By G. Terry Madonna and Michael Young
27 December 2007
One definition of crazy is to keep doing diligently the same thing over and over when it's not working. By that definition America's presidential primary system is seriously loony, for with respect to developing a democratic process to nominate candidates for president, we have been doing the same thing over and over again for more than 60 years and it's not working.
The glaring evidence of that failure looms before us as the nation awaits the imminent Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary now scheduled for early January--both nomination events take place in small unrepresentative states that will largely dominate if not determine the rest of the primary process. Iowa and New Hampshire were supposed to be the warm up acts for the remainder of the primaries, but instead they have once again become the main event.
It is now too late to change this process for 2008. But it's exactly the right time to consider changes for 2012 and beyond. The time has clearly come for an overhaul of the entire chaotic process.
Two major options exist. One would produce a national primary while the second option provides for the adoption of regional primaries. A real national primary with every state participating on the same day has been proposed since at least 1916 when Woodrow Wilson advocated it. Its major strength is that potentially all Americans would have some role in the process.
Several versions of regional primary plans also have been proposed. Common to all the regional plans, a designated region of the country (i.e. northeast, south, west and central) would vote in alternate months beginning in February of the presidential year.
One regional plan, the so-called American plan would give small and medium states earlier primaries and larger states later primaries. A competing plan known as the Delaware plan would create regions by allocating each state into one of four population clusters based on population.
FULL STORY
27 December 2007
21 December 2007
Who Elected Iowa?
By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
19 December 2007
KNOXVILLE, Iowa -- It isn't until his seventh stop, almost two hours into his work on an icy Sunday afternoon, that James Ahn hits pay dirt, in the form of Jennie and Arvin Van Waardhuizen.
So after a series of fruitless knocks at empty homes, after talking fast through a barely opened door to a woman whose commitment to Clinton -- or to caucusing, for that matter -- seems doubtful, Ahn has finally made it into the Van Waardhuizens' cozy living room, where Santa figurines line the mantel.
Within minutes, Ahn has given his basic, don't-let-the-process-scare-you spiel: Get there by 7, stand in Clinton's corner, make sure you're counted. He has jotted down that Arvin wants to see Bill Clinton and has delivered a requested yard sign.
In a mass-media age, there is something charmingly anachronistic about the small-town way presidential politics is practiced here. Iowa and New Hampshire are valuable in preserving the ability of voters, at least some voters, to get to know candidates as more than flickering images on a screen or talking heads in a televised debate.
And yet, to join Ahn on his appointed rounds is also to reinforce doubts about a system of irrationality layered on irrationality. The caucuses draw a small, unrepresentative sample of a small, unrepresentative state. While nearly 30 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2004 New Hampshire primary, just 6 percent went to the Iowa caucuses, according to data compiled by George Mason University professor Michael McDonald. The 2000 turnout figures were even more skewed, 44 percent in New Hampshire compared with 7 percent in Iowa.
FULL STORY
Washington Post
19 December 2007
KNOXVILLE, Iowa -- It isn't until his seventh stop, almost two hours into his work on an icy Sunday afternoon, that James Ahn hits pay dirt, in the form of Jennie and Arvin Van Waardhuizen.
So after a series of fruitless knocks at empty homes, after talking fast through a barely opened door to a woman whose commitment to Clinton -- or to caucusing, for that matter -- seems doubtful, Ahn has finally made it into the Van Waardhuizens' cozy living room, where Santa figurines line the mantel.
Within minutes, Ahn has given his basic, don't-let-the-process-scare-you spiel: Get there by 7, stand in Clinton's corner, make sure you're counted. He has jotted down that Arvin wants to see Bill Clinton and has delivered a requested yard sign.
In a mass-media age, there is something charmingly anachronistic about the small-town way presidential politics is practiced here. Iowa and New Hampshire are valuable in preserving the ability of voters, at least some voters, to get to know candidates as more than flickering images on a screen or talking heads in a televised debate.
And yet, to join Ahn on his appointed rounds is also to reinforce doubts about a system of irrationality layered on irrationality. The caucuses draw a small, unrepresentative sample of a small, unrepresentative state. While nearly 30 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2004 New Hampshire primary, just 6 percent went to the Iowa caucuses, according to data compiled by George Mason University professor Michael McDonald. The 2000 turnout figures were even more skewed, 44 percent in New Hampshire compared with 7 percent in Iowa.
FULL STORY
20 December 2007
Iowa’s Undemocratic Caucuses
By Gilbert Cranberg, Herb Strenz and Glenn Roberts
New York Times
18 December 2007
Des Moines - THIS year, a dozen polling organizations have conducted about 70 separate polls about the candidate preferences of Iowa caucus-goers.
The polls essentially are counts of votes by likely caucus attendees. If a poll is done properly, its measure of opinion about the candidates should be similar to the tabulation of votes on caucus night. But if a poll does manage to precisely forecast the results of the Jan. 3 caucuses, that is probably more coincidence than polling accuracy.
That’s because Iowa Democrats shun public disclosure of voter preferences at their caucuses — something not generally reported by the press or understood by the public.
An early order of business in each Democratic precinct caucus in Iowa is a count of the candidate preferences of the attendees. For all practical purposes, this is just what the polls try to measure. But Iowa Democrats keep the data hidden. The one-person, one-vote results from each caucus are snail-mailed to party headquarters and placed in a database, never disclosed to the press or made available for inspection.
Instead, the Democratic Party releases the percentage of “delegate equivalents” won by each candidate. The percentage broadcast on the networks and reported in the newspapers is the candidate’s share of the 2,500 delegates the party apportions across Iowa’s 99 counties, based on Democratic voter turnout in each of the 1,784 precincts in the two most recent general elections. So, the turnout for a candidate in a precinct caucus could be huge, yet the candidate’s share of the delegate pie could be quite small — if that precinct had low voter turnout in 2004 and 2006.
Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents — that is, the headline “winner” — did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. (That’s because to be in the running for a delegate a candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of the people at a precinct caucus.) He or she may have done two or three times as well as expected among Iowa’s Democratic voters and get no recognition for it.
FULL STORY
New York Times
18 December 2007
Des Moines - THIS year, a dozen polling organizations have conducted about 70 separate polls about the candidate preferences of Iowa caucus-goers.
The polls essentially are counts of votes by likely caucus attendees. If a poll is done properly, its measure of opinion about the candidates should be similar to the tabulation of votes on caucus night. But if a poll does manage to precisely forecast the results of the Jan. 3 caucuses, that is probably more coincidence than polling accuracy.
That’s because Iowa Democrats shun public disclosure of voter preferences at their caucuses — something not generally reported by the press or understood by the public.
An early order of business in each Democratic precinct caucus in Iowa is a count of the candidate preferences of the attendees. For all practical purposes, this is just what the polls try to measure. But Iowa Democrats keep the data hidden. The one-person, one-vote results from each caucus are snail-mailed to party headquarters and placed in a database, never disclosed to the press or made available for inspection.
Instead, the Democratic Party releases the percentage of “delegate equivalents” won by each candidate. The percentage broadcast on the networks and reported in the newspapers is the candidate’s share of the 2,500 delegates the party apportions across Iowa’s 99 counties, based on Democratic voter turnout in each of the 1,784 precincts in the two most recent general elections. So, the turnout for a candidate in a precinct caucus could be huge, yet the candidate’s share of the delegate pie could be quite small — if that precinct had low voter turnout in 2004 and 2006.
Under the formulas used to apportion delegates, it is possible that the candidate with the highest percentage of delegate equivalents — that is, the headline “winner” — did not really lead in the “popular vote” at the caucuses. Further, it is possible that a second or third-tier candidate could garner a surprising 10 percent or 12 percent of the popular vote statewide and get zero delegates. (That’s because to be in the running for a delegate a candidate must have support from at least 15 percent of the people at a precinct caucus.) He or she may have done two or three times as well as expected among Iowa’s Democratic voters and get no recognition for it.
FULL STORY
08 December 2007
Top 7 Questions on Florida and Michigan Primaries
By Rachel Kapochunas
Congressional Quarterly
1. What are Florida and Michigan’s 2008 presidential primary dates and how and when were those dates finalized?
On May 21, Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist signed legislation into law designating Jan. 29 as the state’s presidential primary date. The primary had been previously scheduled for March.
In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm signed legislation into law Sept. 4 establishing Jan. 15 as the state’s presidential primary date. But, lower courts in Michigan ruled that the primary process was unconstitutional because Michigan political parties would obtain information regarding voters’ political affiliation through the primary process and that information would not be made public. Voters do not register by party in Michigan. But the State Supreme Court decided Nov. 21 to overturn those rulings and allow the Jan. 15 date to stand.
2. Why did these states and others schedule earlier delegate selection contests?
There is no heir-apparent for either party’s nomination and states are eager to exert influence over the nominating process. In past elections, the opportunities provided by early contests for candidates to gain momentum has resulted in more attention being paid to those states. Other candidates have stumbled in early contests and had to drop out. By the time other states held their primaries, the nominee was already apparent.
The desire to play a role in the nominating process has been so strong that more than 20 states have scheduled one or more party contests on Feb. 5, the earliest date permitted by both parties on which states may hold a contest without penalty.
FULL STORY
Congressional Quarterly
1. What are Florida and Michigan’s 2008 presidential primary dates and how and when were those dates finalized?
On May 21, Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist signed legislation into law designating Jan. 29 as the state’s presidential primary date. The primary had been previously scheduled for March.
In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm signed legislation into law Sept. 4 establishing Jan. 15 as the state’s presidential primary date. But, lower courts in Michigan ruled that the primary process was unconstitutional because Michigan political parties would obtain information regarding voters’ political affiliation through the primary process and that information would not be made public. Voters do not register by party in Michigan. But the State Supreme Court decided Nov. 21 to overturn those rulings and allow the Jan. 15 date to stand.
2. Why did these states and others schedule earlier delegate selection contests?
There is no heir-apparent for either party’s nomination and states are eager to exert influence over the nominating process. In past elections, the opportunities provided by early contests for candidates to gain momentum has resulted in more attention being paid to those states. Other candidates have stumbled in early contests and had to drop out. By the time other states held their primaries, the nominee was already apparent.
The desire to play a role in the nominating process has been so strong that more than 20 states have scheduled one or more party contests on Feb. 5, the earliest date permitted by both parties on which states may hold a contest without penalty.
FULL STORY
06 December 2007
Judge won't force DNC to seat delegates
By Bill Cotterell
Florida Capital News
6 December 2007
Not wanting to spark "a free-for-all" of states leapfrogging each other in the presidential campaign, a federal judge Wednesday refused to make the Democratic National Committee seat Florida's 210-member delegation to next summer's nominating convention.
Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that parties may set their schedules and enforce penalties against states defying them, as Florida did by setting a Jan. 29 date for its presidential primary.
Hinkle granted DNC Chairman Howard Dean's motion to dismiss the legal challenge brought by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings. Nelson and his chief lawyer said they won't appeal.
"It's OK that the national party has allowed certain states to go first," Hinkle said after an hour of arguments. "There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a free-for-all that lets every state do what it pleases."
FULL STORY
Florida Capital News
6 December 2007
Not wanting to spark "a free-for-all" of states leapfrogging each other in the presidential campaign, a federal judge Wednesday refused to make the Democratic National Committee seat Florida's 210-member delegation to next summer's nominating convention.
Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that parties may set their schedules and enforce penalties against states defying them, as Florida did by setting a Jan. 29 date for its presidential primary.
Hinkle granted DNC Chairman Howard Dean's motion to dismiss the legal challenge brought by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings. Nelson and his chief lawyer said they won't appeal.
"It's OK that the national party has allowed certain states to go first," Hinkle said after an hour of arguments. "There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a free-for-all that lets every state do what it pleases."
FULL STORY
04 December 2007
A Progressive Vision of Human Space Exploration
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
4 December 2007
George W. Bush’s "Vision for Space Exploration" is well into its third year. While a welcome departure from Bill Clinton’s zero vision, and the elder Bush’s tragicomically fumbled Space Exploration Initiative, Dubya’s vision is... well, the Texans have a saying: "Big hat, no cattle."
He wants Americans to return to the Moon, but it’s going to take longer to get there than it did the first time under John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. To boldly go where Democrats have taken us before, only slower. George W. wants to take us to Mars as well, but when that will happen is anyone’s guess... before or after we get win the War on Terror? The old saying in the aerospace industry is, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers," and George W. hasn’t requested much from Congress to fund his vision. It's vision on the cheap, like buying a pair of reading glasses at a supermarket.
Some Democrats who would step into his shoes next year would also take up this weakly-held baton of space leadership. Dennis Kucinich has said that he would triple NASA’s budget. If that sounds extravagant, it’s not. It would return the NASA budget to about half of what it was at the peak of the Apollo program. Recently, Hillary Clinton has made some strong statements in support of the human exploration of the solar system. On the other hand, Barack Obama would delay the Constellation program by five years, which, given its already snail’s pace, amounts to a less than candid way of saying he would kill the program. Other presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, seem not to have given space policy much thought. Indeed, except for Clinton's, none of the official campaign websites mentions NASA or human space exploration.
As I have written elsewhere, there is a libertarian, no-holds-barred free enterprise vision of space development. There is also a neoconservative rationale for militarizing space. A progressive vision of space to counterbalance these has yet to be articulated to a comparable level of prominence. This is of particular importance to California as a leader in the aerospace and high tech industries.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
4 December 2007
George W. Bush’s "Vision for Space Exploration" is well into its third year. While a welcome departure from Bill Clinton’s zero vision, and the elder Bush’s tragicomically fumbled Space Exploration Initiative, Dubya’s vision is... well, the Texans have a saying: "Big hat, no cattle."
He wants Americans to return to the Moon, but it’s going to take longer to get there than it did the first time under John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. To boldly go where Democrats have taken us before, only slower. George W. wants to take us to Mars as well, but when that will happen is anyone’s guess... before or after we get win the War on Terror? The old saying in the aerospace industry is, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers," and George W. hasn’t requested much from Congress to fund his vision. It's vision on the cheap, like buying a pair of reading glasses at a supermarket.
Some Democrats who would step into his shoes next year would also take up this weakly-held baton of space leadership. Dennis Kucinich has said that he would triple NASA’s budget. If that sounds extravagant, it’s not. It would return the NASA budget to about half of what it was at the peak of the Apollo program. Recently, Hillary Clinton has made some strong statements in support of the human exploration of the solar system. On the other hand, Barack Obama would delay the Constellation program by five years, which, given its already snail’s pace, amounts to a less than candid way of saying he would kill the program. Other presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, seem not to have given space policy much thought. Indeed, except for Clinton's, none of the official campaign websites mentions NASA or human space exploration.
As I have written elsewhere, there is a libertarian, no-holds-barred free enterprise vision of space development. There is also a neoconservative rationale for militarizing space. A progressive vision of space to counterbalance these has yet to be articulated to a comparable level of prominence. This is of particular importance to California as a leader in the aerospace and high tech industries.
FULL STORY
03 December 2007
Oregon GOP Takes Dems off Crime List
by Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
3 December 2007
I had to read it several times before I believed it. Here was the official policy document of the Oregon the Republican Party equating the Democratic Party with organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorist networks, and openly advocating the use of the police powers of the state against its political rivals. It wasn't just hateful. It wasn't just stupid. It was so stupidly hateful that it was chilling, like a kristallnacht in November nearly 70 years ago.
I sent out a message to my email list calling attention to this outrage. A few hours later, I sent an opinion-editorial to Randy Bayne, which he posted.
The blogosphere had a field day with the story. Within a couple of days the Oregon Republican Party platform was the talk of the Internet. One of many blog entries was by Jesus' General in an open letter to ORP executive director Amy Langdon on 27 November:
However, Jesus' General noted the next day that the offending reference had been removed, and other blogs stated that the Oregon Republican Party platform was changed by the evening of 27 November. Thus, it took me only two days to change the Oregon GOP platform, apparently without a meeting of its Platform Committee. Ha! Who's the Decider now, Dubya? Of course, I had a lot of help from Jesus' General and other commanders of the blogforce.
