Why we need election reform

In this past election the United States dodged a big bullet that could have thrown the presidential race into overtime which potentially could have taken months to resolve. The reason is because of the election system in the United States. The elections system in the United States is an absolute disgrace for the flagship country of the Western world that prides itself on having the most fairly elected officials in the world. This is obviously not the case and there needs to be some serious election reform.

The biggest presidential election debacle in 2000 with the infamous Florida recount. In Palm Beach County (which held everything up) there were as many as 15,000 votes that seemed to have mysteriously shifted from George Bush to Al Gore. Many of the 15,000 votes which had originally counted were found to be "over voted" which means that the card voted for more than one presidential candidate and was discarded. This means that somewhere along the line these votes had been tampered with.

Additionally, in other elections since 2000 there have been cases where more voters were registered to vote than there were eligible voters in a precinct. There are many reasons for this as well, dead voters or ones that have moved away not being purged from the rolls, election workers that will approve any registration card that comes their way, or people just plain registering in the wrong precinct. With voter rolls that are out of date, it leaves the possibility for easily committing fraud because some states have such loose election day rules such as same day voting. Same day voting is probably one of the LEAST democratic measures any state could allow. It basically says that anyone can show up to a polling place, register, and vote prior to being approved. This means that non-eligible voters can go vote such as convicted felons, illegal aliens, or dishonest party-hacks that are so desperate to see their candidate elected can vote multiple times all without being caught. There are far more examples of voter fraud than I could actually write about in this blog. 

So then how do we prevent people from committing fraud? Well the simple answer is that you cannot stop people from trying, but you can certainly  make it well near impossible to commit. First thing states can do is enact laws that mandate voters present photo ID every time they go vote. The idea is pretty straight forward, it ensures that the proper person is voting. Georgia and Indiana already have enacted ID voting laws, and their voting turnout has actually increased since enacting it. Polls show that most Americans are in favor of showing photo ID but unfortunately for some reason it is considered controversial. This is mainly because of idiots like ACORN who openly commit voter fraud. Their fraudulent actions have become so bad that their offices were raided back in October by the FBI. ACORN likes to make the analogy that showing voter ID is a back door to a poll tax that disenfranchises voters. The only voters I believe are being disenfranchised are the phony voter registrations that ACORN sends in. ACORN and the NAACP challenged these voter ID laws from Indiana and Georgia in all levels of the court system and could not once produce a disenfranchised voter (except a few dead ones). In fact, minority voting actually improved in these two states because of the ID laws. So this humble blogger does not understand why states are still so reluctant to enact it if they know the Supreme Court is upholding such laws.

Another obvious solution is to get rid of same day voting procedures. I already mentioned the problems associated with same day voting. However many people still persist that everyone should have the right to vote and that by having a cut off date for election registration disenfranchises someone's chance to vote. I agree, every legal US citizen over the age of 18 should have a right to vote. I do not agree that having a cut off for an election takes this right away. For a presidential election voters have over a year to go register and not to mention all the people that walk around months before elections registering people. There is no excuse to make that argument that there is not enough time to register. The cut off is there to give poll workers ample time to go through the registration cards and remove fraudulent claims.

Although there are many more solutions and problems I could discuss, I believe that these two are the most important. These are two simple and what should be quite obvious ideas on how to curb voter fraud. The integrity ad trust of the election system in the United States needs to be restored and these simple measures are some important steps in moving back in that direction.

Islamic Political Terror

One of the many problems the West must deal with regarding Islamic terrorism is its political implications. In the West, the governments are set up in a mostly secular fashion with a clear separation of religion and state. Governments are not allowed to interfere with religious activities and religion is not allowed to govern politics. In the West, religion has not been controlled by its religions in any serious manner since the Reformation, Age of Exploration, and finally the French Revolution. This is why the West has such a difficult time understanding the fusing of politics and religion in the Islamic world because these notions are so far removed from Western history.

However, in the Islamic world this is not the case. Islam is politics and politics is Islam. Unlike in the West Islam sees no separation of religion and state. This is because Islam is an all encompassing religion in which it plays a role in every aspect of peoples lives through the holy law known as Shari'a. Shari'a law is derived from the Koran, the Muslim holy book. Islamic law for this reason is considered perfect because it is taken directly from the word of Allah as delivered by His Prophet Muhammad. Shari'a law cannot be altered because of its direct relation with Allah. Like any law, religious or secular, it may be interpreted. The interpreters of the holy law are called Sheiks and hold a position similar to that of a lawyer crossed with a rabbi or priest in Western terms. Sheiks are also the religious leaders of a local mosque as well. In some Muslim countries, Sheiks are still consulted on whether certain government actions are acceptable or not.

