#3
Iff one believes that this WOT > WAR FOR PRO-US VERSUS ANTI-US OWG-NWO + ANTI-STATUS QUO, etc. then one should be willing to believe that NO SIDE, US OR RADICALIST/RADIC ISLAMIST including ANY ALIGNED, WANTS "STALEMATE" = COLD WAR-STYLE MUTUAL COEXISTENCE???
AS PER SO-CALLED "SINS OF THE FATHER(S)" > IMO, its pragmatic or realist to believe that resolution of AFRICA's probs per se, GOOD OR BAD, will mostly be for the next Generation E.G. NET > OSAMA BIN LADEN'S SIXTEEN YEAR OLD SON AND REPORTED HEIR-IN-INTEREST [among Other Kiddies?]???
#4
screw africa, we might as well flush that tax$$$$ aid down the toilet. Nice job GWB, for all the good it will do you. The dark continent should be renamed the dark ages continent.
THE MASSACHUSETTS Senate will be making a serious mistake if it joins the House this week in adopting the National Popular Vote system, which is designed to circumvent the Constitution's prescribed method for choosing the president. Under the system, which will go into effect only if it is adopted by states that together possess a majority of the nation's electoral votes, the electors in each state will be required to vote for whichever presidential candidate finishes first in the national popular vote - regardless of the choice of a majority of the state's own voters.
Four times in our history, a candidate has become president after receiving somewhat fewer popular votes than a rival. For decades, critics of the Electoral College system who lamented its "undemocratic" nature have sought to replace it by means of a constitutional amendment. But all such attempts have failed.
The National Popular Vote device is intended to bring about the same result without actually having to go through the amendment process. It is the brainchild of Stanford engineering professor John Koza, whose chief complaint about the existing system is that voters in solidly "blue" or "red" states, such as Massachusetts or Texas, receive relatively little attention. Presidential candidates instead focus on winning the dozen or so "battleground" states that are likely to decide an election.
Although Koza's proposal has been endorsed by a considerable number of prominent political figures, it is seriously flawed. To begin with, even if proponents get approval from states commanding 270 electoral votes, it is questionable whether federal courts would approve the agreement, since it has the effect of denying smaller states the extra electoral weight that the current system provides them. (States are guaranteed a minimum of three electoral votes regardless of population.) The proposal is arguably unconstitutional, since it has the effect of undoing the Great Compromise between large and small states at the 1787 Constitutional Convention that was essential to the Constitution's adoption.
The deeper problem with the plan, however, is the proliferation of minor-party candidates that it will generate. It would become possible for a fringe candidate who is unattractive or even abhorrent to even a large majority of the electorate to be selected as president, simply because he polls more (than his five or six or 10) rivals.
That is why previous proposals to abolish the Electoral College system by means of a Constitutional amendment have included a runoff system. If no candidate were to receive, say, 40 percent of the popular vote, a second election would be held in which voters choose between the two highest-polling candidates.
Even the runoff system is far from foolproof - as was demonstrated by the 2002 presidential election in France, when the anti-immigrant demagogue Jean-Marie Le Pen beat out the candidate of one of the two leading parties, Socialist leader Lionel Jospin, to make it into the runoff. Although Le Pen was roundly defeated by the Gaullist candidate Jacques Chirac, for whom even many Socialists voted in the end, the multiparty system - which is encouraged by France's national popular vote rules - saved Chirac, widely perceived as corrupt, from having to demonstrate that he could win a head-to-head election against Jospin.
But not even the partial safety-valve of a runoff is included in Koza's plan, simply because that would require a Constitutional amendment - just the necessity that the proposal was designed to avoid. (The Constitution prescribes that in case no candidate wins an absolute majority of the electoral vote, the president will be chosen in an election by the House of Representatives, in which each state will have one vote. This procedure has not been needed since 1824, as a result of the development of the two-party system.)
The National Popular Vote legislation might have addressed the problem of a small-party candidate winning the election with a small fraction of the national vote by stipulating that the system would take effect only in the event that one candidate received at least, say, 45 percent of the vote. But the proposal that the Massachusetts House adopted makes no such provision.
For this reason, among others, it would be unwise to institute the National Popular Vote system.
David Lewis Schaefer is professor of political science at Holy Cross.
#1
What the supporters also fail to acknowledge is that it undermines the need for 'states'. 50 redundant and inefficient administrative units, not to mention 100 ego based senators, could be nicely reorganized to squeeze out some major tax farming resources for a highly centralized government using regions or territories or provinces or other designation. In the end, its all about POWER.