A Soviet historian once quipped that the most difficult problem in Soviet history was trying to predict it. Likewise, the history of the Oregon GOP is being rewritten as we speak. The rumor is now spreading around the blogosphere that the Oregon Republican Party's website was hacked, and that is how the reference to the Oregon Democratic Party was inserted into the platform. Not so fast, bub. There is such a thing as the Internet Archive, and it provides irrefutable evidence that the reference to the Oregon Democratic Party was in the Oregon Republicans' platform as early as March 2007.
Now, try to tell me that the Oregon GOP website was hacked nearly a year ago, and possibly even earlier, and the Republicans never noticed it until I pointed it out. Right.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
3 December 2007
I had to read it several times before I believed it. Here was the official policy document of the Oregon the Republican Party equating the Democratic Party with organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorist networks, and openly advocating the use of the police powers of the state against its political rivals. It wasn't just hateful. It wasn't just stupid. It was so stupidly hateful that it was chilling, like a kristallnacht in November nearly 70 years ago.
I sent out a message to my email list calling attention to this outrage. A few hours later, I sent an opinion-editorial to Randy Bayne, which he posted.
The blogosphere had a field day with the story. Within a couple of days the Oregon Republican Party platform was the talk of the Internet. One of many blog entries was by Jesus' General in an open letter to ORP executive director Amy Langdon on 27 November:
How many Young Republicans can you put on the street at any given moment to shut down a Democratic meeting? Are they well supplied? Do they have night sticks, tasers, pepper spray, brass knuckles, and Mayor Rudy's Little Black Book of 911 Quotations? Are they supplied with a fetching utility belt on which to carry these tools?
However, Jesus' General noted the next day that the offending reference had been removed, and other blogs stated that the Oregon Republican Party platform was changed by the evening of 27 November. Thus, it took me only two days to change the Oregon GOP platform, apparently without a meeting of its Platform Committee. Ha! Who's the Decider now, Dubya? Of course, I had a lot of help from Jesus' General and other commanders of the blogforce.
A Soviet historian once quipped that the most difficult problem in Soviet history was trying to predict it. Likewise, the history of the Oregon GOP is being rewritten as we speak. The rumor is now spreading around the blogosphere that the Oregon Republican Party's website was hacked, and that is how the reference to the Oregon Democratic Party was inserted into the platform. Not so fast, bub. There is such a thing as the Internet Archive, and it provides irrefutable evidence that the reference to the Oregon Democratic Party was in the Oregon Republicans' platform as early as March 2007.
Now, try to tell me that the Oregon GOP website was hacked nearly a year ago, and possibly even earlier, and the Republicans never noticed it until I pointed it out. Right.
FULL STORY
02 December 2007
I'm a Terrorist and I Vote Democrat!
by Thomas Gangale
California Notes
25 November 2007
As one might expect, the Oregon Republican Party has its platform posted on its website. What is shocking is that under Section 7, "Crimes and Justice," you will find the following subsection 7.5:
"Inter-jurisdictional agency cooperation shall be improved for more effective joint action against organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist networks and the Oregon Democratic Party."
It's certainly a new twist on George W. Bush's statement, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Evidently, in Oregon, the Republican Party equates the Democratic Party with organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorist networks, necessitating the cooperation of various government agencies for joint action against it.
It's one thing when a media creation such as Michael Savage calls liberalism a mental disorder. However, when a political party, in an official and public document, equates an opposing party to criminals and terrorists, and espouses using government agencies to suppress the opposing party's activities, we've gone far beyond the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the contemporary American political landscape, we've now crossed the borders into the horrors of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. When the stated aim of one party is to make political opposition "crimes," requiring the meting out of "justice" as defined by who else but the party, how long before a Guantanamo gulag comes to a town near you? Today Oregon, tomorrow the world.
FULL STORY
California Notes
25 November 2007
As one might expect, the Oregon Republican Party has its platform posted on its website. What is shocking is that under Section 7, "Crimes and Justice," you will find the following subsection 7.5:
"Inter-jurisdictional agency cooperation shall be improved for more effective joint action against organized crime, drug cartels, terrorist networks and the Oregon Democratic Party."
It's certainly a new twist on George W. Bush's statement, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Evidently, in Oregon, the Republican Party equates the Democratic Party with organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorist networks, necessitating the cooperation of various government agencies for joint action against it.
It's one thing when a media creation such as Michael Savage calls liberalism a mental disorder. However, when a political party, in an official and public document, equates an opposing party to criminals and terrorists, and espouses using government agencies to suppress the opposing party's activities, we've gone far beyond the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the contemporary American political landscape, we've now crossed the borders into the horrors of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. When the stated aim of one party is to make political opposition "crimes," requiring the meting out of "justice" as defined by who else but the party, how long before a Guantanamo gulag comes to a town near you? Today Oregon, tomorrow the world.
FULL STORY
26 November 2007
Feinstein's Phony Reform
by Thomas Gangale
California Notes
21 November 2007
During the past week, a wave of outrage has swept through the California Democratic Party in response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's vote to confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as the new United States Attorney General, a guy who, if interviewed as a candidate to become the next Olympics Committee chair, might offer the same equivocating testimony on the prospect of waterboarding as a new competition for the Summer Games. (Certainly the USA could field the Dream Team for this event.) A resolution censuring Senator Feinstein, which has been adopted by numerous local Democratic clubs, county central committees, and even several caucuses of the CDP, alludes to other "instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has worked to oppose the policies and principles of our party."
In one of my areas of expertise--electoral reform--I can testify to a couple of instances of Senator Feinstein's inadequate performance. The issues I address in this article and the following one add to the troubling picture of a Senator who is out of touch with the opinions and interests of the people of California.
One electoral reform issue is the Electoral College. Most Californian's don't like it, and with good reason. Electoral votes for president of the United States are allocated to the states on the basis of their representation in Congress, and of course, while the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives is on the basis of population, the allocation of two senators to each state, regardless of population, violates the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Thus, California's 33.9 million people (as of the 2000 US Census) were allocated 55 electors (53 House seats plus two Senate seats). That's 616,000 Californians per elector. Wyoming--the least populous state--has 494,000 people and three electors (one House seat plus two Senate seats). That's only 165,000 Wyomingites per elector. In other words, one voter in Wyoming has nearly four times the political power of one Californian.
So, in March 2005, Senator Feinstein introduced a measure to abolish the Electoral College and elect the president by direct popular vote. What's wrong with that idea? Theoretically, nothing; practically, everything.
FULL STORY
California Notes
21 November 2007
During the past week, a wave of outrage has swept through the California Democratic Party in response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's vote to confirm Judge Michael Mukasey as the new United States Attorney General, a guy who, if interviewed as a candidate to become the next Olympics Committee chair, might offer the same equivocating testimony on the prospect of waterboarding as a new competition for the Summer Games. (Certainly the USA could field the Dream Team for this event.) A resolution censuring Senator Feinstein, which has been adopted by numerous local Democratic clubs, county central committees, and even several caucuses of the CDP, alludes to other "instances where Senator Feinstein, after seeking and securing the support and endorsement of the California Democratic Party, has worked to oppose the policies and principles of our party."
In one of my areas of expertise--electoral reform--I can testify to a couple of instances of Senator Feinstein's inadequate performance. The issues I address in this article and the following one add to the troubling picture of a Senator who is out of touch with the opinions and interests of the people of California.
One electoral reform issue is the Electoral College. Most Californian's don't like it, and with good reason. Electoral votes for president of the United States are allocated to the states on the basis of their representation in Congress, and of course, while the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives is on the basis of population, the allocation of two senators to each state, regardless of population, violates the democratic principle of one person, one vote. Thus, California's 33.9 million people (as of the 2000 US Census) were allocated 55 electors (53 House seats plus two Senate seats). That's 616,000 Californians per elector. Wyoming--the least populous state--has 494,000 people and three electors (one House seat plus two Senate seats). That's only 165,000 Wyomingites per elector. In other words, one voter in Wyoming has nearly four times the political power of one Californian.
So, in March 2005, Senator Feinstein introduced a measure to abolish the Electoral College and elect the president by direct popular vote. What's wrong with that idea? Theoretically, nothing; practically, everything.
FULL STORY
25 November 2007
The Fear of Losing Control in the California Democratic Party
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
24 November 2007
I have spent several days turning over in my mind the events at the California Democratic Party's recent Executive Board meeting in Anaheim. Having taken that time to reflect, I flatter myself that this article is not a knee-jerk reaction to campaign strategist Bob Mulholland's characterization of supporters of the Feinstein censure resolution as "armchair activists," "fringe," "pre-nursing home," and "worse than Bush," Resolutions Committee co-chair John Hanna's pushing Eden James and grabbing his sign, and Art Torres' exhortations before the Resolutions Committee and the General Session.
I have had several encounters with Bob Mulholland, none of them overly pleasant, and this Executive Board meeting was no exception. While the Resolutions Committee was taking a ten-minute break on Saturday night, Bob approached me and demanded, "How many resolutions did you submit?"
I gathered from his demeanor that he felt that the Sonoma County Democratic Party had an excessive number of resolutions before the committee. What Bob didn't know was that half of them were submitted in time for earlier meetings, but somehow they were misplaced by the CDP, and therefore delayed, so the backlog of old resolutions and the new resolutions happened to be stacked up on the committee's current consent calendar.
I shrugged as I craned my neck to reply to this voice from ten inches above. "I don't know exactly."
Immediately he went on the attack. "What that tells me is that they aren't very important. A lot of people are saying that you're sending too many resolutions, but they won't say it to your face."
"Let them say it to my face. I don't care. Anyway, how much money do you have in your wallet? You probably don't know exactly. If that means it's not important, why don't you give me all of your money."
Bob's response was barely audible and not at all intelligible. Next time I see him, I'll ask him, "What's in your wallet?"
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
24 November 2007
I have spent several days turning over in my mind the events at the California Democratic Party's recent Executive Board meeting in Anaheim. Having taken that time to reflect, I flatter myself that this article is not a knee-jerk reaction to campaign strategist Bob Mulholland's characterization of supporters of the Feinstein censure resolution as "armchair activists," "fringe," "pre-nursing home," and "worse than Bush," Resolutions Committee co-chair John Hanna's pushing Eden James and grabbing his sign, and Art Torres' exhortations before the Resolutions Committee and the General Session.
I have had several encounters with Bob Mulholland, none of them overly pleasant, and this Executive Board meeting was no exception. While the Resolutions Committee was taking a ten-minute break on Saturday night, Bob approached me and demanded, "How many resolutions did you submit?"
I gathered from his demeanor that he felt that the Sonoma County Democratic Party had an excessive number of resolutions before the committee. What Bob didn't know was that half of them were submitted in time for earlier meetings, but somehow they were misplaced by the CDP, and therefore delayed, so the backlog of old resolutions and the new resolutions happened to be stacked up on the committee's current consent calendar.
I shrugged as I craned my neck to reply to this voice from ten inches above. "I don't know exactly."
Immediately he went on the attack. "What that tells me is that they aren't very important. A lot of people are saying that you're sending too many resolutions, but they won't say it to your face."
"Let them say it to my face. I don't care. Anyway, how much money do you have in your wallet? You probably don't know exactly. If that means it's not important, why don't you give me all of your money."
Bob's response was barely audible and not at all intelligible. Next time I see him, I'll ask him, "What's in your wallet?"
FULL STORY
21 November 2007
Sonoma County Democratic Party Poopers
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
21 November 2007
If party organizations are "increasingly irrelevant," as the Santa Rosa Press Democrat claimed in its November 19th editorial, "Party Favors," traditional print publications such as the PD are becoming irrelevant even faster. They are a dying breed, and the Press Democrat's lashing out at the Sonoma County Democratic Party is symptomatic of the death throes.
There are a lot of things that are flat out wrong about the PD's editorial, which is unsurprising, since I have never seen a member of their editorial staff at a single meeting of the Central Committee or any of its standing committees. My committee, for instance, hosted a public forum on local water issues a few months ago. Was the PD there? Does the PD care?
Anyone can have an opinion, but the public has a right to expect from the press or anyone else who claims the mantle of opinion leader that the opinion expressed is an informed one. Sadly, the PD's November 19th editorial was an exposition of opinionated ignorance.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
21 November 2007
If party organizations are "increasingly irrelevant," as the Santa Rosa Press Democrat claimed in its November 19th editorial, "Party Favors," traditional print publications such as the PD are becoming irrelevant even faster. They are a dying breed, and the Press Democrat's lashing out at the Sonoma County Democratic Party is symptomatic of the death throes.
There are a lot of things that are flat out wrong about the PD's editorial, which is unsurprising, since I have never seen a member of their editorial staff at a single meeting of the Central Committee or any of its standing committees. My committee, for instance, hosted a public forum on local water issues a few months ago. Was the PD there? Does the PD care?
Anyone can have an opinion, but the public has a right to expect from the press or anyone else who claims the mantle of opinion leader that the opinion expressed is an informed one. Sadly, the PD's November 19th editorial was an exposition of opinionated ignorance.
FULL STORY
14 November 2007
A Modest Proposal to Balance California's Budget
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
14 November 2007
California's latest budget crisis is solved!
Years ago, I hated it when Candlestick Park was renamed 3Com Park. Now it's Monster Park. Sure, that makes more sense; you have to be some kind of a monster to survive the weather in the damned place. Anyway, city governments have been cutting such deals with corporations for years in order to ease their financial woes, so why couldn't the state government do the same thing by leasing the naming rights to the state's geography?
However, I wouldn't want our state to entirely prostitute its geographic identity to corporate advertising; rather, I would insist that some vestige of the original name survive from one corporate sellout to the next. If British Petroleum leased the naming rights to the Santa Barbara Channel, for instance, I wouldn't stand for them renaming it the English Channel. Bugger that! And none of this tedious 3Com Park at Candlestick Point dodge either; you Madison Avenue guys are more clever than that, and if your client's corporate name is tough to fit into this geographic scheme, well that's why you get paid the big bucks.
So, what could we do here in California? Georgia Pacific could add its name to a national forest of its choice, and that might incentivize the company to conserve the forest rather that log it, although it would be kind of weird having the name Georgia on a forest in California. The Morton Salton Sea is a no-brainer. We could have Sequoia Voting Systems National Park, unless Secretary of State Debra Bowen vigorously objects. Nestle and Hershey could compete for the Chocolate Mountains contract, but being a San Franciscan of Italian descent, I'd root for Ghirardelli.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
14 November 2007
California's latest budget crisis is solved!
Years ago, I hated it when Candlestick Park was renamed 3Com Park. Now it's Monster Park. Sure, that makes more sense; you have to be some kind of a monster to survive the weather in the damned place. Anyway, city governments have been cutting such deals with corporations for years in order to ease their financial woes, so why couldn't the state government do the same thing by leasing the naming rights to the state's geography?
However, I wouldn't want our state to entirely prostitute its geographic identity to corporate advertising; rather, I would insist that some vestige of the original name survive from one corporate sellout to the next. If British Petroleum leased the naming rights to the Santa Barbara Channel, for instance, I wouldn't stand for them renaming it the English Channel. Bugger that! And none of this tedious 3Com Park at Candlestick Point dodge either; you Madison Avenue guys are more clever than that, and if your client's corporate name is tough to fit into this geographic scheme, well that's why you get paid the big bucks.
So, what could we do here in California? Georgia Pacific could add its name to a national forest of its choice, and that might incentivize the company to conserve the forest rather that log it, although it would be kind of weird having the name Georgia on a forest in California. The Morton Salton Sea is a no-brainer. We could have Sequoia Voting Systems National Park, unless Secretary of State Debra Bowen vigorously objects. Nestle and Hershey could compete for the Chocolate Mountains contract, but being a San Franciscan of Italian descent, I'd root for Ghirardelli.
FULL STORY
13 November 2007
Feinstein Frees Fresno from Toyota Torture
by Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
13 November 2007
I have come to love Fresno. Some of my best friends are in Fresno, and they have shown me unbounded hospitality and generosity. But, I have to say, in whining about a recent Toyota Prius advertisement on TV, Fresno and Senator Dianne Feinstein have only succeeded in making themselves more ridiculous. A lot of people, including myself, wouldn't have even known about the ad had Fresno stoically accepted it as a rite of passage.