There are many examples within the Islamic world of countries and groups using Islam's political side to justify their actions. Saudi Arabia is a good example of a politically religious country. The royal family uses a brand of Islam called Wahhabi, a radical sect within the Sunni community as a means of holding power and justifying their sole rule. They use religion to justify spying and suppressing their own people, in a fashion similar to how communist ideology was used to control Soviet Russia. Saudi dictates acceptable dress, foods, and culture for its people and visitors.

Similarly, non-state groups have used Islam to justify violence as well. Since most people are familiar with the group, I will discuss al-Qaida. Osama bin-Laden's group has used Islam to justify attacks from 9/11 to the London Tube Bombings and Madrid. al-Qaida uses its puritanical interpretation of Islam to make its political demands on the West. I provided a much more detailed explanation in my previous blog regarding this topic. Terror against civilians is justified through the concept of jihad. The concept of jihad has been manipulated by al-Qaida and other Islamic terror groups to wage an all out war against the West for various reasons (mostly political and religious ones). In this all out war, the West has witnessed dozens of broadcast beheadings, terror attacks against civilians and few military targets.

In these terror groups, to not follow their politics is to not follow Allah which is apostasy in Islam. Groups like these have taken Islam and manipulated and distorted it so much as to justify political violence and mass killings against the West, regardless of the reasons. This is difficult for the West to understand because, as I stated earlier, the West is so far removed from religiously inspired violence on any serious scale. The West must come to terms with the fact that terrorists are religiously motivated just as much, if not more, than they are politically motivated. The West must call it what it is, religiously inspired terror and not sugar coat Islamic terror in any other way.

Dealing with Terrorism

Well I hope everyone had a nice holiday (for anyone outside the United States, it was Thanksgiving), but back to business.

Over the last weekend I am sure that everyone is already aware of the terror attacks in Mumbai. A previously unknown terror group, the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility for the violent two-day shoot out with Indian counter terror operatives that left dozens dead and historic buildings destroyed. This recent events have caused many questions regarding Islamic terror to resurface again, such as motivation and how to deal with Islamic terror. Islamic terror creates a unique problem to the West because we preach tolerance for other religions, cultures, and so forth. But what happens when a major world religion is used as a medium for justifying terror by a certain few? This situation pushes the limits of what exactly the West will tolerate in the name of greater understanding. Depending on how the Western world reacts to such a situation will decide on how we combat Islamic terror and how we define their motivations.

I would like to make clear though before the reader proceeds any further that Islam is not the enemy, it is the people who twist and distort Islam to justify sadistic violence against civilians (Sept. 11^th, Mumbai, London Tube Bombings, suicide bombings in Israel and so on) who are the enemy.

I will first begin with what motivates an Islamic terrorist. There are many people out there today that like to think that terrorists are created by some outside factor and are simply a product of their situation. Furthermore these same people argue, that international aid and money will improve the situation of terror hotbeds like Gaza or the West Bank. By improving the economic/political situation, it will thereby reduce the number of people who want to become terrorists because they are no longer so poor and destitute.  The people who argue this point basically have their heads in the sand about Islamic terror. No amount of international aide will ever deter an Islamic terrorist and the West Bank and Gaza under Yassir Arafat are a prime example. For three decades, the West poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the area and all the Palestinians have to show for it is Arafat’s multi-million dollar villa in France. So obviously saying Islamic terrorists are motivated by outside factors and are products of their situation does not work (although I will not rule out that their situation does not contribute).

Primarily Islamic terrorists are just that, terrorists motivated by religion. In general, Islamic extremists interpret sections of the Koran to mean that anyone who is not Islamic is a barbarian, or sub-human because they do not submit to Allah’s will and hence the name Islam means to submit oneself to Allah.  In this view, Westerners and their culture are un-Islamic and therefore must be converted to Islam or destroyed. It is the divine will of Allah they claim, that compels terrorists to commit such heinous acts.  Since Islamic terrorists identify the West as sub-human, it is acceptable to kill them in any fashion they so choose. Finally, there are also promises of carnal delights and praise of Allah in the afterlife that are used to entice young men and some women to become a terrorist. Basically religion is being altered to justify the violence perpetrated by terrorists. (I am aware that this is a simplistic motivational view, but it is a general idea of things and I will expand on this in a later blog. I will also blog about political Islam since it is very fundamental to the topic of terrorism as well). But this idea of religiously inspired violence is difficult for many secular Westerners to understand. Europe really has not fought over religion in any serious manner since the end of the Reformation of the Catholic Church. Therefore to the West, using Islam as a medium for justification is difficult to understand.

