote for the governor, a vote for intimidation, and a waste of money.  Don’t for one second think you’re deciding anything.  You’re just playing into the governor’s hands, perpetuating the folly, the circus, and furthering our decent into a banana republic.

Ah, but everybody loves a show.