Way to go, Fresno. After all these years, some finally made a joke about you to the rest of the nation. You finally caught up with Lodi. But, I don't recall that back in 1969, when John Fogerty wrote and recorded his lament over being stuck in Lodi, the city's residents rioted in front of Fantasy Records and burned Creedence Clearwater Revival albums.
One cannot choose but wonder that Toyota's little dig at Fresno rose straight to the top of Senator Feinstein's priorities, even though there's a war on, it's not going particularly well, et cetera. Funny thing, when I spoke about pandering politicians during a panel discussion in Fresno just as this story was breaking, I had Senator Feinstein very much in mind. I was speaking on another issue, and I hadn't heard yet that she had weighed in on the Prius controversy and had sent Toyota a nastygram. In so doing, she has given this already ridiculous flap an extended life. One day she votes to confirm a US attorney general who isn't clear on whether waterboarding is torture, and the next day the Senator is very clear on the question of Toyota torturing Fresno. How sensitive of her. Of course, like me, she's one of those touchy-feely San Franciscans, and that's lucky for me, otherwise she might have her new attorney general waterboard me for the things I write about her.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
13 November 2007
I have come to love Fresno. Some of my best friends are in Fresno, and they have shown me unbounded hospitality and generosity. But, I have to say, in whining about a recent Toyota Prius advertisement on TV, Fresno and Senator Dianne Feinstein have only succeeded in making themselves more ridiculous. A lot of people, including myself, wouldn't have even known about the ad had Fresno stoically accepted it as a rite of passage.
Way to go, Fresno. After all these years, some finally made a joke about you to the rest of the nation. You finally caught up with Lodi. But, I don't recall that back in 1969, when John Fogerty wrote and recorded his lament over being stuck in Lodi, the city's residents rioted in front of Fantasy Records and burned Creedence Clearwater Revival albums.
One cannot choose but wonder that Toyota's little dig at Fresno rose straight to the top of Senator Feinstein's priorities, even though there's a war on, it's not going particularly well, et cetera. Funny thing, when I spoke about pandering politicians during a panel discussion in Fresno just as this story was breaking, I had Senator Feinstein very much in mind. I was speaking on another issue, and I hadn't heard yet that she had weighed in on the Prius controversy and had sent Toyota a nastygram. In so doing, she has given this already ridiculous flap an extended life. One day she votes to confirm a US attorney general who isn't clear on whether waterboarding is torture, and the next day the Senator is very clear on the question of Toyota torturing Fresno. How sensitive of her. Of course, like me, she's one of those touchy-feely San Franciscans, and that's lucky for me, otherwise she might have her new attorney general waterboard me for the things I write about her.
FULL STORY
01 November 2007
N.H., Iowa Keep the Candidates' Attention
Wallets Open Wide Despite Changes in Primary Calendar
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post
31 October 2007
PLYMOUTH, N.H. -- Just down the block from Anderson's Bakery and across from the local movie house with a flickering neon sign, a group of young men with laptops moved into a tan Cape Cod and announced their presence with a billboard out front: "Hillary."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's storefront office in this New England hamlet (population 5,892) is one of 16 the New York Democrat has set up with paid staff around the state that is expected to hold the nation's first presidential primary. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), perhaps her strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, has plans to open his own office in Plymouth, which will give him a base of operations in 15 locations. Between them, the two campaigns have more than 140 paid field staffers across the state.
The extensive spending here, as described by local officials and laid out in campaign finance reports, provides a look at how money is changing the way presidential hopefuls are approaching the pivotal early contests.
The decision by most of the leading presidential candidates to opt out of the public financing system that would have restricted their primary spending in New Hampshire to less than $800,000 has resulted in armies of paid workers trying to squeeze votes out of every corner of the state.
"The amount of money being spent in the early states are of an order of magnitude that we've never seen before," said Alan Solomont, who oversees northeastern fundraising for the Obama campaign.
The huge spending here has helped debunk the notion that an increasingly front-loaded primary calendar would diminish the influence of New Hampshire and Iowa. Democratic candidates have spent $2.4 million in New Hampshire so far this year on rent and staff alone. That is more than double the $1.1 million they had spent in the state at this point in 2003. The numbers are even more pronounced in Iowa, where Democrats have spent $4.6 million so far this year -- almost four times the $1.2 million they expended four years ago. Republicans have spent more than $4 million on rent and staff in New Hampshire and Iowa so far this year.
The glut in spending has come before most of the candidates have started to invest substantial amounts in the most costly aspect of a campaign -- television advertising.
FULL STORY
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post
31 October 2007
PLYMOUTH, N.H. -- Just down the block from Anderson's Bakery and across from the local movie house with a flickering neon sign, a group of young men with laptops moved into a tan Cape Cod and announced their presence with a billboard out front: "Hillary."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's storefront office in this New England hamlet (population 5,892) is one of 16 the New York Democrat has set up with paid staff around the state that is expected to hold the nation's first presidential primary. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), perhaps her strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, has plans to open his own office in Plymouth, which will give him a base of operations in 15 locations. Between them, the two campaigns have more than 140 paid field staffers across the state.
The extensive spending here, as described by local officials and laid out in campaign finance reports, provides a look at how money is changing the way presidential hopefuls are approaching the pivotal early contests.
The decision by most of the leading presidential candidates to opt out of the public financing system that would have restricted their primary spending in New Hampshire to less than $800,000 has resulted in armies of paid workers trying to squeeze votes out of every corner of the state.
"The amount of money being spent in the early states are of an order of magnitude that we've never seen before," said Alan Solomont, who oversees northeastern fundraising for the Obama campaign.
The huge spending here has helped debunk the notion that an increasingly front-loaded primary calendar would diminish the influence of New Hampshire and Iowa. Democratic candidates have spent $2.4 million in New Hampshire so far this year on rent and staff alone. That is more than double the $1.1 million they had spent in the state at this point in 2003. The numbers are even more pronounced in Iowa, where Democrats have spent $4.6 million so far this year -- almost four times the $1.2 million they expended four years ago. Republicans have spent more than $4 million on rent and staff in New Hampshire and Iowa so far this year.
The glut in spending has come before most of the candidates have started to invest substantial amounts in the most costly aspect of a campaign -- television advertising.
FULL STORY
31 October 2007
Vote Early, Count Often
By Jonathan Soros
New York Times
New York, New York
30 October 2007
THE system we use to select the major-party presidential nominees in this country is badly broken. That New Hampshire may move its primary into 2007 should be evidence enough. But focusing on the absurdity of the primary calendar obscures a problem of greater significance: not all voters are equal. To correct that sad truth we must change the way we select candidates.
The only solution that treats every voter equally would be to establish a true national primary, with every state voting on the same day. Unfortunately, this format would eliminate the essential “retail” politics of small-state primaries and turn the contest into a nasty televised slugfest among the candidates with the most money.
There is, however, a simple way to establish a national primary and yet still allow retail politicking to meaningfully affect the course of the campaign over several months: allow early voting, with regular reporting of the tally.
Here’s one way it could work. Set a national primary date of June 30 and create a window for early voting that opens on Jan. 1. The early votes would be counted and reported at the end of each month from January through May.
FULL STORY
New York Times
New York, New York
30 October 2007
THE system we use to select the major-party presidential nominees in this country is badly broken. That New Hampshire may move its primary into 2007 should be evidence enough. But focusing on the absurdity of the primary calendar obscures a problem of greater significance: not all voters are equal. To correct that sad truth we must change the way we select candidates.
The only solution that treats every voter equally would be to establish a true national primary, with every state voting on the same day. Unfortunately, this format would eliminate the essential “retail” politics of small-state primaries and turn the contest into a nasty televised slugfest among the candidates with the most money.
There is, however, a simple way to establish a national primary and yet still allow retail politicking to meaningfully affect the course of the campaign over several months: allow early voting, with regular reporting of the tally.
Here’s one way it could work. Set a national primary date of June 30 and create a window for early voting that opens on Jan. 1. The early votes would be counted and reported at the end of each month from January through May.
FULL STORY
30 October 2007
Baseball and Global Warming
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
Oakland, California
29 October 2007
With the long, long baseball season finally over, I now reflect on a visit to Washington, DC a while back. I stayed with an old flying buddy who is an Air Force Academy graduate, has a strategic planning job as a GS-14, and holds the rank of full-bird colonel in the West Virginia Air National Guard. After an afternoon of walking the Manassas battlefield in the sweltering Virginia summer, we talked about Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and global warming over an Italian dinner.
"It's not greenhouse gases," Mike said in a matter of fact manner, "It's baseball."
It was only due to my military training that I avoided spewing cabernet all over the good colonel. "Baseball?"
"Baseball. Nature is a baseball fan. She's warming up the planet so that more baseball can be played in more places and for longer seasons."
Needless to say, I was skeptical, but as we explored Mike's theory, I saw that the logic was inescapable.
"In temperate climates, baseball is played from spring to autumn, but not in winter. But, look where the winter leagues are... in the tropics: Mexico and the Caribbean. It's warmer there. And where are all of the spring training camps? Arizona and Florida. Hot there, right?"
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
Oakland, California
29 October 2007
With the long, long baseball season finally over, I now reflect on a visit to Washington, DC a while back. I stayed with an old flying buddy who is an Air Force Academy graduate, has a strategic planning job as a GS-14, and holds the rank of full-bird colonel in the West Virginia Air National Guard. After an afternoon of walking the Manassas battlefield in the sweltering Virginia summer, we talked about Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and global warming over an Italian dinner.
"It's not greenhouse gases," Mike said in a matter of fact manner, "It's baseball."
It was only due to my military training that I avoided spewing cabernet all over the good colonel. "Baseball?"
"Baseball. Nature is a baseball fan. She's warming up the planet so that more baseball can be played in more places and for longer seasons."
Needless to say, I was skeptical, but as we explored Mike's theory, I saw that the logic was inescapable.
"In temperate climates, baseball is played from spring to autumn, but not in winter. But, look where the winter leagues are... in the tropics: Mexico and the Caribbean. It's warmer there. And where are all of the spring training camps? Arizona and Florida. Hot there, right?"
FULL STORY
29 October 2007
The 2008 Presidential Primaries: Another Inconvenient Truth
By Thomas GangaleCalifornia Progress Report
Oakland, California
18 December 2006
Berkeley Daily Planet
Berkeley, California
19 December 2006
Marin Independent Journal
Novato, California
29 December 2006
The 2006 elections are over, and the 2008 presidential race has begun. Most news coverage will focus on personalities, and once in a while on issues. What will go mostly unreported is the fact that we have a serious structural flaw in the presidential selection process that renders the issues and personalities almost superfluous. The "inconvenient truth" is that the primary/caucus system is an unfolding disaster, a bad process that produces presidential nominees who are less than America's best.
The problem is that every state wants to be first on the calendar. Being first means that all of the candidates desperately want to win your state to claim the mantle as the front-runner. Being later in the season means being ignored by the candidates; by then, one of them has locked up the nomination, and the campaign is already over.
Of course, as states shift their primaries and caucuses earlier in the calendar, Iowa and New Hampshire move their respective caucuses and primary forward to stay ahead of the pack. In 1972, New Hampshire held its primary on March 7. In 2004, the primary was held on January 19.
It's going to get worse before it gets... even worse. Earlier this year, when a bill was introduced in the California legislature to move its presidential primary ahead of all other states, to as early as January 2 if necessary, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner threatened to thrust his state's primary into December. The best idea the Democratic Party can come up with to fix the problem only adds to it. In 2008, it is allowing Nevada's caucuses and South Carolina's primary to move near the front of the calendar.
So what? Why should you care when presidential primaries occur, or when the parties' nominees are determined?
In 1976, there were four months of competitive campaigning. The delegates from every state had to be selected before it was determined that Gerald Ford had survived Ronald Reagan's challenge. In 2004, when Dean suspended his campaign, only about one-fifth of the delegates had been selected from a handful of states. To eighty percent of the country, the Kerry nomination was a fait accompli. That's not democracy.
A shorter campaign season also means that any grassroots campaign operating on a shoestring budget is doomed from the start. There is no chance to score a few, early victories in small states where campaigning is inexpensive, leverage these to bring in more media attention and more campaign contributions, and thereby grow the campaign to be competitive in the later, larger, mass-media markets. The real campaign is not about courting votes, it's about counting cash. A Republican National Committee report lamented in May 2000, "It is an indisputable fact that in every nomination campaign since 1980, in both parties, the eventual party nominee was the candidate who had raised the most money by December 31 of the year before the general election." The early primaries dutifully rubber-stamp the decision of the donors. That's not democracy.
So, about a year from now, on December 31, 2007, the presidential nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties will be determined. Just count the money, then indulge in New Year's revelry as you may. The primaries and caucuses that follow will be an empty sham.
The curious thing is that so few have noticed that the real decision has been taken out of the hands of the voters. If, in one quadrennial cycle, was had gone from the campaign calendar of 1972 to that of 2004, we would, as Al Gore's frog, have immediately jumped out of the boiling pot. However, we have sat in that pot for thirty years without noticing that our democracy was slowly being cooked.
26 October 2007
New Hampshire's turn as leader may be up
By Roger Simon
politico.com
24 October 2007
At this point, the presidential nominating calendar for 2008 is more easily deplored than described.
Somebody is going to go first. We know that.
Maybe it will be New Hampshire. Or maybe not.
Maybe New Hampshire will go in December. Or maybe not.
After that, it gets kind of confusing.
I went to the Christian Science Monitor breakfast Wednesday to hear Carl Levin speak.
Levin is the senior Democratic senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and an expert on both foreign and domestic affairs.
He talked very knowledgeably for more than half an hour about Iraq, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, missile defense deployment in Europe, CAFE standards (which, interestingly enough, have nothing to do with cafes) and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
I didn’t pay any attention.
OK, I paid a little attention. I took notes (just in case any of it is on the final), but I had come for something far more important than things like war, peace and the environment.
I had come to hear Levin say bad things about New Hampshire.
Levin hates New Hampshire. Not the people or the foliage, just the fact that New Hampshire holds the first primary in the nation. (Levin also hates Iowa because it holds the first caucus in the nation, but he hates New Hampshire more.)
Levin has argued for years that New Hampshire is a small state that is not representative of the nation and it would make more sense for some other state — Michigan, for instance — to begin the nominating process.
By general agreement, the other 48 states allow New Hampshire and Iowa to go first because when those two states feel threatened, they go absolutely ballistic and vow to halt syrup and ethanol production and possibly form their own nation.
FULL STORY
politico.com
24 October 2007
At this point, the presidential nominating calendar for 2008 is more easily deplored than described.
Somebody is going to go first. We know that.
Maybe it will be New Hampshire. Or maybe not.
Maybe New Hampshire will go in December. Or maybe not.
After that, it gets kind of confusing.
I went to the Christian Science Monitor breakfast Wednesday to hear Carl Levin speak.
Levin is the senior Democratic senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and an expert on both foreign and domestic affairs.
He talked very knowledgeably for more than half an hour about Iraq, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, missile defense deployment in Europe, CAFE standards (which, interestingly enough, have nothing to do with cafes) and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
I didn’t pay any attention.
OK, I paid a little attention. I took notes (just in case any of it is on the final), but I had come for something far more important than things like war, peace and the environment.
I had come to hear Levin say bad things about New Hampshire.
Levin hates New Hampshire. Not the people or the foliage, just the fact that New Hampshire holds the first primary in the nation. (Levin also hates Iowa because it holds the first caucus in the nation, but he hates New Hampshire more.)
Levin has argued for years that New Hampshire is a small state that is not representative of the nation and it would make more sense for some other state — Michigan, for instance — to begin the nominating process.
By general agreement, the other 48 states allow New Hampshire and Iowa to go first because when those two states feel threatened, they go absolutely ballistic and vow to halt syrup and ethanol production and possibly form their own nation.
FULL STORY
25 October 2007
Primary Season Has Already Passed Us By
By Marc Fisher
Washington Post
Washington, DC
25 October 2007
Any minute now, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will head to the polls and select the presidential candidate who cooked them the best dinner and did the best job ironing their shirts.