So then how do you fight terrorists that are motivated by religion and a supposed divine message? This in my opinion is far easier to deal with. The idea of terror in general is to fight the enemy anytime and anywhere. To keep them constantly looking over their shoulder for an attack that could be launched at any moment. The West really needs to fight fire with fire. Fight the terrorists everywhere you find them and do not let up on the pursuit. The West obviously has superior weapons and communication technology, so it must be used to our advantage. The West must keep the terrorists looking over their shoulder as well.

Given the technological superiority of counter-terrorism operations, there should also be better intelligence. This is a sticky situation though because terrorists do cowardly employ the use of human shields and want countries like the United States and Israel to kill bystanders. Better intelligence on the ground means that counter-terror operations can have a better understanding of where targets are and thus minimize collateral damage.

This brings me to my last point. Terrorists depend on the liberal Western media to complain and bash their own governments every time bystanders are killed in a missile strike. Whether people like it or not, we are at war with a hidden enemy that hides among their own population. Terrorists want bystanders to be killed for this exact reason, that it makes the counter-terrorist countries who are defending themselves look like the bad guys. It makes people want to sympathize with the terrorists because the “big bad Americans and Israelis are beating up the little guy again”. This is simply not the case.

The Western world must understand that Islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by religion and want to destroy everything the West prides itself on. Freedom of speech, women’s rights, religious freedom, and so on, these are all ideas that Islamic terrorists want to end because they deem them un-Islamic. Keeping an active offense and striking at terrorists wherever they are found is how the West must fight Islamic terror. Sympathizing with Islamic terrorists will only play in their favor and ultimately harm the West.

My issue with gay marriage...

Ever since election day of this year, gay marriage has once again become a hot button issue when California passed Proposition 8. The general idea behind Proposition 8 was that it defined in the state of California's constitution what a legal marriage consists of. The definition is that a legal marriage will be between a man and a woman and effectively bans any form of same sex unions. Now I am not going to get into the nitty-gritty details of all the controversy now surrounding the Proposition such as the ACLU challenging proper procedure for example. I want to discuss gay marriage as an issue and not a single proposition.

Gay marriage is such a volatile issue because it crosses over from the secular law of the state to religious morals. What I mean is that marriage right now is defined between a man and a woman which is how the three major world religions define marriage and obviously gay marriage clashes with religious law. On the whole America is a fairly religious country, and sometimes politics and religion become intertwined in the same issue which can lead to a very unstable situation. People that are religious do hold their moral values close to them and can become very defensive when they feel threatened. On the flip side, there are a minority of people being told that they cannot do what everyone else can and this is a very emotional situation as well because love is involved. So here we have two sides which are emotionally charged, trying to resolve a single issue.

First, I would like to mention that yes, I do have an issue with gay marriage, I believe that it is wrong. I would also like to state that I do have an issue with traditional marriage which is also wrong. So basically I do not agree with the legal/secular marriage institution which we have right now. Marriage as we know it today obviously came from a religious background that states what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of G-d. Due to this, I believe that marriage as a secular legal institution infringes on the First Amendment to the United States that establishes the separation of church and state. To explicitly define marriage as that between a man and a woman takes directly from religion and it is in my opinion that this breaks with the First Amendment.

However, we do have a legal definition of what a marriage is and we must work with it. With every political issue there are two sides, and on one side we have those who support gay marriage and those who do not. Since gay marriage crosses the border from secular law to religious law, it creates an interesting scenario. On one hand we have a group of people that support gay marriage. Okay fine. Their argument is that gay marriages should be legal because homosexuals are being denied rights that traditional couples receive. The opposition argues that we should not allow gay marriage because of it is not a traditional marriage which they believe is fundamentally wrong. The problem is that no matter what the state does, it will be imposing someones morals on another (whether secular or religious). If gay marriage were to pass, then that would be saying to the religious of this country that the state is going to force something on them which conflicts with their religious beliefs. If gay marriage is denied then that is forcing certain religious beliefs on another group of people. Both of these outcomes are fundamentally wrong.