#2
And people in states like California should be careful what they wish for. I am sure they would be unhappy if California voted for the Democratic candidate, but the Republican won the popular vote nationwide. California's huge electoral vote bloc would be cast for the Republican under this scheme. I am sure that they would scream that their votes were being ignored and they were being disenfranchised.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
07/14/2008 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually I think the lefties see the righties seeing them like that -- and they're obviously correct in their perception (of the righties, not of Obama).
#3
it's supposed to satirize the "Right's mischaracterizations" of Mr. and Mrs. Messiah. The fact they're squealing is because it hits too close to home. Empty suit and Mrs. angry racist marxist
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/14/2008 7:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yeah, Obama's a latte-sipping elitist Black Panther -- he's also a naive inexperienced idealist who has mastered the dirty Chicago machine, and in addition he's an Islamofascist who's a fanatical abortionist.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/14/2008 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Aris, there's no question Candidate Obama is highly intelligent and hard-working. Nobody gets through Harvard Law without those attributes, however much his entry might have been facilitated by the slickness of his tongue and the colour of his skin. He is, as well, a supercilious elitist of the first water, prejudiced against those whose life experiences were less privileged than his -- a dangerous belief for one attempting to persuade such people, the vast majority of the population, to give him their vote for the highest office in the land. Let's not even go into his opinions about people of pallor, openly stated in the two autobiographies published before the age of fifty -- a mark of arrogance in itself. How many others are worthy of one published autobiography after a lifetime of achievement, let alone two before he finished his first term in the U.S. Senate?
The cover allows us to see into the minds of the cultural elite leftists who are Obama supporters.
In the eyes of every Obama supporter, this cover supposedly depicts how literally everyone not part of the "in, lefty, cool-kid, I'm so very smart" crowd looks at the Obamas.
In their mind (and yours, based on your comment), everyone who has politics from the center to the right is, in fact, a Nazi, a member of the KKK, has beaten 50 or more gay men to death with a baseball bat, wants women to lose the plebiscite, wants to force everyone to go to church on Sundays, etc.
Sad, really. The fact that you believe all these things about moderates and conservatives is further proof that your intelligence exists merely on a subhuman level, your decency even less so.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/14/2008 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
TW, how dare you upset Ar*s's strawman?
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/14/2008 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Yes no mo.
The art in the New Yorker tells us much about the artists; but not much about the subject of the art.
#12
"Aris, there's no question Candidate Obama is highly intelligent and hard-working."
There's no question for me that he's intelligent and hardworking -- but Rove had called him "lazy" and a Clinton surrogate had said Obama was trying to "shuck and jive" his way into the presidency.
So this is another of one of those occasions, where people attack him in contradictory ways.
"prejudiced against those whose life experiences were less privileged than his"
I thought that being prejudiced against the poor was considered a conservative virtue? Are you praising him or condemning him for this attitude?
On my part I've never seen a privileged person that doesn't believe he deserves his place in life, so I certainly have no doubt that what you're saying about Obama's prejudice is true -- same as it's been true for every other politician ever, in the history of the universe.
As for his beliefs regarding "people of pallor" I'm honestly not worried about black racism taking control in America -- even if Obama had been another version of Mugabe (which he's not), America isn't Zimbabwe.
"In the eyes of every Obama supporter, this cover supposedly depicts how literally everyone not part of the "in, lefty, cool-kid, I'm so very smart" crowd looks at the Obamas."
You can't have it both ways, kid. You can't both be using words like "terrorist fist-jab", and at the same say that we're being arrogant elitist leftists when we're saying you are trying to present Obama as a terrorist.
Fact is you have been trying to do that: far before the "leftist elitist" meme you're now trying to push, there was the "angry black man" meme and even earlier, there was the "secret Muslim terrorist" meme. Those of us with recollective ability of more than 2 minutes remember these quite well -- even though they don't mix very well with each other and your own memories are forced to eject each earlier attack meme before you reproduce the current one.
#17
Although now that I think about it, I find myself wondering _why_ Aris thinks there's a contradiction in an empty-shirt idealist being a front man for the Chicago machine?
#24
How many others are worthy of one published autobiography after a lifetime of achievement, let alone two before he finished his first term in the U.S. Senate?
