Most of the claims made against the TPP border on absurdity.
A big organizing thing lately for left-leaning groups has been opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, a supposedly “secretive” trade agreement between countries, that will give corporations unlimited power over governments and individuals. It’s an absurd and paranoid notion.
All big deals have to be negotiated in secret. Without secrecy, involved parties can’t freely pass around ideas without fear of retaliation from the folks back home. Theoreticals need to be asked and weighted, without fear of being punished for laying an unpopular idea on the table.
No treaty can limit the power of Congress (or any other sovereign government) to pass new laws. It’s true that a treaty when ratified can have the effect of amending existing law, but it’s can’t bind new laws. See the Head Money Cases.
Such retaliatory provisions are generally pretty minor, as if they were too severe, punished countries would just quit the treaty. They are “parking tickets” for bad behavior on behalf of countries — typically relatively small and meaningless fines to encourage compliance with free trade provisions.
In the United States, the president alone can “quit” a treaty without Congressional approval, as seen with George W. Bush leaving the previously ratified ABM treaty. No other law but a treaty, can the president simply repeal without Congressional approval.
There is a lot of debate today on who should have the right:
To Own Firearms
To Vote in Elections
Obviously, as a democratic society, which strongly believes in the second amendment and the right of individuals to own firearms for personal protection and hunting, as many people as possible should have both the right to vote and own firearms.
Some people argue to prevent future massacres and murders, we need more gun control. And yet others say, we should have more clamping down on elections, to ensure those who shouldn’t be voting, don’t. Dangerous and insane people, after all, could influence close elections, and cause party control to be thrown from one person to another.
Basic fairness suggests that if you are a citizen of a society, you should keep your basic rights. If for some reason, a citizen commits a serious or infamous crime, they should lose all of their rights. Once they have completed their sentence, and are viewed once again to be safe to be returned to the street, then they should have all rights restored – be it second amendment rights or voting rights. Dangerous people do not belong on the street. If somebody lacks the ability to know right for wrong or is morally corrupt, they should either be locked up behind bars or executed by criminal justice system.
I keep hearing it on the radio and in the press that America is:
More Polarized
More Violent
More Destructive
More Polluted
… then ever before
I have to roll my eyes, just because it’s such a myopic view of history,and the place we are as a society. It ignores the dramatic progress we’ve made in recent years at addressing the real problems of the past, and presents the world of today in a much more negative light then really should be presented.
One of my hobbies is reading about the 1950s and 1960s, as they were so seminal in creating the world of today. Despite what sometimes commentators of the news claim today, it certainly was not an era of unity or smooth action in Washington DC or at the State Capitols.
It was an incredibly violent era in American history, one of intense division on issues of culture, segregation, civil rights, and the role of the federal government. Policies of the past 100 years came crashing down in that decade, and many people 50 years later are still pretty bitter about what happened during that time period.
After hearing about the Malcolm Smith corruption case, I had think how absurd and delusional can one be about running for office.
1) Malcolm Smith could have become a Republican prior to Election Day in 2012. He could have dropped off his change of registration form on Election Day, and nobody would have ever noticed until the election was over. This way, he could have avoided needing the Wilson-Pakula, as he would be registered in the party that he wanted to run in the primary for their seat.
2) Malcolm Smith wasn’t likely to win the Republican Primary in his battle for City Mayor. The reality is that Joseph J. Lhota and John Catsimatidis were favored to win the Republican primary. Many republican leaders had come out in favor of those two candidates, so the idea that a Democrat running as a Republican could snap up the primary vote, just seemed absurd.
3) Even if Malcolm Smith went on to win the Republican primary, he would be running against the very popular Democrat, Christine Quinn, the Speaker of New York City Council. Malcolm Smith would have been a weak candidate, at best, running in a city that is overwhelmingly a Democratic city.
Basically, I can’t think of a way that Malcolm Smith could have reasonably expected to win the mayorality of NY City.
In New York State, you have to register in a political party to be eligible to vote in primaries. You can’t vote in a Democratic primary, for example, if you are not a registered Democrat. The same is true with Republicans and all minor parties.