The personal attention candidates for the highest office in the land are lavishing on citizens of those two small states -- the wannabes have made, I kid you not, at least 1,448 appearances in Iowa and 691 in New Hampshire this year alone -- contrasts rather sharply with what we get here:
Total appearances by all candidates in Virginia: 40. In Maryland: 16. And most of those were fundraisers for high rollers.
When it comes to picking the nominees for president, Virginia, Maryland and the District have about as much say as Finland.
FULL STORY
Washington Post
Washington, DC
25 October 2007
Any minute now, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will head to the polls and select the presidential candidate who cooked them the best dinner and did the best job ironing their shirts.
The personal attention candidates for the highest office in the land are lavishing on citizens of those two small states -- the wannabes have made, I kid you not, at least 1,448 appearances in Iowa and 691 in New Hampshire this year alone -- contrasts rather sharply with what we get here:
Total appearances by all candidates in Virginia: 40. In Maryland: 16. And most of those were fundraisers for high rollers.
When it comes to picking the nominees for president, Virginia, Maryland and the District have about as much say as Finland.
FULL STORY
24 October 2007
Republicans Move to Punish 5 Early-Contest States
By June Kronholz
Wall Street Journal
New York, New York
22 October 2007
Republicans "always believe in redemption," Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan told reporters today. But barring that, he added, the party will strip New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their convention delegates next summer.
Their sin: scheduling their presidential primaries or caucuses outside the six-month delegate-selection window set by the party in 2004.
Duncan announced the punishment during a break in a party meeting on the "call to convention." That call, which will be issued after the 2007 elections, will detail how many delegates-and votes-each state will be allotted when Republicans hold their national convention in St. Paul, Minn., next Sept. 1-4.
It also comes amid weeks of confusion and one-upmanship as a few states have attempted to raise their visibility and importance in the presidential-selection process by leapfrogging ahead of each other. As a result, the primary calendar is still in flux just weeks before the first votes are expected.
Republicans agreed at their 2004 convention that states should hold their primaries and caucuses between Feb. 5 and July 28, 2008. States voting outside that window were to lose half their delegates, a threat that hasn't deterred some. As it is, Wyoming will hold a delegate-selection convention on Jan. 5; Michigan will hold a primary on Jan. 15; South Carolina's Republican primary is Jan. 19 and Florida's primary is Jan. 29. New Hampshire, determined to retain its first-in-the-nation claim, hasn't set a primary date yet.
Iowa's Jan. 3 Republican caucus seems safe because it's not much more than a presidential beauty contest; delegates will be chosen at a party convention in June. Nevada's Jan. 19 caucus is in the same boat.
The party won't bring down its wrath on candidates who want to campaign in those five states-unlike the Democratic candidates, who have pledged not to campaign in any state that has jumped the party gun.
It's not too late for states to reschedule their contests and retain the delegates, Duncan added. The end may be near, but all could be forgiven, he added.
FULL STORY
Wall Street Journal
New York, New York
22 October 2007
Republicans "always believe in redemption," Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan told reporters today. But barring that, he added, the party will strip New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their convention delegates next summer.
Their sin: scheduling their presidential primaries or caucuses outside the six-month delegate-selection window set by the party in 2004.
Duncan announced the punishment during a break in a party meeting on the "call to convention." That call, which will be issued after the 2007 elections, will detail how many delegates-and votes-each state will be allotted when Republicans hold their national convention in St. Paul, Minn., next Sept. 1-4.
It also comes amid weeks of confusion and one-upmanship as a few states have attempted to raise their visibility and importance in the presidential-selection process by leapfrogging ahead of each other. As a result, the primary calendar is still in flux just weeks before the first votes are expected.
Republicans agreed at their 2004 convention that states should hold their primaries and caucuses between Feb. 5 and July 28, 2008. States voting outside that window were to lose half their delegates, a threat that hasn't deterred some. As it is, Wyoming will hold a delegate-selection convention on Jan. 5; Michigan will hold a primary on Jan. 15; South Carolina's Republican primary is Jan. 19 and Florida's primary is Jan. 29. New Hampshire, determined to retain its first-in-the-nation claim, hasn't set a primary date yet.
Iowa's Jan. 3 Republican caucus seems safe because it's not much more than a presidential beauty contest; delegates will be chosen at a party convention in June. Nevada's Jan. 19 caucus is in the same boat.
The party won't bring down its wrath on candidates who want to campaign in those five states-unlike the Democratic candidates, who have pledged not to campaign in any state that has jumped the party gun.
It's not too late for states to reschedule their contests and retain the delegates, Duncan added. The end may be near, but all could be forgiven, he added.
FULL STORY
23 October 2007
Starting Gate: Not Waiting For ’08?
By Vaughn Ververs
cbsnews.com
17 October 2008
Now that we can start making our plans for New Year’s Eve, it’s time to think about where we’re going to be spending Thanksgiving. Dixville Notch anyone?
Iowa Republicans have made the decision to move their caucuses up from January 3rd, a week and a half earlier than previously planned. Iowa Democrats could follow or keep theirs at the original January 14th date. Now, the ball is in New Hampshire’s court and that means Secretary of State Bill Gardner. He alone has the power under state law to set the primary date and he’s making it clear that the possibility of moving it to December is no idle threat.
Moves by Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida have complicated the primary process for New Hampshire and Iowa to the point that making such a drastic move may be the best way to ensure the traditional roles Iowa and New Hampshire have become accustomed to. Gardner could decide to set the primary date for January 8th but that may not be acceptable from his perspective.
First, Wyoming Republicans have scheduled their nominating convention for January 5th, and the 8th would technically leave New Hampshire as the third contest. Practically speaking however, Wyoming appears to pose little threat to New Hampshire’s importance in the process. When’s the last time we saw a campaign ad in Cheyenne? A more important consideration may be space and time.
Holding the primaries on the 8th (putting it by rule a full week before the Michigan primary) means that candidates, at least on the Republican side, will have just five dasy in between Iowa and New Hampshire instead of having a full week or more. And that means less time, attention and money flowing into the state. Campaigns and the hordes of media that follow them spend hundreds of millions in the state each four years and a sizable chunk of it comes in the week or two leading up to the primary. If the state becomes sandwiched in between other contests, it may mean all that is literally here today, gone tomorrow.
Holding the primary in December (Gardner has hinted at a date as early as the 11th) could once again put the state in the center of the political universe for a sustained period of time – from Thanksgiving to the primary date. The state would literally be the only game in town unless Iowa Republicans sought to move again, something they’ve said they will not do.
FULL STORY
cbsnews.com
17 October 2008
Now that we can start making our plans for New Year’s Eve, it’s time to think about where we’re going to be spending Thanksgiving. Dixville Notch anyone?
Iowa Republicans have made the decision to move their caucuses up from January 3rd, a week and a half earlier than previously planned. Iowa Democrats could follow or keep theirs at the original January 14th date. Now, the ball is in New Hampshire’s court and that means Secretary of State Bill Gardner. He alone has the power under state law to set the primary date and he’s making it clear that the possibility of moving it to December is no idle threat.
Moves by Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida have complicated the primary process for New Hampshire and Iowa to the point that making such a drastic move may be the best way to ensure the traditional roles Iowa and New Hampshire have become accustomed to. Gardner could decide to set the primary date for January 8th but that may not be acceptable from his perspective.
First, Wyoming Republicans have scheduled their nominating convention for January 5th, and the 8th would technically leave New Hampshire as the third contest. Practically speaking however, Wyoming appears to pose little threat to New Hampshire’s importance in the process. When’s the last time we saw a campaign ad in Cheyenne? A more important consideration may be space and time.
Holding the primaries on the 8th (putting it by rule a full week before the Michigan primary) means that candidates, at least on the Republican side, will have just five dasy in between Iowa and New Hampshire instead of having a full week or more. And that means less time, attention and money flowing into the state. Campaigns and the hordes of media that follow them spend hundreds of millions in the state each four years and a sizable chunk of it comes in the week or two leading up to the primary. If the state becomes sandwiched in between other contests, it may mean all that is literally here today, gone tomorrow.
Holding the primary in December (Gardner has hinted at a date as early as the 11th) could once again put the state in the center of the political universe for a sustained period of time – from Thanksgiving to the primary date. The state would literally be the only game in town unless Iowa Republicans sought to move again, something they’ve said they will not do.
FULL STORY
22 October 2007
Primary mystery proves curiouser and curiouser
By Paul West
Baltimore Sun
Baltimore, Maryland
17 October 2008
'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'
'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
When it comes to nonsense, Lewis Carroll’s got nothing on the folks who are bringing you the ‘08 campaign.
How about staging a nomination campaign before you know when the elections will be? The candidates have no choice.
Consider: With wide-open races in both parties, the Republican and Democratic contenders have spent the past several years traveling the country, raising and spending tens of millions of dollars in pursuit of the presidency. They’ve aired thousands of TV ads already, put hundreds of advisers and field workers on the payroll and participated in countless debates, forums, TV interviews, webcasts and grassroots events.
And yet, none of the candidates, at this very late date, knows when the first vote will be cast. That’s a rather significant problem, one that greatly complicates their efforts to devise a winning strategy.
Is the first primary two and a half months away? Or will it be in a matter of a few weeks? Will the big states of Michigan and Florida stage showdowns in January? Or, if they are only symbolic "beauty contests," will they matter?
How about little Iowa and New Hampshire, whose symbiotic relationship has outsized influence on the final outcome? Remember Howard Dean’s scream last time? The one-time frontrunner howled in Iowa and was effectively finished, eight days later, when he failed to take New Hampshire. This time, those two states are likely to be closer together than ever before, with unpredictable consequences.
FULL STORY
Baltimore Sun
Baltimore, Maryland
17 October 2008
'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'
'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
When it comes to nonsense, Lewis Carroll’s got nothing on the folks who are bringing you the ‘08 campaign.
How about staging a nomination campaign before you know when the elections will be? The candidates have no choice.
Consider: With wide-open races in both parties, the Republican and Democratic contenders have spent the past several years traveling the country, raising and spending tens of millions of dollars in pursuit of the presidency. They’ve aired thousands of TV ads already, put hundreds of advisers and field workers on the payroll and participated in countless debates, forums, TV interviews, webcasts and grassroots events.
And yet, none of the candidates, at this very late date, knows when the first vote will be cast. That’s a rather significant problem, one that greatly complicates their efforts to devise a winning strategy.
Is the first primary two and a half months away? Or will it be in a matter of a few weeks? Will the big states of Michigan and Florida stage showdowns in January? Or, if they are only symbolic "beauty contests," will they matter?
How about little Iowa and New Hampshire, whose symbiotic relationship has outsized influence on the final outcome? Remember Howard Dean’s scream last time? The one-time frontrunner howled in Iowa and was effectively finished, eight days later, when he failed to take New Hampshire. This time, those two states are likely to be closer together than ever before, with unpredictable consequences.
FULL STORY
18 October 2007
States' presidential primary process flawed
By Ron Eachus
Salem Statesman-Journal
Salem, Oregon
15 October 2007
States are acting crazy. Like children shoving and pushing to get to the front of the line, they've been rearranging their presidential primaries and creating a chaotic process even more dependent on finding the big bucks to win the big states.
The nominating process traditionally starts with the January New Hampshire primary -- which, under that state's law, must be seven days before any similar election -- and the Iowa caucuses. The Democratic and Republican parties have allowed Nevada caucuses and South Carolina primaries before Feb. 5 to add more diversity to the early process.
This year, jealous states began leapfrogging. Florida moved to Jan. 29. South Carolina Republicans jumped to Jan. 19 to be the first in the South, so New Hampshire had to move up at least a week.
Michigan then moved to Jan. 15. Wyoming Republicans jumped to the front by moving to Jan. 5. California and New Jersey moved to Feb. 5, when 20 states now will hold primaries or caucuses.
Many of these moves are contrary to Democratic and Republican party rules.
The Democratic National Committee says it won't seat delegates from Florida and Michigan. Florida Democrats are suing the party.
The major Democratic candidates have pledged not to campaign in Michigan, and all but Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have taken their names off the ballot.
The Republican National Committee also is threatening sanctions against Florida, Michigan, Wyoming and South Carolina.
FULL STORY
Salem Statesman-Journal
Salem, Oregon
15 October 2007
States are acting crazy. Like children shoving and pushing to get to the front of the line, they've been rearranging their presidential primaries and creating a chaotic process even more dependent on finding the big bucks to win the big states.
The nominating process traditionally starts with the January New Hampshire primary -- which, under that state's law, must be seven days before any similar election -- and the Iowa caucuses. The Democratic and Republican parties have allowed Nevada caucuses and South Carolina primaries before Feb. 5 to add more diversity to the early process.
This year, jealous states began leapfrogging. Florida moved to Jan. 29. South Carolina Republicans jumped to Jan. 19 to be the first in the South, so New Hampshire had to move up at least a week.
Michigan then moved to Jan. 15. Wyoming Republicans jumped to the front by moving to Jan. 5. California and New Jersey moved to Feb. 5, when 20 states now will hold primaries or caucuses.
Many of these moves are contrary to Democratic and Republican party rules.
The Democratic National Committee says it won't seat delegates from Florida and Michigan. Florida Democrats are suing the party.
The major Democratic candidates have pledged not to campaign in Michigan, and all but Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have taken their names off the ballot.
The Republican National Committee also is threatening sanctions against Florida, Michigan, Wyoming and South Carolina.
FULL STORY
17 October 2007
Primary Calendar: What A Mess
By Domenico Montanaro
msnbc.com
17 October 2007
Believe it or not, we're inside of 80 days and the candidates still don't know when all of the January (or even December) election days are going to be. Last night, this is what we learned:
-- Iowa Republicans will hold their caucuses Jan. 3
-- South Carolina Democrats will hold their primary Jan. 26
-- Nevada Democrats will hold their caucuses Jan. 19.
Here's what we don't know:
-- will the Iowa Democrats join the Iowa Republicans on Jan. 3?
-- will the New Hampshire primary accept being on Jan. 8, or somehow jump into December and risk some candidates skipping the contest?
-- will the two parties have two different January calendars? As it stands now, Republicans could start on Jan. 3 in Iowa, head to Wyoming for a Jan. 5 caucus, travel to New Hampshire for the Jan. 8 primary, then participate in a Jan. 15 Michigan primary, a Jan. 19 South Carolina primary and end in Florida on Jan. 29. The Democrats are ONLY committed to participating in contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, with Iowa and South Carolina on different January days from the Republicans.
-- If Iowa Democrats are convinced that by going the 14th, they’ll preserve their first-in-the-nation status for 2012 and 2016, they'll do, mark our words on this one.
FULL STORY
msnbc.com
17 October 2007
Believe it or not, we're inside of 80 days and the candidates still don't know when all of the January (or even December) election days are going to be. Last night, this is what we learned:
-- Iowa Republicans will hold their caucuses Jan. 3
-- South Carolina Democrats will hold their primary Jan. 26
-- Nevada Democrats will hold their caucuses Jan. 19.
Here's what we don't know:
-- will the Iowa Democrats join the Iowa Republicans on Jan. 3?
-- will the New Hampshire primary accept being on Jan. 8, or somehow jump into December and risk some candidates skipping the contest?
-- will the two parties have two different January calendars? As it stands now, Republicans could start on Jan. 3 in Iowa, head to Wyoming for a Jan. 5 caucus, travel to New Hampshire for the Jan. 8 primary, then participate in a Jan. 15 Michigan primary, a Jan. 19 South Carolina primary and end in Florida on Jan. 29. The Democrats are ONLY committed to participating in contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, with Iowa and South Carolina on different January days from the Republicans.
-- If Iowa Democrats are convinced that by going the 14th, they’ll preserve their first-in-the-nation status for 2012 and 2016, they'll do, mark our words on this one.
FULL STORY
13 October 2007
New Hampshire's Peculiar Institution
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
Oakland, California
13 October 2007
Two centuries ago, when southern statesmen wanted to defend the indefensible and mention the unmentionable, they referred to their states' enslavement of African Americans as their "peculiar institution;" peculiar in the sense that it was specific to the economic needs of the agrarian South and to the historical development of its culture. It was perfectly legitimate. After all, slavery had been practiced all over the world at one time or another.
However, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, moral norms were changing. The Enlightenment had brought forth the concept of human dignity, and the founders of the American republic, being children of that Enlightenment, had brought forth a government dedicated to human equality. In this changing world, any argument in favor of privilege based on history and ancestry was increasingly indefensible.
Today, the white homeland of New Hampshire argues for its continued privilege of holding the first presidential primary of the campaign season. It argues for keeping the rest of the nation in political second-class status. It clings to this position on the basis of tradition in the face of a changing America, a more diverse America that legitimately calls for opening the political process to broader participation, broader both ethnically and geographically.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
Oakland, California
13 October 2007
Two centuries ago, when southern statesmen wanted to defend the indefensible and mention the unmentionable, they referred to their states' enslavement of African Americans as their "peculiar institution;" peculiar in the sense that it was specific to the economic needs of the agrarian South and to the historical development of its culture. It was perfectly legitimate. After all, slavery had been practiced all over the world at one time or another.
However, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, moral norms were changing. The Enlightenment had brought forth the concept of human dignity, and the founders of the American republic, being children of that Enlightenment, had brought forth a government dedicated to human equality. In this changing world, any argument in favor of privilege based on history and ancestry was increasingly indefensible.
Today, the white homeland of New Hampshire argues for its continued privilege of holding the first presidential primary of the campaign season. It argues for keeping the rest of the nation in political second-class status. It clings to this position on the basis of tradition in the face of a changing America, a more diverse America that legitimately calls for opening the political process to broader participation, broader both ethnically and geographically.
FULL STORY
12 October 2007
A December Primary in New Hampshire? It's His Call
Secretary of State Alone Will Decide, But He's Not Saying
By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post
Washington, DC
12 October 2007
The New Hampshire primary, crowded by other wannabe primaries and caucuses, may be shifted from January to an unprecedented date in early December. It all depends on the calculations of one man.
"I have a lot of discretion," said Bill Gardner, the 16-term secretary of state of New Hampshire, who is invested with what amounts to dictatorial power to set the date under state law. "We are prepared, if it needs to be early December, it can be early December."
FULL STORY
By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post
Washington, DC
12 October 2007
The New Hampshire primary, crowded by other wannabe primaries and caucuses, may be shifted from January to an unprecedented date in early December. It all depends on the calculations of one man.
"I have a lot of discretion," said Bill Gardner, the 16-term secretary of state of New Hampshire, who is invested with what amounts to dictatorial power to set the date under state law. "We are prepared, if it needs to be early December, it can be early December."
FULL STORY
10 October 2007
Are politicians really idiots?
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
Oakland, California
Mark Twain once said, "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
Are politicians really idiots? In order to prove that proposition, one would have to subject a statistically significant sample of them to IQ tests, and of course, they would have to be idiots to comply with such a testing program. It is better to be thought a fool than to be proven one.
But they really do appear to be idiots. Write a letter to one sometime and see if you get a response. Chances are you won't, but if it's your lucky day, you'll receive a bland acknowledgement that in no way addresses the issue you raised in your letter. In fact, you'll wonder whether they actually wrote to you or they mis-addressed their unresponsive response that was intended for some other hapless constituent.
A former Senator, cabinet secretary, and national party chair once chided me, "Do you really think people read their mail?" Stupid me! No, I think their staffers read only enough to figure out what the issue is according to some vague metric, then they weigh all the letters they receive about that issue on a postal scale. Below a certain weight threshold, it's not an important enough issue, so they do nothing.
Now, repeat the experiment. Write another letter, but this time include a $2000 check. Of course, the change in response isn't proof of intelligence... even a plant turns toward the sun.
FULL STORY
California Progress Report
Oakland, California
Mark Twain once said, "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
Are politicians really idiots? In order to prove that proposition, one would have to subject a statistically significant sample of them to IQ tests, and of course, they would have to be idiots to comply with such a testing program. It is better to be thought a fool than to be proven one.
But they really do appear to be idiots. Write a letter to one sometime and see if you get a response. Chances are you won't, but if it's your lucky day, you'll receive a bland acknowledgement that in no way addresses the issue you raised in your letter. In fact, you'll wonder whether they actually wrote to you or they mis-addressed their unresponsive response that was intended for some other hapless constituent.
A former Senator, cabinet secretary, and national party chair once chided me, "Do you really think people read their mail?" Stupid me! No, I think their staffers read only enough to figure out what the issue is according to some vague metric, then they weigh all the letters they receive about that issue on a postal scale. Below a certain weight threshold, it's not an important enough issue, so they do nothing.
Now, repeat the experiment. Write another letter, but this time include a $2000 check. Of course, the change in response isn't proof of intelligence... even a plant turns toward the sun.
FULL STORY
09 October 2007
Rules of Engagement
By Thomas Gangale
It seems that a pink slip is never a good omen, even when the pink slip isn't meant for you. This particular pink slip appeared to be innocuous at first glance. It was a Notice of Attempted Delivery from the post office. It was easy to see how the attempt failed. The intended address was a hundred yards up Magnolia Avenue. So I did what any good citizen would do; when I had a spare moment, I hiked up the street, past the sheep pasture and the horse corral and the baying bloodhounds. I found the right mailbox, and put the pink slip in it.
Mission accomplished.
Well no, not quite. You see, I had gone into action without first devising an exit strategy. Never a good idea. Just as I had delivered the pink slip to its rightful owner, a woman stepped out of the house across the street. "What are you doing messing around in my neighbor's mailbox?"
"The letter carrier mis-delivered a piece of mail...."
"You know, that's a federal offense!"
"Well, as I was explaining, ma'am...."
"In fact, I could shoot you. I've got a gun in my house."
A poster child for the Second Amendment. I thought to myself, what would Charlton Heston do? "All right, let's see it."
This staggered her. "What?"
"Your gun. Go and get it. Let's settle this thing right out here in the street. If you want to spend the rest of your life in prison, what the hell do I care?"
She crossed her yard toward me, stepped up to her fence, and pointed at me. "Who are you?"
I crossed the street to her fence and pulled out my wallet. I didn't immediately see one of my business cards, so took out the handiest piece of identification: my long-expired Air Force ID card. "That's me. Gangale, Thomas E., Captain, USAF. A few years back, but that's me. My hair hadn't turned white yet."
She look at my green military ID card and said, "I was CG," which I took to mean Coast Guard, and she gave me some rating that must have been an enlisted rank. We didn't have too many boats in the Air Force (but the few we did have were pretty nice).
"All right. Are you ready to hear my story or what?"
"Okay."
So I finally got the chance to get my story out. "Are we cool now?"
"Sure."
"Outstanding. Now, where's your salute?"
For all I new, this might have made her snap all over again and this time she really would get her gun, but I was willing to risk it for a little payback on what she had just put me through. I was surprised that she snapped a smart salute. "Sorry, sir," she said with proper contrition.
I returned her salute. "As you were." As any officer understands, one must maintain good order and discipline.
After that, the conversation turned friendly. In fact, it turned very friendly very quickly. It wasn't long before she grabbed my arm and asked me, "You aren't married, are you?"
It seems that a pink slip is never a good omen, even when the pink slip isn't meant for you. This particular pink slip appeared to be innocuous at first glance. It was a Notice of Attempted Delivery from the post office. It was easy to see how the attempt failed. The intended address was a hundred yards up Magnolia Avenue. So I did what any good citizen would do; when I had a spare moment, I hiked up the street, past the sheep pasture and the horse corral and the baying bloodhounds. I found the right mailbox, and put the pink slip in it.
Mission accomplished.
Well no, not quite. You see, I had gone into action without first devising an exit strategy. Never a good idea. Just as I had delivered the pink slip to its rightful owner, a woman stepped out of the house across the street. "What are you doing messing around in my neighbor's mailbox?"
"The letter carrier mis-delivered a piece of mail...."
"You know, that's a federal offense!"
"Well, as I was explaining, ma'am...."
"In fact, I could shoot you. I've got a gun in my house."
A poster child for the Second Amendment. I thought to myself, what would Charlton Heston do? "All right, let's see it."
This staggered her. "What?"
"Your gun. Go and get it. Let's settle this thing right out here in the street. If you want to spend the rest of your life in prison, what the hell do I care?"
She crossed her yard toward me, stepped up to her fence, and pointed at me. "Who are you?"
I crossed the street to her fence and pulled out my wallet. I didn't immediately see one of my business cards, so took out the handiest piece of identification: my long-expired Air Force ID card. "That's me. Gangale, Thomas E., Captain, USAF. A few years back, but that's me. My hair hadn't turned white yet."
She look at my green military ID card and said, "I was CG," which I took to mean Coast Guard, and she gave me some rating that must have been an enlisted rank. We didn't have too many boats in the Air Force (but the few we did have were pretty nice).
"All right. Are you ready to hear my story or what?"
"Okay."
So I finally got the chance to get my story out. "Are we cool now?"
"Sure."
"Outstanding. Now, where's your salute?"
For all I new, this might have made her snap all over again and this time she really would get her gun, but I was willing to risk it for a little payback on what she had just put me through. I was surprised that she snapped a smart salute. "Sorry, sir," she said with proper contrition.
I returned her salute. "As you were." As any officer understands, one must maintain good order and discipline.
After that, the conversation turned friendly. In fact, it turned very friendly very quickly. It wasn't long before she grabbed my arm and asked me, "You aren't married, are you?"
08 October 2007
The presidential primary scam
Why the game is rigged, and why true democracy is only a secondary factor in the nation's rush to nominate the next president.
By Michael Scherer
Salon.com
8 October 2007
It's far worse than you think -- worse than hanging chads, faulty Diebold machines, and billionaires who bankroll last-minute attack ads. The American system for nominating a presidential candidate has about as much in common with actual democracy as Donald Duck has with a lake mallard. It's not just that this year's primaries have been further front-loaded, or that the early primary states aren't representative of the nation at large. There is only passing fairness. There is only the semblance of order. There is nothing like equal representation under the law.
The whole stinking process was designed by dead men in smoky parlors and refined by faceless bureaucrats in hotel conference rooms. It is a nasty brew born of those caldrons of self-interest known as political parties. At every stage, advantage is parceled out like so much magic potion. "The national interest is not considered in any form," says University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "Everything is left up to an ad hoc decision. It's chaotic."
That is not an exaggeration. Consider this: If you are a Republican, your vote for the presidential nominee will be worth more in Tennessee than in New York. If you are a Democrat, your vote in the primary will not count in Florida and is unlikely to count in Michigan. If you are a Republican in Wyoming, you probably won't get to vote at all, since only party officials have a say.
And it gets worse. This election cycle, a top Democratic candidate shaking someone's hand in Miami before the end of January is breaking the rules, unless that someone is handing the candidate a check at the same time. To put it another way, Democrats' communicating with voters has been barred in Florida, but taking money from voters is OK. To put it a third way, the system is not only irrational but offensive to the nation's most basic values. "The only way that you can hear a candidate campaign is if you are willing to pay a campaign contribution," explains Steven Geller, Florida's exasperated state Senate Democratic leader. "It is astounding."
FULL STORY
By Michael Scherer
Salon.com
8 October 2007
It's far worse than you think -- worse than hanging chads, faulty Diebold machines, and billionaires who bankroll last-minute attack ads. The American system for nominating a presidential candidate has about as much in common with actual democracy as Donald Duck has with a lake mallard. It's not just that this year's primaries have been further front-loaded, or that the early primary states aren't representative of the nation at large. There is only passing fairness. There is only the semblance of order. There is nothing like equal representation under the law.
The whole stinking process was designed by dead men in smoky parlors and refined by faceless bureaucrats in hotel conference rooms. It is a nasty brew born of those caldrons of self-interest known as political parties. At every stage, advantage is parceled out like so much magic potion. "The national interest is not considered in any form," says University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "Everything is left up to an ad hoc decision. It's chaotic."
That is not an exaggeration. Consider this: If you are a Republican, your vote for the presidential nominee will be worth more in Tennessee than in New York. If you are a Democrat, your vote in the primary will not count in Florida and is unlikely to count in Michigan. If you are a Republican in Wyoming, you probably won't get to vote at all, since only party officials have a say.
And it gets worse. This election cycle, a top Democratic candidate shaking someone's hand in Miami before the end of January is breaking the rules, unless that someone is handing the candidate a check at the same time. To put it another way, Democrats' communicating with voters has been barred in Florida, but taking money from voters is OK. To put it a third way, the system is not only irrational but offensive to the nation's most basic values. "The only way that you can hear a candidate campaign is if you are willing to pay a campaign contribution," explains Steven Geller, Florida's exasperated state Senate Democratic leader. "It is astounding."
FULL STORY
07 October 2007
Primary (Reform Under False) Colors
In 2005, the Democratic Party had an opportunity to make improvements to the presidential nomination process. It did worse than nothing... it took a broken process and broke it even more!
By Thomas Gangale
Berkeley Daily Planet
Berkeley, California
26 August 2005
The greatest political issue of 2005 is flying under the public's radar: how shall we decide who gets to be on the November 2008 ballot? Ah! To nominate or not to nominate, that is the question!
In 2004, Iowa and New Hampshire nominated John Kerry, then it was all over but the shouting. The voters in later states didn’t really matter. By the time Howard Dean threw in the towel in mid-February, only a fifth of the American electorate had spoken.
In 2008, California will have no voice. The state legislature has moved the primary to June. That'll be about four months after the shouting, unless there is a complete redesign of the nomination process.
The Democratic National Committee has a commission studying possible reforms. How are they doing? An eye-witness to the DNC commission’s July 16 reported, "At one point a commission member noted they didn't have a clear idea of what question they were supposed to be answering." After seven months of work, the commission is still looking for a mission statement.
Taking a look at the commission's website, most of the links on it result in a "Page Not Found" error. There is no way for the ordinary citizen to know what the commission has done, is doing, or will do. Also, this commission was supposed to hold meetings around the country and get lots of input, but all of its meetings have been meeting in Washington. The new DNC chairman Howard Dean has promised a more open and activist Democratic Party, but this commission is the blackest of the black holes, the smokiest of the smoke-filled rooms. The analysis and decision-making that go into determining how the 2008 primary schedule will be laid out ought to be conducted in the full light of day, which as much participation as possible by the party rank and file. This is an issue that all Democrats own, yet it might just as well be locked away at Guantanamo Bay.
This year's Democratic commission may not have the depth of knowledge on this issue that Republicans acquired through dogged experience, so they might well repeat the error that a Republican commission made in 1996 and recommend half-hearted measures, rather than go for a systemic solution as another Republican commission did in 2000 (which George Bush helped to shoot down). If so, then another blitzkrieg campaign looms in 2008, and a small portion of the American electorate will be buried in the rubble of sound-bite rhetoric, while the majority--including all Californians--will be left politically orphaned.
2008 is the grand opportunity. For the first time since 1928, no incumbent president is running for re-election, and no sitting vice-president is running for the top job. The planets are all lined up, and the Democrats are acting like they’re not ready to launch.
A systemic solution is possible, but it must be fair to populous states even as it preserves "retail politicking" in the intimate venues of low-population states in the early part of the campaign season. It would be far better for the two parties to take this leap of faith, if not simultaneously, at least with some confidence that one will follow the other. We, the people, deserve this. The report of the bipartisan Miller commission stated:
"No political process in the United States is more important than our method of nominating presidential candidates, yet none has given rise to so much dissatisfaction. From both ends of the political spectrum come demands for change. A growing resolve on the part of concerned Americans to find a solution to this problem unites Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.... This new movement knows no partisan cast, nor does it seek to benefit any one candidate or faction. It is motivated solely by the belief that the public interest is ill-served by the current nominating system. Its conviction is as simple as it is significant: there must be reform."
That was in 1982. My watch says, "Half past 2005." How about yours?
By Thomas GangaleBerkeley Daily Planet
Berkeley, California
26 August 2005
The greatest political issue of 2005 is flying under the public's radar: how shall we decide who gets to be on the November 2008 ballot? Ah! To nominate or not to nominate, that is the question!
In 2004, Iowa and New Hampshire nominated John Kerry, then it was all over but the shouting. The voters in later states didn’t really matter. By the time Howard Dean threw in the towel in mid-February, only a fifth of the American electorate had spoken.
