The Republicans are some sore losers after Obama's reelection.
Some sore losers and their reactions are shown all over the blogo-sphere. Before the election, the Republicans were very poor at predicting the magnitude of their losses and appeared totally shocked that they lost the White House during this election cycle. Their shock transformed into anger very quickly.
Republicans now claim that Obama has no popular mandate to raise taxes on the rich since he was elected with a very 'slim' majority of the popular vote (3 million voters is not even close to slim). This argument falters in the face of the fact that he has an over 60% edge in the Electoral College (332 vs. 206).
My reply to their argument is plain and simple.
Have a look at the election results when George W Bush was elected during his first mandate, in 2000. He lost the popular vote nationally and won the Electoral College by the slimmest of margins (2 votes). These facts have not stopped him to behave as if he had a direct mandate from the most conservatives of the Republicans and went into 2 unprovoked wars and -unnecessarily- lowered federal income taxes across the board while leaving the economy in total shambles at the end of his second term.
When W Bush was behaving like an escaped gorilla on a ripe corn field, even though he had no popular legitimacy to roam around, the Republicans claimed that 'he was the president elect' and right now that exact same argument appears obsolete and not applicable. I cannot stop being at least intrigued by Republican inconsistencies.
After this election Obama has earned total political legitimacy and should promote and enact laws that totally reflect the mandate that elected him for another 4 years. Advance health care for all, social justice, regulatory reform, energy independence, and fiscal soundness are at the top of his agenda. He cannot be derailed by Republican's shenanigans anymore.
One more remark: Mitch McConnell, please resign from your position immediately and return to your ranch.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Just like I thought
Obama won another 4 years and, given his competitor, this was fully expected. As soon as the Republicans picked Mitt Romney to be their presidential candidate the winner had already been elected.
Many commentators claim that Romney had a chance at beating Obama but he really did not. Obama has not been a great president but he has managed to extricate our nation from the throes of a very deep recession and people could not forget that.
When Obama first took office in 2008 fear was practically flowing like a wild river down our streets. With fierce Republican opposition Obama managed to stabilize the economy and has even passed health care reform. Kudos to him and his team.
I am pleased that the country has seen clearly through the fog and electoral promises and stuck with a proven presdient.
Many commentators claim that Romney had a chance at beating Obama but he really did not. Obama has not been a great president but he has managed to extricate our nation from the throes of a very deep recession and people could not forget that.
When Obama first took office in 2008 fear was practically flowing like a wild river down our streets. With fierce Republican opposition Obama managed to stabilize the economy and has even passed health care reform. Kudos to him and his team.
I am pleased that the country has seen clearly through the fog and electoral promises and stuck with a proven presdient.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
A few days ago I voted
I feel relieved that I voted. I went to the election office and just voted. It took me no more than10 minutes.
I feel even better that we can vote early. Where I live we can vote 35 days before a federal election and it is amazing that I need not wait for the first Tue in Nov to be able to vote.
I need not be preoccupied anymore with political debates, polls, or changing position/views mostly as I have made my mind up a few months ago and that was that.
I feel even better that we can vote early. Where I live we can vote 35 days before a federal election and it is amazing that I need not wait for the first Tue in Nov to be able to vote.
I need not be preoccupied anymore with political debates, polls, or changing position/views mostly as I have made my mind up a few months ago and that was that.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Astounding
Please have a read of this article, Congressman draws fire for calling evolution, Big Bang ‘lies from the pit of hell’, and tell me that this is not absolutely insane.
In this day and age and in this great country of ours, a representative who is supposed to be a luminary evokes -with nonchalance and shallowness- some of the darkest moments in human history. I am talking about ignorance and total abdication of logic.
We are independent beings and we are not being directed to do or not do things by anybody. There can be no supreme being able to tell us what to do or not to do.
According to Gallup and quoted in the article above:
'The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years. In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.'
Can this be real? 46% of Americans think that we cannot explain our world without a God? I am ashamed of the vastness of people's ignorance and their stubbornness refusal of accepting a world working as it has from the beginning, independent of any gods. This cannot be about education. We spend vast amounts of money and resources on education and we cannot be that wrong. We just cannot.
So, what is the root cause of the vast numbers of Americans who think God is at center of their lives? Perhaps it is human nature and laziness. But perhaps it is our social structure. With faults and fissures that allow human mind to stray away from logic. Far, far away. As far away as the Milky Way.
We are independent beings and we are not being directed to do or not do things by anybody. There can be no supreme being able to tell us what to do or not to do.
According to Gallup and quoted in the article above:
'The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years. In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.'
Can this be real? 46% of Americans think that we cannot explain our world without a God? I am ashamed of the vastness of people's ignorance and their stubbornness refusal of accepting a world working as it has from the beginning, independent of any gods. This cannot be about education. We spend vast amounts of money and resources on education and we cannot be that wrong. We just cannot.
So, what is the root cause of the vast numbers of Americans who think God is at center of their lives? Perhaps it is human nature and laziness. But perhaps it is our social structure. With faults and fissures that allow human mind to stray away from logic. Far, far away. As far away as the Milky Way.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
On social alcohol consumption and tolerance
Elaborating on my previous post, I think that societies that are indifferent (or tolerant) to alcohol consumption are more tolerant than societies that do not.
Examples: Pakistan versus Germany. Or Saudi Arabia versus Romania. Or Egypt versus Italy.
In addition, alcohol consumption can be a proxy for other types of substances, such as marijuana or other mildly attention/focus diverting substances. (To be clear, abuses at individual level are not to be considered relevant for this post.)