#25
"You can't both be using words like "terrorist fist-jab", and at the same say that we're being arrogant elitist leftists when we're saying you are trying to present Obama as a terrorist"
Why not? If the fist jab is, in fact, a known gesture used by terrorists? And if one of your philosophical own presents a cartoon, yet again, conveying your cherished foundational notion in life, which is that everyone whose politics isn't left of center is a Nazi, KKK member and the embodiment of evil?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/14/2008 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Aris snuck back in but he will not be allowed to comment at the Burg. We've had too many problems with him in the past and we're not going to allow him to stir up problems in the future.
Should you read this, Aris, understand that you are not welcome to comment at the Burg.
AoS
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2008 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
Thanks, tw, but I'd rather use my time for more productive endeavors.
Watching oil paint dry comes to mind....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/14/2008 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#33
If democratic candidate Obama and his Mrs. are angry and can't brush that one off, how on earth does he plan to handle what will be a DAILY barrage of presidential satire if he is elected?
#34
First rule for any Socialist Republic (or Islamic Republic at also) No Funny Kartoons Allowed! Ya think the Mooslims are sensitive, ya haven't seen, (how do that say it outside of Chicago?) NUTIN NYET!
After the elektion we are going to teach you a lesson. As soon as we bring the troops home from Irak, we will immediately put them to work on bugging every ash tray in Amerika!
Kapish!?!
Posted by: KGB ||
07/14/2008 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#35
That cover will be on Saturday Night Live soon. It can be with The Obamessiah playing himself with us laughing with him or with their Obamessiah take off with us laughing at him. His choice.
#36
Obama's really pissed off?
Yes sir, he is?
Oh, dear, I idolize the man.
Should I tell him that next week McCain's on the cover as the Manchurian Candidate?
Would that smooth things over do you think?
#43
nmu nailed it. I think obama's a double-standard empty suited socialist based on his words and actions..as most of us on the right (generally speaking) tend to view him. I think his recent comments about "merci beaucoup (sp)" just scratch the surface of his naevity/elitism and out of step view of or w/the truly average American. The fact that his shrew of a wife wasn't proud of her country until he got in the primaries only furthers my disdain for these two chumpstains.
Obama = chump (or loose) change we can believe in.
Aris, stick to blogging about shitty movies like troy or whatever it is you do, you're like the nerdy knob jockey that spouts off shit from the some esoteric collection of the latest disotations on nietche - trying to impress the rest of the high school philosophy class because you can't get laid... reminds me of the dude matt damon's character in good will hunting verbally bitch slaps for trying the same crap to get a date. Folks think you're a transparent douchebag...I say welcome to Douchebagistan.
#46
Frank, I love to be lectured on language by Americans who claim that we should only be using the King's English.
I never understood why you felt so offended by my usage of "y'all". I never used it to mock, only to distinguish between plural and singular. I even told you where I'd picked it up from - from an American friend of mine from Georgia.
Deadeye -- never seen "Good Will Hunting", and never read dissertations on Nietze. I'm not as educated as you are, I'm quite sure: After all I'm regularly bashed for my English not being exactly up to Frank G's Oxfordian standards, since I tend to prefer clarity and accuracy instead of using only the Queen's English (as a lower-r republican, I don't think English belong to the Queen after all).
Posted by: Ari s ||
07/14/2008 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
#47
I only objected to an marginlly-educated smarmy cyber-tourist using it, because they saw Yul Brynner in Westworld, and thought it was cooool. You are unwanted here, yet you continue to pathetically try and inject your vacuous stupidity. "Go away".... but you've heard that before, haven't you? You're like a pathetic wanna-be cyber-stalker, but you have no influence, no power, and a real ego-need. Your boyfriend leave you? Buh-bye
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/14/2008 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
#48
damn.... I took the bait. Well a final "Fuck You and Adieu", Ar*s
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/14/2008 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Don't go away mad, Air-ass - just go away.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/14/2008 22:34 Comments ||
Top||
#50
"I'm not as educated as you are, I'm quite sure"
I'm quite sure you're not either...& I could care less about your use of language, syntax or whatever else & I make more then my share of typos (PIMF). Bottomline: you do the same high & mighty grab, twist & pull disingenuous bullshit arguing everytime - and when someone calls you on it you divert to some other tangent - a one trick pony - it's tedious & tiring which is why you are probably poop listed.
#51
What I find amusing is that we have had 8 years of "Bush as a Chimp" cartoons in the same magazine, and "Full Metal McCain" last month. Yet Obama-messiah generates screams of outrage from the left when he is caricatured in a similar fashion.