Given the sensitivity (both legally and emotionally) of gay marriage, what should we do? Well first I believe that everyone needs to take a step back for a moment and just calm down. No one is going to resolve anything if people are stomping on crosses or telling gays to go to hell. It would seem to me that this issue must be viewed in a different light since we are not getting anywhere as we currently view it. It is not so much about whether a traditional marriage should be preserved or not, it is that people must understand that the whole issue marriage (not just gay marriage) is a breach of separation between church and state. I believe that the whole debate must be reassessed in this light and then we can work towards a more palpable solution for both sides. People must understand that certain morals, whether religious or secular, cannot be forced onto the population because of how closely they are tied to religion.

Another Bailout????

Over the last few weeks we have been hearing about how much trouble the Big Three are in (the Big Three comprises of General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford). The American auto industry is in a lot of trouble, GM alone in the third quarter ripped through $7 billion dollars without making a single penny. Chrysler and Ford did not fare much better in the same quarter. The important debate now taking over Washington is how to handle the Big Three's current money woes and whether or not to write a check to bail them out. Right now, the auto industries are asking for about $25 billion for a new bailout so the Big Three does not fold by early next year as many financial experts are predicting. In this case, I think that the auto manufacturers are in such big trouble that I believe writing another $25 billion check over to them is just a waste of tax payer money. I believe that there is another way to fix the Big Three without writing over even more money in tough economic times.

First off the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) has some very nice deals built into their latest contract. However, last years new contract between the UAW and the auto manufacturers did make some acknowledgment that the Big Three could not afford such expensive union deals anymore. A two-level pay plan was put into effect that allows the companies to pay newer workers far less than seasoned veterans, and this does include health care and other costs. While this was a step in the right direction, there are still bigger costs the UAW must understand are very expensive for the Big Three to pay for. Furthermore, auto makers must also deal with paying workers who do not work and high pensions for over 700,000 retierees.

Second, the Big Three's problems are not simply a result of unionized labor (UAW membership has dropped nearly two-thirds in the last two decades) but is also in part their own doing. Over the last couple years we have seen oil prices sky rocket due to increasing demand and fears of short supply. Oil peaked back in July at a record price of just under $150/barrel and gas at the pump was nearing $4 per gallon in some places. As most people know the Big Three do not make the most fuel efficent cars. Most cars coming off the lines are big SUV's and pick-up trucks that average less than 20 miles per gallon in the city. Their smaller cars fare little better in gas milage with a few new exceptions. Over the last couple years the American auto industry has struggled against imports from Europe and Japan as Americans simply and clearly do not want large gas guzzling SUV's anymore. The Big Three have also been horribly mismanaged in ways that would have sent smaller companies out of buisness years ago.

So what has to be done then.

Well according to the lame duck Congress we need to shovel over another $25 billion to keep the auto makers from closing up shop. This simply will not work. There is a lot of opposition to the bailout. A big opposition point is skepticism of the UAW. With many people losing jobs around the country why should the tax payers money have to end up in Detroit and help pay such lavish expenses in hard economic times. The point is that it should not. According to new Rasmussen reports, over 60% of people are against another bailout and (in a seperate poll) 73% of people believe the US will run out of money if we keep bailing these large companies out. Bailing companies out in general is a bad idea and in this case it is just plain stupid. Over the last few decades, the Big Three have become a black hole of American tax payer dollars and the bailouts need to stop and they need to stop now and such expensive union deals are part of the problem.

If anyone really wants to save these companies, then everyone is going to have to make changes in Detroit. First the UAW is going to have to renegg on pensions, non-working workers collecting pay, and health care benefits. The auto companies simply cannot afford it (GM alone loses about $500 every time a car rolls off their line). If the UAW does not bend some then all the factory workers will be unemployed and we will have even bigger problems. The next part is that there will have to be a serious overhaul of the company structures. There cannot be any useless management levels and there simply cannot be such high salaries for executives at the moment. The companies need to come up with a more efficient style to run themselves if they are to avoid bankrupcy. The third solution should have been the most obvious from the start (which leads back to bad managment). The final part is that clearly the Big Three need to produce cars that fit what the American consumer wants. Unquestionably, Americans do not want big SUV's like they have in the past and Detroit needs to respond accordingly. Americans clearly want smaller and more fuel efficent models that do not cost $80 a week to fill up.

Clearly there is an alternative to another big bailout package for the Big Three. If government wants to do something productive, they should not do anything. Getting involved and throwing more money at the auto industry simply has not worked in the past and it is only a matter of time before they come back asking for more money. Congress should be telling them to fix the problems themselves and do not put their burden on the tax payer in tough economic times. The government needs to stay out of this and let the companies and unions work this out on their own.