That said, in most parts of New York State, 15-25% of all voters choose to not register in a party. They may choose not to enroll in a party, as they don’t want to publicly identify with one side or another, or they do not feel comfortable with either party’s platform.
So where do the the voters who choose not to register in a party, aka blanks live? To answer that question, we take a look at Google Maps, using LATFOR voter registration data. Due to the limitations of Google Maps, we only included data at the municipal level, but it gives you a definate feel for enrollment patterns in different parts of state.
Next week we will take a look at actual “swing” voters on a state-wide basis at the MCD level. Swing voters are different from “blank” voters, as they are voters who choose to vote cross-lines, such a voting for a Democrat for President, then choosing to vote for a Republican for State Senate, and a Democrat for State Assembly. “Blank” voters might be enrolled in a party, but they may always consistently vote for Democrats and Republicans.
Reviewing these maps, you will note that the Hudson Valley and Suffolk County have the highest percentage of blank voters in the electorate. Suburban areas also tend to have greater number of blank voters, compared to urban centers and rural areas.
So how has the number of blank voters changed in the state from 2006 through 2010? It varies widely based on region of state, but in general partisan enrollment is up in the state, except in some rural portions of the state that used to be more heavily Republican.
2006-2010 Municipalities with Decreases in Blank Enrollment.
“Calling yourself a liberal or conservative, is kind of like saying, I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.” — Governor Nelson Rockefeller
People sometimes like to point out to me on Twitter that I re-tweet and bring in information from a variety of perspectives. Most of the time I actually agree with the stuff I am re-tweeting, other times it’s informational.
Yet, most of time what I share is from a variety of perspectives, as I’m hardly one of a solid ideological camp. I am pretty independent, picking what I want from materials generated by the Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, Urban-folk and Rural-folk. I simply try to share what I believe is right.
I always keep several principles in mind when it comes to defining what I think is right:
Urban and Rural Communities are Very Different – Impacts of population multiply effects more quickly in urban areas, more nuisance possibility, more possibility of conflict
Regulations on individuals should be minimized, corporations and business activities more generally ought to be regulated to serve the public good – civil liberties and general freedom should be upheld for individuals
I believe my views are actually quite consistent when it comes to context. I just believe in maximum individual freedom, and maximum freedom for those who live rural areas, while appropiate restrictions for urbanized areas where large groups of people live.
I often prefer to use Net Votes per Election District, as this more clearly shows were a person lost and won the race, because Turn out can very quite widely from Election District to Election District. Moreover, some Election Districts are more populus then others.
Turn out was particularly high in districts that Sandy lost, particularly in Westerlo ED 3 (Dormansville), one of most conservative EDs in Albany County currently.
This map shows the Average Democratic Preformance of Statewide candidates by 2010 Voting Tabulation District, with the 2011 County Leg districts superimposed. Be aware that all statewide Democratic candidates preformed quite well across 2010 Albany County,but it also shows the weakness in Dormansville (Westerlo ED 3), and Cooksburg-Preston Hollow-Potters Hollow (Rensselearville ED 2). The entire district was and is marginal Democratic, and can easily swing into the Republican column.
.
While Sandy Gordon got a higher percentage of votes on Democratic line then Debra Bush on the Republican line, the heavy Conservative-block vote in Renselearville EDs and South Westerlo (ED 1) provided a margin of victory for Debra Bush.
Sandy Gordon lost 2/3rds of Knox in the redistricting. He preformed worst in the new portion of the district — specifically Westerlo — and failed to hold onto Renselearville.
While he faced a Tea-Party Movement in Renselearville that organized against him, if he had spent more time going door-to-door in this portion of district, along with introducing himself to Westerlo voters, he may have been able to hold on to his seat.
Regardless, it was tough year for Democratic Incumbents, especially those with a long record and many difficult votes to face, such as over-riding the tax-cap, which will hurt rural residents and those of the hilltowns who own a lot of land hardest.