Getting back to the idea that alcohol consumption -at society levels- fosters tolerance let's zoom in on some reasons.
1. Creates substitutes for acceptance and, surely, creates a sense of brotherhood. Look at the beer evolution in Belgium or Holland: communities developed a sense of togetherness around monasteries, which then developed very creative beer brewing methods and flavors.
2. Promotes acceptance of different views during social gatherings. If you go to a wedding, say, and discuss -after a few drinks- about politics you get 'black listed' from ever going to weddings so you have an incentive to 'behave'.
3. Removes some opportunities from too much introspection. The results is that you do not need to worry about what you do not think about.
4. Quite possibly, changes perception of what matters at 'the deepest levels'. Young people are very easy to be influenced and the influence of alcohol overtakes the influence of any other indoctrinating thoughts.
5. Promotes the creation of knowledge paths/tracks indifferent to indoctrination. Knowing how to make beer (or whiskey or wine or brandy) and being able to do so can lead to financial independence. Who needs religion when they are self and fully sufficient? Taxation of alcohol has much more to do with -financial and thought- independence than with it being considered a 'vice', for sure.
We cannot discount the thought that alcohol production and consumption in Western societies (Europe) has led to more tolerant people. Alcohol and education, that is...
Examples: Pakistan versus Germany. Or Saudi Arabia versus Romania. Or Egypt versus Italy.
In addition, alcohol consumption can be a proxy for other types of substances, such as marijuana or other mildly attention/focus diverting substances. (To be clear, abuses at individual level are not to be considered relevant for this post.)
Getting back to the idea that alcohol consumption -at society levels- fosters tolerance let's zoom in on some reasons.
1. Creates substitutes for acceptance and, surely, creates a sense of brotherhood. Look at the beer evolution in Belgium or Holland: communities developed a sense of togetherness around monasteries, which then developed very creative beer brewing methods and flavors.
2. Promotes acceptance of different views during social gatherings. If you go to a wedding, say, and discuss -after a few drinks- about politics you get 'black listed' from ever going to weddings so you have an incentive to 'behave'.
3. Removes some opportunities from too much introspection. The results is that you do not need to worry about what you do not think about.
4. Quite possibly, changes perception of what matters at 'the deepest levels'. Young people are very easy to be influenced and the influence of alcohol overtakes the influence of any other indoctrinating thoughts.
5. Promotes the creation of knowledge paths/tracks indifferent to indoctrination. Knowing how to make beer (or whiskey or wine or brandy) and being able to do so can lead to financial independence. Who needs religion when they are self and fully sufficient? Taxation of alcohol has much more to do with -financial and thought- independence than with it being considered a 'vice', for sure.
We cannot discount the thought that alcohol production and consumption in Western societies (Europe) has led to more tolerant people. Alcohol and education, that is...
Sunday, September 30, 2012
On beer consumption per capita (as of 2011)
Beer consumption may be a proxy for social attributes that are very desirable. For instance, it is rare to drink beer all by yourself, just to get trashed. It takes too much beer to be able to get drunk quickly.
We drink beer with friends and family and the theory is that the more beer we drink the more friends and family relationships we possess. In a way, we can use beer consumption per capita as a gauge of social closeness.
Personally, I would not want to live in a country not in the top 20 on the list below...
Chart above can be found at http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-30/beer-reflection-world-economy
We drink beer with friends and family and the theory is that the more beer we drink the more friends and family relationships we possess. In a way, we can use beer consumption per capita as a gauge of social closeness.
Personally, I would not want to live in a country not in the top 20 on the list below...
Chart above can be found at http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-30/beer-reflection-world-economy
Thursday, September 27, 2012
On American constitutional stability (I)
Arguably, the US has had the most stable constitution in the Western hemisphere. Stability should be a good thing when it comes to constitutional concepts.
After all, the constitution is the framework around which all our government institutions functions. Justice, governance, openness, use of force, freedom of expression, and enforcement of rules are all the main foundation on which the institutions of our society function. We want stable institutions, don't we?
Yet, there are a few conflicts between stability and the evolutionary needs of a growing society. We can see the conflicts being played out in at least 2 major directions.
The first is centered around the 2nd Amendment which is interpreted as the unstoppable right of all Americans to have weapons. This is the text of the 2nd Amendment: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
The second conflict relates to the fact that we, as Americans, are under-represented in the Congress.
Since 1910 the number of Federal representative has remained constant across the years while the population has grown dramatically. We have had 435 Congressmen for the past 102 years and 100 Senators. For more details on apportionment, please see this US Census link.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
As far as the Senate, we have 100 Senators, so the apportionment is not population driven (2 per state).
The US population has evolved as detailed below.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
...To Be Continued
After all, the constitution is the framework around which all our government institutions functions. Justice, governance, openness, use of force, freedom of expression, and enforcement of rules are all the main foundation on which the institutions of our society function. We want stable institutions, don't we?
Yet, there are a few conflicts between stability and the evolutionary needs of a growing society. We can see the conflicts being played out in at least 2 major directions.
The first is centered around the 2nd Amendment which is interpreted as the unstoppable right of all Americans to have weapons. This is the text of the 2nd Amendment: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
The second conflict relates to the fact that we, as Americans, are under-represented in the Congress.
Since 1910 the number of Federal representative has remained constant across the years while the population has grown dramatically. We have had 435 Congressmen for the past 102 years and 100 Senators. For more details on apportionment, please see this US Census link.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
As far as the Senate, we have 100 Senators, so the apportionment is not population driven (2 per state).
The US population has evolved as detailed below.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
...To Be Continued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)