In 2008, California will have no voice. The state legislature has moved the primary to June. That'll be about four months after the shouting, unless there is a complete redesign of the nomination process.
The Democratic National Committee has a commission studying possible reforms. How are they doing? An eye-witness to the DNC commission’s July 16 reported, "At one point a commission member noted they didn't have a clear idea of what question they were supposed to be answering." After seven months of work, the commission is still looking for a mission statement.
Taking a look at the commission's website, most of the links on it result in a "Page Not Found" error. There is no way for the ordinary citizen to know what the commission has done, is doing, or will do. Also, this commission was supposed to hold meetings around the country and get lots of input, but all of its meetings have been meeting in Washington. The new DNC chairman Howard Dean has promised a more open and activist Democratic Party, but this commission is the blackest of the black holes, the smokiest of the smoke-filled rooms. The analysis and decision-making that go into determining how the 2008 primary schedule will be laid out ought to be conducted in the full light of day, which as much participation as possible by the party rank and file. This is an issue that all Democrats own, yet it might just as well be locked away at Guantanamo Bay.
This year's Democratic commission may not have the depth of knowledge on this issue that Republicans acquired through dogged experience, so they might well repeat the error that a Republican commission made in 1996 and recommend half-hearted measures, rather than go for a systemic solution as another Republican commission did in 2000 (which George Bush helped to shoot down). If so, then another blitzkrieg campaign looms in 2008, and a small portion of the American electorate will be buried in the rubble of sound-bite rhetoric, while the majority--including all Californians--will be left politically orphaned.
2008 is the grand opportunity. For the first time since 1928, no incumbent president is running for re-election, and no sitting vice-president is running for the top job. The planets are all lined up, and the Democrats are acting like they’re not ready to launch.
A systemic solution is possible, but it must be fair to populous states even as it preserves "retail politicking" in the intimate venues of low-population states in the early part of the campaign season. It would be far better for the two parties to take this leap of faith, if not simultaneously, at least with some confidence that one will follow the other. We, the people, deserve this. The report of the bipartisan Miller commission stated:
"No political process in the United States is more important than our method of nominating presidential candidates, yet none has given rise to so much dissatisfaction. From both ends of the political spectrum come demands for change. A growing resolve on the part of concerned Americans to find a solution to this problem unites Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.... This new movement knows no partisan cast, nor does it seek to benefit any one candidate or faction. It is motivated solely by the belief that the public interest is ill-served by the current nominating system. Its conviction is as simple as it is significant: there must be reform."
That was in 1982. My watch says, "Half past 2005." How about yours?
06 October 2007
Slaving for the Progressives
By Thomas GangaleBerkeley Daily Planet
Berkeley, California
17 May 2005
Petaluma Argus-Courier
Petaluma, California
1 June 2005
Remember the old progressive values: better working conditions, shorter work weeks, higher wages? These issues hark back to the capital "P" Progressive Era, when workers struggled to win decent wages and working conditions from the Robber Barons. The movement made great gains in the early and middle 20th century, and fell victim to its own success as its core values became less important, nearly forgotten altogether. These issues ought to be front and center on the progressive stage once again. American middle class incomes have been stagnant for 30 years, and income inequality is the highest it’s been since the Gilded Age of laissez faire capitalism.
Sure, we’re all for saving the whales and the spotted owls and the snail darters and the medflies. Sure, we want clean air and clean water. But meanwhile, we all have to eat and pay the bills.
If you think that the main problem in American society is economic justice, take a look at Boston-based Grassroots Campaigns, Inc., which has offices in major California cities. Their motto is "Building grassroots support for progressive candidates, parties, and campaigns." And, they have been spectacularly successful at it. In 2004, Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. had a target of raising five million dollars for the Democratic Party. They ended up raising $22 million!
How did they do it? By exploiting their workers to a degree that would make John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie beam with approval. The starting annual salary at Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. is $24,000.
But, as they say on late-night TV, "Wait, there’s more." More, more, more hours of toil. For this princely sum of $24,000, Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. expects its employees to work 60 to 70 hours a week, seven days a week. This works out to an hourly rate that is barely above the minimum wage in Massachusetts and California, and well below San Francisco’s "living wage."
Worse working conditions, longer work weeks, lower wages. Right on, man!
For all its political rhetoric, Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. is like any other business, but instead of the profits going to the shareholders, they go to the Democratic Party. In Marxist terms, GCI was able to hand over $22 million to the party instead of the targeted $5 million by extracting surplus labor value from its workers. Obviously, the less you pay the workers and the more you work them, the more money you get to keep for your own purposes. But of course, Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. is fighting the good fight for the progressive cause--for the party--and we must all make sacrifices for the revolution, comrade. The ends justify the means, as usual.
I recently attended what I expected to be a traditional job interview at GCI’s offices in Berkeley. Instead, it turned out to be a mass indoctrination session, where we were told how wonderful it was going to be to adopt this "lifestyle choice." Now if that isn’t Doublespeak, I don’t know what is. You have the "freedom" to choose "slavery."
Most of the attendees either had or were about to receive political science degrees, so they should have had a course in political economy somewhere along the way, and they should have learned all that Marxist stuff about surplus labor value and rates of exploitation. I guess they didn’t let all that education go to their heads. But I’m an old horse, and when they saw that I wasn’t buying the Party line, they whisked me out of the building as though I had a plague that was about to spread to the rest of the herd.
For my money, these so-called progressives at Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. are worse than the capitalists.
Farms? In Berkeley? You bet... Animal Farm.
05 October 2007
The Myth of the Rational Iowa Voter
By Paul Waldman
The American Prospect
3 October 2007
Do the supposedly wise and deliberative citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire take their responsibilities seriously? And if they don't, what does that say about the way we're choosing the next leader of the free world?
In the past week or so, lots of wise and serious commentators have started to say that Hillary Clinton's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries is all but inevitable. She is repeatedly described as having "solidified her lead," not only because of her strength in national polls, but due to the fact that she now leads in New Hampshire by a healthy margin and is in a virtual three-way tie in Iowa. And after all, we know Iowa and New Hampshire voters aren't fickle like those in some other states. They're serious and studious, applying their down-home common sense and refusing to vote for anyone unless they look them in the eye and get a sense of the person behind the politician.
It seems like just yesterday that the reporters and pundits who live for the quadrennial marathon of pandering and debasement that is the campaign for the White House were complaining that things were starting way too early. The first primary contests were over a year away, they groaned, yet the candidates were already tromping through the early states, forcing themselves upon us like dinner party guests who show up at noon when the table isn't set and the food is half-cooked. Yet now that some actual votes are but a few months away, reporters are ready to declare the race all but over.
If there is any consolation, we are told, it is that the wise and deliberative citizens of the early states take their responsibilities so seriously. But do they really? And if they don't, what does that say about the way we're choosing the next leader of the free world?
FULL STORY
The American Prospect
3 October 2007
Do the supposedly wise and deliberative citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire take their responsibilities seriously? And if they don't, what does that say about the way we're choosing the next leader of the free world?
In the past week or so, lots of wise and serious commentators have started to say that Hillary Clinton's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries is all but inevitable. She is repeatedly described as having "solidified her lead," not only because of her strength in national polls, but due to the fact that she now leads in New Hampshire by a healthy margin and is in a virtual three-way tie in Iowa. And after all, we know Iowa and New Hampshire voters aren't fickle like those in some other states. They're serious and studious, applying their down-home common sense and refusing to vote for anyone unless they look them in the eye and get a sense of the person behind the politician.
It seems like just yesterday that the reporters and pundits who live for the quadrennial marathon of pandering and debasement that is the campaign for the White House were complaining that things were starting way too early. The first primary contests were over a year away, they groaned, yet the candidates were already tromping through the early states, forcing themselves upon us like dinner party guests who show up at noon when the table isn't set and the food is half-cooked. Yet now that some actual votes are but a few months away, reporters are ready to declare the race all but over.
If there is any consolation, we are told, it is that the wise and deliberative citizens of the early states take their responsibilities so seriously. But do they really? And if they don't, what does that say about the way we're choosing the next leader of the free world?
FULL STORY
04 October 2007
Over Before It Has Begun
The presidential primary season turns 'goofy' in a sea of money, ego, and hubris
Andrew Gumbel
Los Angeles City Beat
4 October 2007
Many of us may think the season for nominating presidential candidates has barely begun. In fact, though, it is almost over.
The word “season” is generous to the point of absurdity. What we’re looking at is not so much a process of debates, ferocious campaigning, candidate meltdowns and dramatic reversals of fortune like the ones we remember from presidential races past. Instead, it’s going to be more like the opening weekend of a big-budget Hollywood spectacular.
It’s not going to be about quality. It’s not going to be about enduring appeal. It’s going to be all about money and marketing, image-making and branding, and the brute act of getting as many bodies to the polls as humanly possible between dawn and dusk on Tuesday, February 5.
After that, any outstanding questions about who is going to run in November will be academic. Almost exactly half the states are holding their primary that day, including most of the biggies like California and New York. Only the best-funded candidates have a prayer of competing in any meaningful sense, because they – or at least their campaigns – will have to be in several places at once.
There is of course a remedy to the escalating madness. A Marin County political scientist called Thomas Gangale has worked out a whole system he calls the American Plan, whereby the primary season would be composed of eight or 10 key dates starting with the smaller states and building up to the largest states. The exact order would vary from election year to election year, to keep things fair.
The idea is that candidates, even the less well funded ones, would have a chance to do some “retail” politicking in the smaller states and earn votes on the merits of their platforms. If they did well, they could then raise more money and be in a position to compete in the larger states. The better funded candidates, meanwhile, would have to work harder – simply bombarding the airwaves with negative ads won’t cut it.
The idea has been endorsed by the electoral reform group FairVote, among others. Theoretically speaking, there is little to dislike. Even the two major parties acknowledge the primary process is spinning out of control – the former Clinton aide Harold Ickes, now a DNC official, recently described it as "goofy."
FULL STORY
Andrew Gumbel
Los Angeles City Beat
4 October 2007
Many of us may think the season for nominating presidential candidates has barely begun. In fact, though, it is almost over.
The word “season” is generous to the point of absurdity. What we’re looking at is not so much a process of debates, ferocious campaigning, candidate meltdowns and dramatic reversals of fortune like the ones we remember from presidential races past. Instead, it’s going to be more like the opening weekend of a big-budget Hollywood spectacular.
It’s not going to be about quality. It’s not going to be about enduring appeal. It’s going to be all about money and marketing, image-making and branding, and the brute act of getting as many bodies to the polls as humanly possible between dawn and dusk on Tuesday, February 5.
After that, any outstanding questions about who is going to run in November will be academic. Almost exactly half the states are holding their primary that day, including most of the biggies like California and New York. Only the best-funded candidates have a prayer of competing in any meaningful sense, because they – or at least their campaigns – will have to be in several places at once.
There is of course a remedy to the escalating madness. A Marin County political scientist called Thomas Gangale has worked out a whole system he calls the American Plan, whereby the primary season would be composed of eight or 10 key dates starting with the smaller states and building up to the largest states. The exact order would vary from election year to election year, to keep things fair.
The idea is that candidates, even the less well funded ones, would have a chance to do some “retail” politicking in the smaller states and earn votes on the merits of their platforms. If they did well, they could then raise more money and be in a position to compete in the larger states. The better funded candidates, meanwhile, would have to work harder – simply bombarding the airwaves with negative ads won’t cut it.
The idea has been endorsed by the electoral reform group FairVote, among others. Theoretically speaking, there is little to dislike. Even the two major parties acknowledge the primary process is spinning out of control – the former Clinton aide Harold Ickes, now a DNC official, recently described it as "goofy."
FULL STORY
02 October 2007
All Politics Is Glocal
By Thomas Gangale
"All politics is local" was "Tip" O'Neill's famous aphorism of the 1980s. However, in the globalizing world of our new century, politics no longer flows in one direction, downward from the national and state levels; politics also now flows upward to the international level. All politics is now global as well as local, a concept that Roland Robertson's term "glocalization" captures adroitly.
The network of an increasing interconnected planet empowers us to take the local to the world; an event in our town can be broadcast around the globe at the speed of light and can become an issue of global concern. Conversely, to be fully empowered, we must bring the global to the village; for example, we must be aware of disputes before the World Trade Organization and how its rulings affect our livelihoods.
Meanwhile, who are these people from the other side of the planet who are moving into our neighborhood? And, how may I direct your call... here in Bangalore?
Global consciousness is an essential survival tool of the 21st century. Globalization has not been working well for everyone. It works best for those who understand its nexus of processes and who are in a position to steer its course to their advantage.
There is no real mystery here... knowledge is power. So, should you take the time and effort to become globally consciousness or not? It seems to me you just have to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel powerful today?"
Well, do you, punk?
"All politics is local" was "Tip" O'Neill's famous aphorism of the 1980s. However, in the globalizing world of our new century, politics no longer flows in one direction, downward from the national and state levels; politics also now flows upward to the international level. All politics is now global as well as local, a concept that Roland Robertson's term "glocalization" captures adroitly.
The network of an increasing interconnected planet empowers us to take the local to the world; an event in our town can be broadcast around the globe at the speed of light and can become an issue of global concern. Conversely, to be fully empowered, we must bring the global to the village; for example, we must be aware of disputes before the World Trade Organization and how its rulings affect our livelihoods.
Meanwhile, who are these people from the other side of the planet who are moving into our neighborhood? And, how may I direct your call... here in Bangalore?
Global consciousness is an essential survival tool of the 21st century. Globalization has not been working well for everyone. It works best for those who understand its nexus of processes and who are in a position to steer its course to their advantage.
There is no real mystery here... knowledge is power. So, should you take the time and effort to become globally consciousness or not? It seems to me you just have to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel powerful today?"
Well, do you, punk?
01 October 2007
Libertarianism Reaches for the High Frontier
By Thomas Gangale
California Progress Report
1 October 2007
No one who has read the opinion editorial I co-authored the day after Mike Melvill became the first human to reach outer space in a privately-financed spacecraft and launch system should doubt that I view the growth of free enterprise capabilities in space as positive. Burt Rutan, financed by Paul Allen and Sir Richard Branson, is doing fantastic, innovative work. After several decades of waiting, human spaceflight may be entering an entrepreneurial barnstorming era, and I look forward to it with excitement.
However, there is a disturbing political undercurrent running through the cheer-leading section of enthusiasts that hypes privately-financed operations in outer space. They are convinced that the reason it is so difficult for free enterprise to take all of us into space for vacations at hotels orbiting Earth or on the Moon, or to mine the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids for industrial raw materials, is that the international law of outer space that has developed during the last fifty years is a barrier to space entrepreneurship.
I just returned from the space industry's preeminent annual symposium, where, as usual, I present several papers, to find that, sure enough, someone is yammering about that bad old Outer Space Treaty. This time it's an associate professor of Government and International Studies at a small Georgia college. He repeats the same old silly story about how Lyndon Johnson was frightened into signing an anti-capitalist treaty with the Soviet Union in 1967 out of fears that the Evil Empire would reach the Moon first and claim it as sovereign territory.
This is bunk. First of all, the legal status of outer space as res communis had been established a decade earlier, both in practice by the two space launching powers of the time, and in principle via several United Nations resolutions that had the support of both the United States and the Soviet Union. Second, by the end of 1965, halfway through the Gemini program, it was clear that the US had closed the "space gap," having set new records previously held by the USSR, and that it was well on the way to landing the first humans on the Moon. The Soviets started their own lunar program so late and botched it so badly that for the next twenty years they were able to plausibly deny it had ever existed! What possibly could have frightened Lyndon Johnson?
Nothing. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Outer Space Treaty that inhibits free enterprise. Don't take my word for it, just check the cell phone in your pocket. Typical of their uncritical thinking, the space cowboys confuse coincidence with causality. The American push to the Moon in the 1960s was born of Cold War geopolitics and ended when it had served its political purpose. The treaty is not to blame for the fact that the US slashed its space budget and retreated from human space exploration. In any case, what does the rise and fall of the Apollo program, a government project, have to do with the private enterprise economy of outer space? It clearly does not, and if one removes the boom and bust spending cycles of government aerospace budgets, what is left is a fairly steady increase in the private space economy over the past five decades, with its occasional downturns attributable to the economic cycles of the global economy. This is not a mystery.