In my previous post I proposed one explanation for a possible decision by Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, to give birth to Barack in Canada. I pointed out that she had political opinions that were rather critical toward the United States, and I suggested that she might have believed that her mixed-race baby might have a better future with Canadian citizenship.
In today's post I will suggest another explanation, which involves Barack's father, Barack Obama, Sr. The father was a native of Kenya, which was part of the British Commonwealth until December 12, 1963, when Kenya became independent. If the father foresaw that his relationship with the mother might not last and if he foresaw that he eventually might want to take his son to Kenya against the mother's will, then he might have recognized future legal advantages in arranging for the birth to take place in Canada, which was likewise part of the British Commonwealth (until 1982).
If the baby were born in Canada, then the father simply would have to take the baby across into Canada, present the Canadian birth certificate, and then fly away with the baby to Kenya. In such a situation, the mother's legal ability to impede the father's travel with the baby would be significantly reduced.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#6
Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He's an American citizen.
One may wish to flog this nonsense on a dead-ender Hillary blog, but I'd suggest we don't need to do it here. I'm leaving this post but in the future will delete others than go in this direction.
As Old Spook sez, there are plenty of reasons to oppose Senator Obama, if you're of a mind to oppose him. This isn't one of them.
Enough. Feh.
AoS
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2008 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If there is any evidence to Obama's lack of citizenship, how come Clintons didn't make it public?
#8
Just playing along with the conspiracy theory, grom, howzabout because they're planning on bringing it up having it brought up at the convention by somebody supposedly not connected with them? (So Billary can step in and be the Dems' saviour.) ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/14/2008 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#9
how come Clintons didn't make it public?
That one is easy. Senator Clinton needs Candidate Obama to pay off her campaign's multi-million dollar debt. Until that happens she'll hold her tongue in public on whatever dirt her people have dug up. I expect she wouldn't say anything about the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate in private until then, either, lest his people spike her guns.
#10
So you all say this is insignificant, eh ? Notice how Axelrod went right after McCain for being born in Panama and not the continental 48 ? Watch Axelrod, he's always in preemptive strike mode. Firmly believes an active offense is the best defense. Any sentitive areas of Hussein's backround are declared "off limits" for discussion. This is quite simple. Hawaii was a State of the Union in 1961. They had an accepted method of recording and documenting all native births within their state. Let's see a real birth certificate, not a Photoshop dummy. Anyone can get a copy of their own birth certificate if needed from the courthouse of the jurisdiction where they were born (certainly wihin the last 70 yrs. or so). Let's have the document.
For some of us, abiding the rules is important. Call it old fashioned, but if there is a question about his citizenship I'd like it resolved. Since only Barry can do this, it is appropriate to ask that he do so.
For most of us, proving citizenship would be a trivial thing. I wouldn't think twice about being asked to produce a birth certificate, especially in connection with seeking employment for a sensitive and high profile new job.
I have a great deal more sympathy for Cindy McCain's desire not to share her tax returns than I do for Barry's reluctance to produce proof of citizenship.
#15
Granted, I wasn't alive in '61, but if they had flights that could cross the Pacific, they sure as hell had flights that went between Honolulu and Seattle.....and I've never heard of a restriction that would prevent a newborn from flying domestically for such an important reason as a young mother's introduction to proper diapering.
And as for the different appearance of the birth certificate from the "original" one? BFD. I lost my original AZ certificate and had to apply for a new one. I remember seeing the original when I was a kid, and it had a lot more detailed info than the one I currently have. Many states have decided not to put as much info on the newer certificates. Hawaii is not alone in that regard.
This almost makes the Troofers seem rational.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/14/2008 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#16
If his mother was a US Citizen he is. I don't believe it really matters where you are born. It's all nonsense distracting people and making them look crazy in the process.
I believe Hillary's people would have investigated every detail. YOu can bet someone in the Hawaii department of records took a look over his legal documents and we'd hear holy hell if they weren't in order.
I think Obama's minions prefer false conspiracies that distract an can be disproven when required do real skeletons that could take his campaign down.
#17
This sounds like a lot of hooey. But politics enters official documentation. Example: President Bush has a DWI conviction. Anyone charged is processed, which means that fingerprints are taken as is a mug shot. Those documents are missing.
#18
Is it equally desperate and outrageous when law professors and the media conspire to question McCain's eligibility to hold the office on the same grounds?