Fixing the Grand New Party

Once the results of this past election day came in, it was obvious something has gone wrong with the Republican Party. President-elect Obama won a huge electoral majority of 364 to 163. During this past presidential campaign, once conservative bastion states such as New Mexico, Virginia, and North Carolina voted for Barack Obama. The Republicans did not fair well in either the House or Senate races either. Many Republican incumbents lost their senate races and the Democrats now control the Senate by a 17 seat margin: 57 Democrats to 40 Republicans, the margin is near filibuster proof. In the House of Representatives, the Republicans did not fair much better. The Democrats now control the House by 81 seats: 255 Democrats to 174 Republicans. While this past election results should not have come as much of a surprise to many, it did send a message to the Republican party. The Republicans controlled the Hill from 1994 until 2006 and the presidency from 2000 to 2008 need to take some lessons away from such a humbling defeat. In essence, the Grand Old Party needs to become the Grand New Party.

The last couple years have been devastating to the Republicans who have been marred by an unpopular president and political scandals (remember John Ashcroft). Both parties this year clearly understood the message voters wanted to hear, it was just that the Democrats had an easier time getting it across (not to mention that they were far more effective as well). That message was reform Washington and Wall St. Both Washington and Wall St. are in desperate need of reform. It was the Democrats however that clearly won this message, and if the Republicans want to mount a come back during the mid-term elections they should not dwell on it. So then, what do the Republicans need to do? The answer is simple enough, they need to reinvent themselves for the 21st Century.

First, I believe that the Republicans need to distance themselves somewhat from their far right wing base. This being the evangelical Christians and those super churches. Being too closely associated with the ultra-religious Christians seems to have scared off many independent voters who may have voted for John McCain. Independent voters are a skittish bunch that will run off if a party becomes too closely associated with a far left or far right extreme. Taking this point, the Republicans should soften their stances on certain social hot-button issues. They need to become more accepting of stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortions. I am not saying they need to become full-hearted supporters of these matters because I do not think they will, but they need to at least soften their positions. The Republicans need to start making themselves more appealing to right leaning social moderates and not just the very conservatives.

The next issue for the Republicans is the more important of the two. They need to redefine their economic and governmental message. People became very confused when President Bush supported the last $700 billion bail out because it goes against the foundations of how the Republicans believe government should be run. Republicans typically are against large governments and want to leave it up to the private individual to get things done. Historically, the Republicans have not just supported big businesses but small local ones as well. This has obviously been lost given the large tax cuts President Bush keeps giving to the oil companies. The Republicans need to send the message that they will support all businesses, regardless of size, by not giving preference to the larger conglomerates. They need to reassert themselves as the party of lower taxes on everyone and a party that just does not favor the wealthy. The Republicans need to make clear again that people will have an easier time starting a business and becoming successful under their party.

The Republicans need a fresh new message that resonates with the independent voters and not just the far right. To be successful in the 21st Century the Republicans will have to certainly change their message which may come at a risk of alienating certain voters, but it is a risk they will have to take.

Veterans Day

Today is Veterans Day and I just wanted to take some time to thank all the members of the armed services who have chosen to serve and protect this great country. Thank you for putting your lives in danger to protect us from our enemies who wish us harm. I would also like to say thank you to all the families of the armed services who allow the family members to join a military branch. Finally, I would like to ask everyone to remember those who have sacrificed their lives in service of the United States of America in order to protect the values of freedom and democracy that we hold so dear to us. 

This is the official press release from the White House:

Veterans Day, 2008 
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

On Veterans Day, we pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of the men and women who in defense of our freedom have bravely worn the uniform of the United States.

From the fields and forests of war-torn Europe to the jungles of Southeast Asia, from the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, brave patriots have protected our Nation's ideals, rescued millions from tyranny, and helped spread freedom around the globe. America's veterans answered the call when asked to protect our Nation from some of the most brutal and ruthless tyrants, terrorists, and militaries the world has ever known. They stood tall in the face of grave danger and enabled our Nation to become the greatest force for freedom in human history. Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have answered a high calling to serve and have helped secure America at every turn.

Our country is forever indebted to our veterans for their quiet courage and exemplary service. We also remember and honor those who laid down their lives in freedom's defense. These brave men and women made the ultimate sacrifice for our benefit. On Veterans Day, we remember these heroes for their valor, their loyalty, and their dedication. Their selfless sacrifices continue to inspire us today as we work to advance peace and extend freedom around the world.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081031-1.html