What has been going on in the space libertarian community for a decade or so is the construction of a Big Lie, a deliberate re-writing of history to make international law the fall guy for the fact that Baby Boomers didn't grow up to live and work in space as our 6th grade Weekly Readers promised us. As an aerospace engineer, I could give you a long technical explanation of why there is no spaceflight analogue to Moore's Law, why the cost per mass to orbit doesn't drop by 50 percent every few years in the same way that the computing power of microchips double every few years, but your eyes would glaze over. As would the eyes of the space cowboys, not least of all because they don't want rocket science to puncture their space mythology.
As a measure of just how far off the edge of the political charts these people are, the most violently unilateralist American regime in history--the one that has been the most destructive to international law, the one that has taken over two formerly sovereign nation-states and turned them over as profit centers for Halliburton, Blackwater, and other American enterprises--backs the Outer Space Treaty to the hilt. Now, you have to scratch your head and wonder why, if the treaty somehow keeps American capitalism from running rampant across the Solar System. Certainly, the Bush Administration has no such qualms regarding Earth! Nevertheless, space libertarians continually clamor for the US to withdraw from the treaty that this administration has called "the bedrock of international space law."
So why should you care what these space cadets say? Because a Big Lie, repeated often enough, can become the Big Truth, as this lie became the truth for the Georgia professor. Because California long has been a big aerospace state, and the Lockheed-Martins, Northrop-Grummans, and Boeings could be corrupted, even more than they already have on Earth, into serving an aggressive American militarist capitalist ideology in outer space. These corporations operate in space, but they are essential to the California economy, and they have an influence over California politics. In this sense, space is right here. The citizens of California have an interest in the character of these companies, and how that character is shaped by US policy and international law. As an Air Force officer, I worked side by side with Lockheed and Grumman engineers, and they're good people, but a military officer far above my rank and well before my time warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex. We need to keep these beasts on a leash, not set them loose to plunder the Solar System as the robber barons of the 21st century.
The space libertarian Big Lie is an easy one to repeat because after fifty years of spaceflight, most people take space-enabled technologies so much for granted that the many ways that they touch us every day is largely invisible to us. In this sense, we are living in space and we don't even know it. The space libertarians have an agenda to change the way we live in space, and therefore how we live on Earth. We ought to wake up to that agenda's ramifications, otherwise there could come a time when these people are taken seriously. They are not kooks and they are not evil. They are well-intentioned but misguided. They gaze at the possible riches of the Solar System, which have blinded them to political consequences.
I believe that it is imperative for us to explore space, not only because the endeavor calls to the better angels of our nature, not only because in the ideal it is adventure absent aggression and risk without robbery, but because in understanding the natural processes of other planets, we calibrate our understanding of processes on our own planet, and thereby gain a better understanding of humankind's environmental impact and how to mitigate it. I believe that we will exploit the natural resources of the Solar System as it becomes economically feasible and necessary, but we must do so thoughtfully, in a way that fosters healthy competition but prohibits the establishment of nation-sized, corporate-feudal estates on the Moon and Mars, where the company towns of a century ago, in which slavery was practiced in all but name, would seem like small potatoes.
About the time that the Outer Space Treaty entered into force forty years ago, Arthur C. Clarke wrote of The Promise of Space. Far more of that promise awaits than we have attained; however, there are not only technical and physical risks in how we reach for the stars, but in the course of that endeavor there are also dangers to American political ideals and economic principles right here on Earth.
California Progress Report
1 October 2007
No one who has read the opinion editorial I co-authored the day after Mike Melvill became the first human to reach outer space in a privately-financed spacecraft and launch system should doubt that I view the growth of free enterprise capabilities in space as positive. Burt Rutan, financed by Paul Allen and Sir Richard Branson, is doing fantastic, innovative work. After several decades of waiting, human spaceflight may be entering an entrepreneurial barnstorming era, and I look forward to it with excitement.
However, there is a disturbing political undercurrent running through the cheer-leading section of enthusiasts that hypes privately-financed operations in outer space. They are convinced that the reason it is so difficult for free enterprise to take all of us into space for vacations at hotels orbiting Earth or on the Moon, or to mine the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids for industrial raw materials, is that the international law of outer space that has developed during the last fifty years is a barrier to space entrepreneurship.
I just returned from the space industry's preeminent annual symposium, where, as usual, I present several papers, to find that, sure enough, someone is yammering about that bad old Outer Space Treaty. This time it's an associate professor of Government and International Studies at a small Georgia college. He repeats the same old silly story about how Lyndon Johnson was frightened into signing an anti-capitalist treaty with the Soviet Union in 1967 out of fears that the Evil Empire would reach the Moon first and claim it as sovereign territory.
This is bunk. First of all, the legal status of outer space as res communis had been established a decade earlier, both in practice by the two space launching powers of the time, and in principle via several United Nations resolutions that had the support of both the United States and the Soviet Union. Second, by the end of 1965, halfway through the Gemini program, it was clear that the US had closed the "space gap," having set new records previously held by the USSR, and that it was well on the way to landing the first humans on the Moon. The Soviets started their own lunar program so late and botched it so badly that for the next twenty years they were able to plausibly deny it had ever existed! What possibly could have frightened Lyndon Johnson?
Nothing. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Outer Space Treaty that inhibits free enterprise. Don't take my word for it, just check the cell phone in your pocket. Typical of their uncritical thinking, the space cowboys confuse coincidence with causality. The American push to the Moon in the 1960s was born of Cold War geopolitics and ended when it had served its political purpose. The treaty is not to blame for the fact that the US slashed its space budget and retreated from human space exploration. In any case, what does the rise and fall of the Apollo program, a government project, have to do with the private enterprise economy of outer space? It clearly does not, and if one removes the boom and bust spending cycles of government aerospace budgets, what is left is a fairly steady increase in the private space economy over the past five decades, with its occasional downturns attributable to the economic cycles of the global economy. This is not a mystery.
What has been going on in the space libertarian community for a decade or so is the construction of a Big Lie, a deliberate re-writing of history to make international law the fall guy for the fact that Baby Boomers didn't grow up to live and work in space as our 6th grade Weekly Readers promised us. As an aerospace engineer, I could give you a long technical explanation of why there is no spaceflight analogue to Moore's Law, why the cost per mass to orbit doesn't drop by 50 percent every few years in the same way that the computing power of microchips double every few years, but your eyes would glaze over. As would the eyes of the space cowboys, not least of all because they don't want rocket science to puncture their space mythology.
As a measure of just how far off the edge of the political charts these people are, the most violently unilateralist American regime in history--the one that has been the most destructive to international law, the one that has taken over two formerly sovereign nation-states and turned them over as profit centers for Halliburton, Blackwater, and other American enterprises--backs the Outer Space Treaty to the hilt. Now, you have to scratch your head and wonder why, if the treaty somehow keeps American capitalism from running rampant across the Solar System. Certainly, the Bush Administration has no such qualms regarding Earth! Nevertheless, space libertarians continually clamor for the US to withdraw from the treaty that this administration has called "the bedrock of international space law."
So why should you care what these space cadets say? Because a Big Lie, repeated often enough, can become the Big Truth, as this lie became the truth for the Georgia professor. Because California long has been a big aerospace state, and the Lockheed-Martins, Northrop-Grummans, and Boeings could be corrupted, even more than they already have on Earth, into serving an aggressive American militarist capitalist ideology in outer space. These corporations operate in space, but they are essential to the California economy, and they have an influence over California politics. In this sense, space is right here. The citizens of California have an interest in the character of these companies, and how that character is shaped by US policy and international law. As an Air Force officer, I worked side by side with Lockheed and Grumman engineers, and they're good people, but a military officer far above my rank and well before my time warned of the influence of the military-industrial complex. We need to keep these beasts on a leash, not set them loose to plunder the Solar System as the robber barons of the 21st century.
The space libertarian Big Lie is an easy one to repeat because after fifty years of spaceflight, most people take space-enabled technologies so much for granted that the many ways that they touch us every day is largely invisible to us. In this sense, we are living in space and we don't even know it. The space libertarians have an agenda to change the way we live in space, and therefore how we live on Earth. We ought to wake up to that agenda's ramifications, otherwise there could come a time when these people are taken seriously. They are not kooks and they are not evil. They are well-intentioned but misguided. They gaze at the possible riches of the Solar System, which have blinded them to political consequences.
I believe that it is imperative for us to explore space, not only because the endeavor calls to the better angels of our nature, not only because in the ideal it is adventure absent aggression and risk without robbery, but because in understanding the natural processes of other planets, we calibrate our understanding of processes on our own planet, and thereby gain a better understanding of humankind's environmental impact and how to mitigate it. I believe that we will exploit the natural resources of the Solar System as it becomes economically feasible and necessary, but we must do so thoughtfully, in a way that fosters healthy competition but prohibits the establishment of nation-sized, corporate-feudal estates on the Moon and Mars, where the company towns of a century ago, in which slavery was practiced in all but name, would seem like small potatoes.
About the time that the Outer Space Treaty entered into force forty years ago, Arthur C. Clarke wrote of The Promise of Space. Far more of that promise awaits than we have attained; however, there are not only technical and physical risks in how we reach for the stars, but in the course of that endeavor there are also dangers to American political ideals and economic principles right here on Earth.
30 September 2007
Griffin: China will beat US to the Moon
spacepolitics.com
17 September 2007
Earlier today NASA administrator Mike Griffin gave a luncheon speech in Washington to talk about the "space economy," a concept part of the agency’s new strategic communications plan. His most noteworthy comment, though, came near the end of the Q&A session after his talk, when he was asked about the potential for cooperation and competition with other emerging space powers, including (but not limited to) China:
FULL STORY
17 September 2007
Earlier today NASA administrator Mike Griffin gave a luncheon speech in Washington to talk about the "space economy," a concept part of the agency’s new strategic communications plan. His most noteworthy comment, though, came near the end of the Q&A session after his talk, when he was asked about the potential for cooperation and competition with other emerging space powers, including (but not limited to) China:
I personally believe that China will be back on the Moon before we are. I think when that happens, Americans will not like it, but they will just have to not like it. I think we will see, as we have seen with China’s introductory manned space flights so far, we will see again that nations look up to other nations that appear to be at the top of the technical pyramid, and they want to do deals with those nations. It’s one of the things that made us the world’s greatest economic power. So I think we’ll be reinstructed in that lesson in the coming years and I hope that Americans will take that instruction positively and react to it by investing in those things that are the leading edge of what’s possible.
FULL STORY
28 September 2007
GOP-backed bid to reform California's electoral process collapsing
By Carla Marinucci
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco, California
28 September 2007
Days after a controversial organization began collecting voter signatures for a ballot measure to change California's winner-take-all primary, a founder of the GOP-backed group says its major players are resigning - and the group will fold - due to lack of funding and support.
"The levels of support just weren't there," said Marty Wilson, the Sacramento-based fundraiser, in a telephone interview Thursday.
Wilson was among the founding members of Californians for Equal Representation, the group led by Sacramento attorney Thomas Hiltachk that intended to collect roughly 434,000 signatures to qualify the Presidential Election Reform Act for the June 2008 ballot.
The measure would have changed the state's winner-take-all means of awarding Electoral College votes to a proportional system that would have awarded 53 of the state's 55 electoral votes - one by one - to the popular vote winner of each of the state's 53 congressional districts. The other two electoral votes would have gone to the statewide popular vote winner.
The change, Democrats had complained, would benefit the GOP - and perhaps alter the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.
"There has not been the financial level of support necessary to run a viable campaign, and there wasn't sufficient interest from donors inside or outside the state to qualify the measure for the ballot," Wilson said.
Wilson said he has disassociated himself from the committee, and he confirmed that Hiltachk, who has represented both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state GOP, resigned from the committee Wednesday, as has spokesman Kevin Eckery.
FULL STORY
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco, California
28 September 2007
Days after a controversial organization began collecting voter signatures for a ballot measure to change California's winner-take-all primary, a founder of the GOP-backed group says its major players are resigning - and the group will fold - due to lack of funding and support.
"The levels of support just weren't there," said Marty Wilson, the Sacramento-based fundraiser, in a telephone interview Thursday.
Wilson was among the founding members of Californians for Equal Representation, the group led by Sacramento attorney Thomas Hiltachk that intended to collect roughly 434,000 signatures to qualify the Presidential Election Reform Act for the June 2008 ballot.
The measure would have changed the state's winner-take-all means of awarding Electoral College votes to a proportional system that would have awarded 53 of the state's 55 electoral votes - one by one - to the popular vote winner of each of the state's 53 congressional districts. The other two electoral votes would have gone to the statewide popular vote winner.
The change, Democrats had complained, would benefit the GOP - and perhaps alter the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.
"There has not been the financial level of support necessary to run a viable campaign, and there wasn't sufficient interest from donors inside or outside the state to qualify the measure for the ballot," Wilson said.
Wilson said he has disassociated himself from the committee, and he confirmed that Hiltachk, who has represented both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state GOP, resigned from the committee Wednesday, as has spokesman Kevin Eckery.
FULL STORY
27 September 2007
Raucous system seems immune to change
By Matt Stearns
McClatchy Newspapers
26 September 2007
Florida's defiant decision to hold its presidential primary weeks earlier than both national parties dictate highlights one inescapable fact: There's no easy fix for this mess of a presidential nominating system.
Parties set rules and dates, but self-interested states ignore them with little fear of meaningful consequence or much concern for the national interest. Would-be reformers tout a variety of fixes, which the states find lacking. Congress suggests that it might step in, but the Constitution might not allow it.
"States are tripping over each other to get to the front lines, and most of them are operating within the rules of the parties," said Ryan O'Donnell, spokesman for FairVote, a non-partisan electoral-change advocacy group. "Clearly, the parties are failing to control the process."
The problems of the current primary-and-caucus nomination game are well documented: It's too fast, too expensive and each election cycle is accelerating the absurdity. Plus, Iowa and New Hampshire, two idiosyncratic early-voting powerhouses that barely reflect the rest of the country, play an outsized role in this electoral Survivor.
The still-unsettled 2008 primary schedule is the worst one yet: With states leapfrogging one another to gain influence and attention, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has formally scheduled its vote, which both states are determined will remain first and second, come what may.
This chaotic system encourages states to jockey for position and leads to overcrowded primary days, forcing campaigns to rely on barrages of negative ads, expensive television buys and quick fly-ins rather than engaging in substantive discussions with voters one state at a time over many months.
FULL STORY
McClatchy Newspapers
26 September 2007
Florida's defiant decision to hold its presidential primary weeks earlier than both national parties dictate highlights one inescapable fact: There's no easy fix for this mess of a presidential nominating system.
Parties set rules and dates, but self-interested states ignore them with little fear of meaningful consequence or much concern for the national interest. Would-be reformers tout a variety of fixes, which the states find lacking. Congress suggests that it might step in, but the Constitution might not allow it.
"States are tripping over each other to get to the front lines, and most of them are operating within the rules of the parties," said Ryan O'Donnell, spokesman for FairVote, a non-partisan electoral-change advocacy group. "Clearly, the parties are failing to control the process."
The problems of the current primary-and-caucus nomination game are well documented: It's too fast, too expensive and each election cycle is accelerating the absurdity. Plus, Iowa and New Hampshire, two idiosyncratic early-voting powerhouses that barely reflect the rest of the country, play an outsized role in this electoral Survivor.
The still-unsettled 2008 primary schedule is the worst one yet: With states leapfrogging one another to gain influence and attention, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has formally scheduled its vote, which both states are determined will remain first and second, come what may.
This chaotic system encourages states to jockey for position and leads to overcrowded primary days, forcing campaigns to rely on barrages of negative ads, expensive television buys and quick fly-ins rather than engaging in substantive discussions with voters one state at a time over many months.