#20
"If his mother was a US Citizen he is."
Not necessarily true, rjschwarz. Read the fine print:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law
Very, very long piece in the New Yorker, but it rings true. When someone in Chicago is a 'community organizer', what they're organizing is:
1) make sure the neighborhood votes regular Democrat
2) make sure the neighborhood votes for HIM.
Ms. Lizza has that figured out. Obama started in the south side and figured out how to hustle. He's been politically ambitious pretty much all his life. He got lucky not once but three times in his political races. And how he's the Dhimmicratic nominee.
They used to call 'em "ward heelers."
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I remember the South Side > Too many Homeless + too many boarded up, run-down homes and commercial buildings.
#2
It would be tough to shake the city's "machine politics." In that context, judges, police and prosecutors tend to disregard necessary independence. Wrongful conviction is like breathing in Chicago. It has nice clubs though. High rise living there is second only to NYC.
#3
Barry worked for The Woodlawn Organization, no? That was founded by Saul Alinsky, a 60s lefty who wrote "Rules for Radicals" (at the time that was almost heresy - radicals should have "rules"?) TWO was not simply a Demo ward org (Im pretty sure there already WAS a ward org - though Im not sure if Woodlawn was in the same ward as Hyde Park, where reformist white folks made machine politics irrelevant - I dont think it was, but I dont remember the ward boundaries) OTOH it makes perfect sense that Alinsky and TWO pragmatically played local politics - EVERYONE in Chicago does that, even the Univ of Chicago created an organization to do that to suppor their interests in redevelopment.
That Barry has been able to work with Mayor Dailey, is in large part due to the Dailey reaching out to the southside blacks and to liberals in ways his father never did. In the 60s the Southside blacks broke with the Daily machine, while the West side blacks stayed loyal.
So this is Daileys deftness, not a matter of Barry being a typical ward heeler. But again, Chicago is Chicago, and in Chicago even someone who is a reformer by local standards can look a lot like a ward heeler anywhere else, I suppose.
I look forward to reading the article, but keep things in perspective.
"When it comes to dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., my experience working around the corruption of Chicago makes me more qualified than Sen McCain."
Is this the change we were promised, the same jokes from 10 years ago? /snark
In all seriousness, he was planning the countrywide 11 years ago (according to the New Yorker fwiw). I still maintain he ran a bicycle too soon but surprised the Clintons and themselves (so far guess it isn't written in stone just yet - would be interesting to watch him sit there in Invesco and watch a floor vote decide otherwise).
But Bush, echoing Truman, said, at least in effect, We're not leaving Iraq. He embraced the proposals for the surge, which had been worked up by retired Gen. Jack Keane and American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan. He found a commander, Gen. David Petraeus, who had rewritten the Army's manual on counterinsurgency and who had the character and skill to put the surge into effect. As was the case with General Tunner, the men and women serving under him showed unexpected ingenuity and the ability to adapt to unpredicted turns of events, like the Anbar awakening, which enabled them to convert Iraq's deadliest province into a friendly, peaceful territory. And, I am sure we will find out sooner or later, those troops also performed acts of generosity, which made their task easier and will produce goodwill, as the candy bombings did, that will last for decades to come.
The lessons are clear. Stand fast. Put the right men in charge. And never doubt the capacity of the men and women of the American military, when given the right orders, to perform far better than the experts predict.
#1
Actually, I predicted the collapse of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), and that has happened. On July 31, the superceded UN mandate will again apply. And you remember them? One suicide bombing at UN Headquarters and they bailed out.
August could be interesting. Iraqis should not have been put in a position where they could control the result of a US election. The arrogance of the Shiite leadership grows by the day, in unison with Ahmadinejad' rhetoric. I have no doubt that secret protocols were signed when that savage visited Baghdad in May.
Two years after the war between Israel and Hizbullah, Beirut is still grappling with political instability, sectarian unrest, economic stagnation, and an increasingly powerful Hizbullah.
Prime Minister Fouad Saniora, who was premier when Israel unleashed its military might on Lebanon in July 2006, is battling to form a unity government despite an accord hammered out with the Hizbullah-led opposition in May.
Regionally, there are peace moves afoot between Israel and Syria -- which backs the Lebanese opposition -- although Beirut has still ruled out any negotiations with the Jewish state.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Funny, I thought that this was a natural state of Lebanon since the Franco-Brit colonialists started playing state-building on the corpse of the Turkish empire.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
