Government should not pay for political party voting

by

Kenneth Matinale

The Democratic party is going into its usual wimp mode because of Florida and Michigan. It was made clear in the fall of 2007 that the schedule of presidential primaries would be determined by the national party, not by individual state organizations. The rules were set. Many states tried to make their primaries or caucuses early in the process to gain influence. The national party held to the old part of the schedule that kept the Iowa caucuses first and the new Hampshire primary second. I don't like giving so much weight to such odd states but that was the rule. Florida and Michigan should not be given what they sought: increased influence with a do-over, in this case far more influence by being the last than if they had been the earliest. Both Florida and Michigan defied the national party and moved their events earlier. The penalty was that the delegates would not be seated at the convention that the party is trying so hard to keep meaningless by settling on a winner well before that. Denying a state its delegates is the only way to maintain discipline. If the national party caves in, watch what happens in 2012. Without adequate sanctions it will be chaos.

However, voters are not being disenfranchised because this a party vote, not a general election. It seems mainstream only because it involves one of the two major parties that set the rules in each of the fifty states. If it were the Communist party, Nazi party, Ku Klux Klan party nobody would be concerned if party members were denied delegates. In terms of access to the state voting machinery there is no difference.

Political parties may have arbitrary rules for membership and process. They are not part of the government. They may limit membership on race, creed, gender, national origin, sexual orientation. Their nominating process may be by party bosses, convention, primary, caucus, lottery, bribe. Who cares? They are not part of the government. To expect fair voting rules and procedures is silly.

Why should any party be allowed to use state general election resources for selecting candidates for any office? The current debate concerning Florida and Michigan illustrates the arrogance of the two major parties. The Republican governor of Florida is merely making mischief in trying to set policy that only effects the Democratic party. The actions of any party are private matters. The parties should pay for their processes using their own resources, not those of the government. The fact that the parties have been getting away with this for so long is a disgrace and should be stopped immediately. See my post: Electing the President: a new system.

Obama by Kenneth Matinale March 10, 2008

I had intended to vote for former Senator John Edwards in the February 5 New York presidential primary but Edwards dropped out before then. I was not nuts about the Edwards message about saving unsavable jobs but I figured that he was most likely to stand up to corporate interests, for the weak against the powerful. Obama was my second choice, Hillary last. She annoyed me a lot sooner than Obama did. Obviously, I have not drunk the Obama Kool-Aid. I was calling Obama the Manchurian Candidate long before it was mentioned in the New York Times. In the immortal words of Maxwell Smart: "There was a book?" Apparently there was a novel by Richard Condon and then a play by John Lahr then the two movies: 1962 and 2004. The plot changes a bit but the basic idea is that bad guys capture and brainwash an American soldier, turn him into an assassin with his mother as his handler for the purpose of making the mother's husband/soldier's step father (1962) or the soldier assassin himself (2004) president of the United States to be controlled by outside forces: Chinese communists (1962), an evil corporation: Manchurian Global (2004). Of course, McCain and Hillary could also be Manchurian Candidates. McCain was a prisoner of war for five years. That's got to mess with your brain. And Hillary could be multiple characters all rolled into one: the mother and candidate. In her case, she may have done the mother thing as Bill's wife. How creepy is that? My basic concern about Obama: who is this guy? He just showed up and he wants to be in charge. He grew up where? Indonesia? I am almost finished his memoir, "Dreams from My Father". I couldn't wait for him to get out of Chicago and get to Kenya. At least he plays basketball. We need big, fundamental change. Hillary is the least likely to deliver anything but incrementalism ... like Bill. Even McCain is more likely to shake things up. And why is she yelling so much? Reagan didn't yell. He was the first politician I noticed delivering a public speech in a normal tone of voice. McCain doesn't yell either, nor the incumbent Bush. Raising one's voice in a controlled way can be very effective in a public speech but it is not required since Reagan did away with it. Obama does it well with the proper timber in his voice. Kennedy did it very well. Others have raised their voices a moderate level: Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (not well), Bush the elder, Bill Clinton (not bad but a ragged voice). Obama is a risk. His experience is so limited. But he is such a quick learner. I am concerned that he is a bit of an intellectual dilettante. If he is not elected president I could see him dropping out. I do not see him slogging through Senate minutia waiting for another opportunity in four or eight years. But such opportunities do not come often and he is right to seize his. We have seen potentially great presidents do their Hamlet routine and not take the risk: Mario Cuomo and Colin Powell. Obama has been a weasel like the others. He favors the right to bear arms. He attacked NAFTA because Hillary suddenly did it to win the Ohio primary; those Ohioans went against their own interests in 2004 because Bush had them lathered up about homosexual marriage. Obama makes me cringe when he discusses people crossing our borders illegally by stating we would have to have all our law enforcement people stop enforcing any other laws in order to apprehend those breaking into America. Barack, come on, how dishonest is that? Part of the process is to deal with the process. We want a president who can handle the rough stuff. Obama needs to do that without being a weasel and without being dishonest. He needs to be presidential. Obama. His name would send a message to the third world. His face would send a message to everyone and might finally end the racial tension in America. What other country has come this far where we are close to electing a person with a black African father? Even though Obama is not the descendant of African-Amercan slaves he could free their children from a heritage of bondage and second class citizenship. Obama being Obama sends a message of hope, reconciliation and a new direction for our great country. We need someone to say: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need someone to pull the sword from the stone. I voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 New York presidential primary. I contributed to his campaign.