FULL STORY
26 September 2007
Electoral Vote Initiative Is Unconstitutional
By Thomas Gangale
Never mind the partisanship behind Republican lawyer Tom Hiltachk's so-called Presidential Election Reform Act, an initiative that seeks to peel off about twenty of California's electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates in 2008 and indefinitely into the future. Let's just consider the question, does the US Constitution permit a state to determine via a ballot initiative how to cast its electoral votes?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 says in part: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." The Legislature directs... how does this power devolve upon the voters?
Proponents of the Hiltachk initiative might argue that California's initiative process permits the voters to assume some legislative functions, and that this includes changing the rules about allocating the state's electoral votes. Perhaps the initiative's supporters will say that the state legislature gave citizens the right to "legislate" when it gave them the power to propose and pass ballot initiatives; so in effect, nearly a century ago, the state legislature "directed" a "manner" for appointing presidential electors that contemplated the abdication of this power to the people.
This is tortured logic. The body of citizens is certainly not the state legislature. When the Constitution says "legislature," it means exactly that. The initiative process is not an abdication of legislative power; the legislature still legislates. Rather, the initiative process is an alternative method of enacting law. It is not only outside of the legislative power, it is also outside of the executive power; the governor can veto legislation, but he cannot veto an initiative. Therefore, an initiative is not just another kind of legislation, it is of its own kind. Likewise, when we act as a body of citizens, we are not acting in the capacity of a legislature; we are of our own kind.
The distinction between the body of citizens and the legislature as sources of law goes back 2,500 years to the Roman Republic. There were some types of laws that the Senate could pass, while others required passage by one of the various citizens' assemblies. Hence, SPQR, senatus populusque romanus, the Senate and People of Rome. In the same vein, California's legislature and its body of citizens are two distinct lawmaking entities; they aren't us, and we're not them.
Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution also drew this same distinction between a state's legislature and its people. From the beginning, members of the US House of Representatives have been elected by the people. This is not true of the US Senate. Originally, the Constitution provided for senators to be elected by the legislatures of their states; the Framers created two distinct methods of electing the houses of Congress.
The election of US senators by the people came about as a result of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. This transfer of power from legislatures to the people was a very specific reform born of the Progressive Era. To infer that another Progressive Era reform, the initiative process, also transferred the power to appoint electors, is a legal fallacy. If Progressives had intended to transfer such power, they would have stated so explicitly, either in the Seventeenth Amendment or in a companion amendment. They did not.
So, if neither the Framers nor the Progressives intended the people to have the power to direct the manner of appointing electors, the only possible conclusion is that the power does not exist. If enacted, the Hiltachk initiative could not stand legal challenge, and the state attorney general would be forced to waste millions of taxpayer dollars defending a lost cause. Rather than have our pockets picked by Tom Hiltachk, we voters should defeat his initiative at the ballot box. Better yet, don’t sign his petition and keep the initiative off the ballot.
Never mind the partisanship behind Republican lawyer Tom Hiltachk's so-called Presidential Election Reform Act, an initiative that seeks to peel off about twenty of California's electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates in 2008 and indefinitely into the future. Let's just consider the question, does the US Constitution permit a state to determine via a ballot initiative how to cast its electoral votes?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 says in part: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." The Legislature directs... how does this power devolve upon the voters?
Proponents of the Hiltachk initiative might argue that California's initiative process permits the voters to assume some legislative functions, and that this includes changing the rules about allocating the state's electoral votes. Perhaps the initiative's supporters will say that the state legislature gave citizens the right to "legislate" when it gave them the power to propose and pass ballot initiatives; so in effect, nearly a century ago, the state legislature "directed" a "manner" for appointing presidential electors that contemplated the abdication of this power to the people.
This is tortured logic. The body of citizens is certainly not the state legislature. When the Constitution says "legislature," it means exactly that. The initiative process is not an abdication of legislative power; the legislature still legislates. Rather, the initiative process is an alternative method of enacting law. It is not only outside of the legislative power, it is also outside of the executive power; the governor can veto legislation, but he cannot veto an initiative. Therefore, an initiative is not just another kind of legislation, it is of its own kind. Likewise, when we act as a body of citizens, we are not acting in the capacity of a legislature; we are of our own kind.
The distinction between the body of citizens and the legislature as sources of law goes back 2,500 years to the Roman Republic. There were some types of laws that the Senate could pass, while others required passage by one of the various citizens' assemblies. Hence, SPQR, senatus populusque romanus, the Senate and People of Rome. In the same vein, California's legislature and its body of citizens are two distinct lawmaking entities; they aren't us, and we're not them.
Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution also drew this same distinction between a state's legislature and its people. From the beginning, members of the US House of Representatives have been elected by the people. This is not true of the US Senate. Originally, the Constitution provided for senators to be elected by the legislatures of their states; the Framers created two distinct methods of electing the houses of Congress.
The election of US senators by the people came about as a result of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. This transfer of power from legislatures to the people was a very specific reform born of the Progressive Era. To infer that another Progressive Era reform, the initiative process, also transferred the power to appoint electors, is a legal fallacy. If Progressives had intended to transfer such power, they would have stated so explicitly, either in the Seventeenth Amendment or in a companion amendment. They did not.
So, if neither the Framers nor the Progressives intended the people to have the power to direct the manner of appointing electors, the only possible conclusion is that the power does not exist. If enacted, the Hiltachk initiative could not stand legal challenge, and the state attorney general would be forced to waste millions of taxpayer dollars defending a lost cause. Rather than have our pockets picked by Tom Hiltachk, we voters should defeat his initiative at the ballot box. Better yet, don’t sign his petition and keep the initiative off the ballot.
25 September 2007
NASA aims to put man on Mars by 2037
Mars Daily
24 September 2007
NASA aims to put a man on Mars by 2037, the administrator of the US space agency indicated here Monday.
This year marks the half-century of the space age ushered in by the October 1957 launch of the Sputnik-1 by the then Soviet Union, NASA administrator Michael Griffin noted.
In 2057, the centenary of the space era, "we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars," Griffin told an international astronautics congress in this southern Indian city where he outlined NASA's future goals.
FULL STORY
24 September 2007
NASA aims to put a man on Mars by 2037, the administrator of the US space agency indicated here Monday.
This year marks the half-century of the space age ushered in by the October 1957 launch of the Sputnik-1 by the then Soviet Union, NASA administrator Michael Griffin noted.
In 2057, the centenary of the space era, "we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars," Griffin told an international astronautics congress in this southern Indian city where he outlined NASA's future goals.
FULL STORY
24 September 2007
To Boldly Own What No One Has Owned Before
By Thomas Gangale
A couple of years ago, a message from the Executive Director of the Space Settlement Institute was forwarded to the email list of a technical subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics:
Let's look at the SSI's first assertion, that "the most valuable resource in space is Lunar and Martian real estate." I wonder, have they taken a good look at Nevada lately? The first rule of real estate is, "Location, location, location!" Nevada may be in the middle of nowhere, but at least it has breathable air. The Moon and Mars are well beyond the outskirts of nowhere, and neither has breathable air. As for water and vegetation, Nevada is a veritable rain forest by comparison!
The next set of assertions pertains to property rights on the Moon and Mars. Here lies the fundamental flaw in their logic, which makes futile a major thrust of the SSI’s mission. It is true that, "The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits any claims of national sovereignty on the Moon or Mars," and it is also true that "the treaty says nothing against private property." It does not follow, however, that "without claiming sovereignty, the U.S. could recognize land claims made by private companies that establish human settlements there."
As a matter of natural law theory, rights exist independently of their legal recognition; as Jefferson wrote, we "are endowed... with certain unalienable rights," but of course, governments are instituted to secure these rights. In anarchy, any rights that one might assert are purely theoretical, other than those one has the firepower to personally defend. So a practical matter, property rights exist only if they are granted or recognized by a government and subject to the protection of law. Such grant, recognition, or protection is an act of state, and as such is an exercise of state sovereignty. Title cannot come into existence out of thin air (or the vacuum of space). Legal title must arise from a sovereign power possessing legal authority over the territory in question.
Referring to the Space Settlement Institute's "Land Claim Recognition (LCR) Analysis:"
This is a load of green cheese.
Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states: "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty provides: "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty."
"Non-governmental entities" includes private parties; thus States Parties cannot appropriate the Moon and other celestial bodies, or parts thereof, through private parties.
For Congress to pass "land claim recognition" legislation legalizing private claims of land in space would be an exercise of state sovereignty, and therefore a violation of international law under the provisions of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Although I personally favor promoting private enterprise in space, and the development of an international legal regime for granting and protecting extraterrestrial property rights, I also deplore unilateral action on the part of the United States as an international outlaw. In my view, we have seen far too much of that in the past four years.
Meanwhile, the Space Settlement Institute appears to be yet another medicine show on the New Frontier.
A couple of years ago, a message from the Executive Director of the Space Settlement Institute was forwarded to the email list of a technical subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics:
The Space Settlement Institute believes that the most valuable resource in space is Lunar and Martian real estate. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits any claims of national sovereignty on the Moon or Mars. But, quite deliberately, the treaty says nothing against private property. Therefore, without claiming sovereignty, the U.S. could recognize land claims made by private companies that establish human settlements there.
We think this is the key to promoting private enterprise in space.
Let's look at the SSI's first assertion, that "the most valuable resource in space is Lunar and Martian real estate." I wonder, have they taken a good look at Nevada lately? The first rule of real estate is, "Location, location, location!" Nevada may be in the middle of nowhere, but at least it has breathable air. The Moon and Mars are well beyond the outskirts of nowhere, and neither has breathable air. As for water and vegetation, Nevada is a veritable rain forest by comparison!
The next set of assertions pertains to property rights on the Moon and Mars. Here lies the fundamental flaw in their logic, which makes futile a major thrust of the SSI’s mission. It is true that, "The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits any claims of national sovereignty on the Moon or Mars," and it is also true that "the treaty says nothing against private property." It does not follow, however, that "without claiming sovereignty, the U.S. could recognize land claims made by private companies that establish human settlements there."
As a matter of natural law theory, rights exist independently of their legal recognition; as Jefferson wrote, we "are endowed... with certain unalienable rights," but of course, governments are instituted to secure these rights. In anarchy, any rights that one might assert are purely theoretical, other than those one has the firepower to personally defend. So a practical matter, property rights exist only if they are granted or recognized by a government and subject to the protection of law. Such grant, recognition, or protection is an act of state, and as such is an exercise of state sovereignty. Title cannot come into existence out of thin air (or the vacuum of space). Legal title must arise from a sovereign power possessing legal authority over the territory in question.
Referring to the Space Settlement Institute's "Land Claim Recognition (LCR) Analysis:"
Congress should pass "land claim recognition" legislation legalizing private claims of land in space. A land claim recognition bill would not violate the ban on sovereign ownership if the "use and occupation" standard from civil law (rather than "gift of the sovereign" from common law) were used as the legal basis for the private claim.
This is a load of green cheese.
Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states: "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty provides: "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty."
"Non-governmental entities" includes private parties; thus States Parties cannot appropriate the Moon and other celestial bodies, or parts thereof, through private parties.
For Congress to pass "land claim recognition" legislation legalizing private claims of land in space would be an exercise of state sovereignty, and therefore a violation of international law under the provisions of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Although I personally favor promoting private enterprise in space, and the development of an international legal regime for granting and protecting extraterrestrial property rights, I also deplore unilateral action on the part of the United States as an international outlaw. In my view, we have seen far too much of that in the past four years.
Meanwhile, the Space Settlement Institute appears to be yet another medicine show on the New Frontier.
23 September 2007
The Problems of Regional Primaries
Written Statement on Federal Regional Primary Legislation
Submitted to the Senate Rules Committee
By William G. Mayer
Associate Professor of Political Science
Northeastern University
19 September 2007
Finally, I would like to call the Committee's attention to a number of problems with regional primaries, however they are adopted and enforced. First, though regional primaries have recently been proposed primarily as an antidote to front-loading, it is by no means clear that a regional primary system would actually reduce front-loading. It depends on how the system is designed. The proposal formulated by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) provides a good example of the problem. The NASS calendar allots separate weeks to Iowa and New Hampshire -- and then, one week later, the first region would vote. In other words, one week after New Hampshire, delegates would be selected in twelve different states on the same day. By comparison, most recent presidential nomination calendars have started up more slowly. Immediately after New Hampshire, there have typically been several weeks in which only one or two states held their primaries or caucuses. The NASS calendar, to be sure, would be less front-loaded after that: There would be a month off before the next region voted. But this is small consolation to all the candidates who cannot afford to campaign in twelve states, even twelve contiguous states, just one week after the race begins and who will therefore not be around when the second region goes to the polls.
Another major problem associated with regional primaries is that they would confer a significant advantage on any candidate who happened to be particularly strong in whatever region went first.27 As Table 1 indicates (it is located at the end of this statement), region is a very important variable in explaining primary outcomes. Almost every recent presidential candidate has done significantly better in one region than in the others. In 1976, for example, Gerald Ford won 60 percent of the vote in the average northeastern primary, as against 35 percent in the average western primary. In the same year, Jimmy Carter won, on
average, 62 percent of the vote in the South, 35 percent in the Northeast, and 21 percent in the West. In 1980, Edward Kennedy won 53 percent of the vote in the average northeastern primary, but only 18 percent in the southern primaries.
In the contemporary presidential nomination process, the order in which primaries are held matters. Indeed, that is why front-loading developed in the first place. And thus, which region goes first could have very important implications for which candidate gets nominated. In 1992, for example, Bill Clinton's candidacy would likely have been doomed if the southern states had voted last: for the first five weeks of that year's delegate selection season, Clinton didn't win a single primary or caucus outside the South. Supporters of regional primaries implicitly acknowledge this problem, for regional primary proposals invariably include a provision that rotates the order in which regions vote or determines that order by lot. But rotation and lotteries do not eliminate this problem -- they merely ensure that the direction and recipient of the distortion will vary, in a random manner, from one election cycle to the next.
FULL STORY
Submitted to the Senate Rules Committee
By William G. Mayer
Associate Professor of Political Science
Northeastern University
19 September 2007
Finally, I would like to call the Committee's attention to a number of problems with regional primaries, however they are adopted and enforced. First, though regional primaries have recently been proposed primarily as an antidote to front-loading, it is by no means clear that a regional primary system would actually reduce front-loading. It depends on how the system is designed. The proposal formulated by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) provides a good example of the problem. The NASS calendar allots separate weeks to Iowa and New Hampshire -- and then, one week later, the first region would vote. In other words, one week after New Hampshire, delegates would be selected in twelve different states on the same day. By comparison, most recent presidential nomination calendars have started up more slowly. Immediately after New Hampshire, there have typically been several weeks in which only one or two states held their primaries or caucuses. The NASS calendar, to be sure, would be less front-loaded after that: There would be a month off before the next region voted. But this is small consolation to all the candidates who cannot afford to campaign in twelve states, even twelve contiguous states, just one week after the race begins and who will therefore not be around when the second region goes to the polls.
Another major problem associated with regional primaries is that they would confer a significant advantage on any candidate who happened to be particularly strong in whatever region went first.27 As Table 1 indicates (it is located at the end of this statement), region is a very important variable in explaining primary outcomes. Almost every recent presidential candidate has done significantly better in one region than in the others. In 1976, for example, Gerald Ford won 60 percent of the vote in the average northeastern primary, as against 35 percent in the average western primary. In the same year, Jimmy Carter won, on
average, 62 percent of the vote in the South, 35 percent in the Northeast, and 21 percent in the West. In 1980, Edward Kennedy won 53 percent of the vote in the average northeastern primary, but only 18 percent in the southern primaries.
In the contemporary presidential nomination process, the order in which primaries are held matters. Indeed, that is why front-loading developed in the first place. And thus, which region goes first could have very important implications for which candidate gets nominated. In 1992, for example, Bill Clinton's candidacy would likely have been doomed if the southern states had voted last: for the first five weeks of that year's delegate selection season, Clinton didn't win a single primary or caucus outside the South. Supporters of regional primaries implicitly acknowledge this problem, for regional primary proposals invariably include a provision that rotates the order in which regions vote or determines that order by lot. But rotation and lotteries do not eliminate this problem -- they merely ensure that the direction and recipient of the distortion will vary, in a random manner, from one election cycle to the next.
FULL STORY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