Women: separate but equal?

by

Kenneth Matinale

March 1, 2008

As far as I can tell the only two bastions of segregation remaining in American society are women's sports and the entertainment awards. The Academy Awards were recently given for best actor and best actress. Whenever I hear women refer to their craft they use the word actor, not actress. They make a point of indicating that they are equal to men. However, they continue to accept the old gender segregation when awards are distributed. Oddly this is only for acting, not directing, writing, etc. Why? Maybe because that doubles the number of awards for acting. Is gender relevant in evaluating acting skills and performances? Why not demand it for directing? Writing?

Sports is the other remaining oddity. There are school teams, meaning any gender may join. There also are women's teams, which are restricted by gender. In professional tennis and golf there are separate brackets for each gender.

The rationale given is that women would not be able to qualify and compete with men and therefor would be denied participation. Most people would not be able to compete with good athletes. Why are women singled out? And why is pool (pocket billiards) segregated? Pool is hardly athletic competition. The Supreme Court Cases Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS in 1954-1955 declared "separate but equal" to be intrinsically unequal and thus unconstitutional overturning Plessy v. Furguson 1896, which upheld racial segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal". Yet to mention this to a woman is to risk ridicule and scorn. There is no risk of rational response. Women want their cake (Brown) and eat it too (Plessy).

If you substituted any other arbitrary description of people for the word woman/women it would be obviously offensive and unacceptable: the Jewish U.S. tennis champion, the University of Tennessee black basketball team, the homosexual New York marathon winner. The New York marathon officials go so far as to set up a "separate but equal" finishing tape for women to break when the first woman crosses the finish line and God help any man runner who is near that event; he will be tackled and removed from view to preserve the pristine moment of female triumph.

What the heck is the WNBA (Woman's National Basketball Association)? Are young girls to aspire to one day play for a WNBA team? Should my niece want to play for the New York Liberty or the New York Knicks? She should want to play on a team in the best league, not in some concocted and segregated organization. What is the lesson to be learned by young girls? That they can only succeed if they are provided a separate environment? When they look for a job should they look in these companies: WIBM, WAT&T, WCoca-Cola? Such companies do not exist, nor should they, any more than the WNBA and segregated tennis and golf should exist.

Pro tennis is further differentiated by gender: men must win three of five sets, women two of three. Are women too weak to play five sets? They do not complain about this but do complain about not receiving equal pay for less work in a segregated field. Perhaps the real victim is our ability to think rationally. I do not know any woman who shares my view. That could mean that I am incorrect. It could also be that women are locked into a frame of mind similar to that of the "separate but equal" people who may have been well meaning back in 1896. The segregation of women in sports and entertainment is maintained by a mind that is set and unwilling to reason.

Stop Using Petroleum: (Don't buy a new car unless it has a plug)

January 21, 2008 This is both an environmental issue and a national security issue. We need to deal with climate change. If the change is not as big a problem as it now seems, we get a cleaner environment. There's no downside. We need to make petroleum producing countries irrelevant. They want to return to the middle ages. Let them.

There are two ways that this can be accomplished:

1. Top down. The federal government, maybe even the president, finally says: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Outlaw the use, sale, production and anything else we can think of doing with petroleum. Do it over one year starting with the beginning of spring; that gives people time to prepare for winter. No exemptions. No gradual process. It is supposed to be a shock that will change behavior and the economics of energy and transportation. Leave the rest to the free market. This should outrage and hurt pretty much everybody. Doing it nice is not getting it done. The Republican candidates for president want to find more domestic oil. WRONG! We need to stop using ALL petroleum. The Democratic candidates for president want to massage it to death; Hillary Clinton, the queen of gradualism, wants to reduce by two thirds foreign (no mention of domestic) oil by the year 2030. Hillary and most of the other candidates will be dead by then. This is typical pass the buck.
We need action NOW!

2. Bottom up. Number one is not politically likely given the lack of integrity of the candidates. They won't even increase the tax on a gallon of gasoline by ten dollars to force a decrease in consumption. They all know or should know that corn based ethanol is not effective. But because of the Iowa caucuses none of them will say it. In fact they support it. We need to take over this issue. No, not by the usual crowd of incredibly ineffective environmental people who drive to the save the planet meetings in their pollution mobiles. Regular every day people need to WAKE UP and change things NOW. Stop waiting for some candidate to convince you that he/she will do anything different. Force the issue.

Here is what we need to do:

1. Repeatedly tell both our elected officials and the leaders of the auto industry, both foreign and domestic, that we will not buy any new vehicles unless they have a plug. That means plug-in hybrid at the very least, preferably all electric. Forget hydrogen. Bush pushing it confirms that is is merely a delaying tactic. Take a year off. No car sales for a year should get their attention.

2. Reduce driving. Close the damn stores one day a week. It won't kill us. Let your kids ride bikes to soccer practice instead of driving them everywhere. With fewer cars on the road you won't be as irrationally panicked. OK, you get the idea.

3. Push the utility companies to dramatically increase their capacity to produce and deliver electricity. ALL power should be based on electricity. Produce it with wind, sun, hydro, whatever. Nuclear if we need to. Not coal. Clean coal is clean filth and just an excuse for the candidates to pander to another power group. Utility companies need to make it much easier for us to sell electricity to them from multiple locations and sources: electric car batteries, home solar and wind products, etc.

4. Trains! We need to develop the best train transportation in the world. We have the resources and the space. Inter-city travel should be primarily by train, not airplane. High speed, high tech trains. Many should carry our new electric cars. The federal government must provide the stimulus. The investment in infrastructure is too great to expect that private companies will initiate the projects needed.

5. Plastics. Stop buying those stupid packages that are ten times the size of the product and which mangle your fingers trying to open them. Plastic comes from petroleum and increases waste.

*** The End ***