TREASON

Here is the Bing Dictionary definition of treason:

1. 

betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
See also  high treason

2. 

treachery: betrayal or disloyalty

3. 

act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty

 

So at a townhall meeting (breeding grounds for hatemongering these days), when someone asked Rep. Paul Broun (R - GA) "Who is going to shoot Obama?", that person showed right there "an act of betrayal or disloyalty" to the United States.  The appropriate course of action for Rep. Broun would be to harshly condemn those words and even the thought of assassinating our President.  (And no one can say with a clean conscience that it was "only a joke" because killing is never a laughing matter.)  Therefore because Rep. Broun did not denounce this behavior, one could say he was "aiding an enemy," and would thus be guilty of treason as well.

 

I did not and do not like George W Bush.  I think his policies have ruined our economic status here at home, and our credibility around the world.  I think he got us into two unneeded wars, costing the lives of thousands of Americans and countless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But I would never, ever suggest someone shoot him.  Ever.

 

People, we are American because we are better than this.  We have to grow up.  We have to stop breeding hate.  We need to stop all this treasonous talk and behavior.  And we need to do that now.

Marriage is Marriage

Former conservative Senator Rick Santorum just recently said that House Speaker John Boehner should do whatever he can to uphold DOMA, which is the Defense of Marriage Act.  This law, predictably and decidedly cliche, says that states and the federal government have the right to ignore same-sex marriages from other states if they so choose.  In other words, gays and lesbians have no right to be married.

Now Boehner was once quoted as saying this about marriage, "And that is why marriage and family law has emphasized the importance of marriage as the foundation of family, addressing the needs of children in the most positive way. "

So with that being said, do you know what's destroying this country?  What's causing our students to fail at alarming rates?  What's contributed to over 2 million people being behind bars?  To an alarming rate of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?  (I'll give you a hint, it's not homosexuality.)  And God help me, for once I agree with John Boehner; what's destroying this country is a lack of a two-parent household - a lack of married couples.

But here's the deal: there is no definitive evidence that shows to address "the needs of children in the most positive way," that this marriage has to be between a man and a woman.  Kids are failing and dropping out not because their parents are gay, but because there is only one parent in the household.  Having two parents raising the children, whether it be two men, two women, or a man and a woman, is the only way to ensure our children have a fair shot at a successful future.

Homosexuality isn't destroying the "moral fabric" of America; sex, greed, materialism, consumerism, drugs, alcohol, and under-education are destroying America.  So before Boehner goes defending the Defense of Marriage Act, he should instead defend the institution of marriage itself - no matter who is involved.

Torture Case Dismissed (due to lack of backbone)

     If judges in the past refused to hear cases because they were worried about causing “an international spectacle,” evolution could not be taught in schools, criminals would have no right to legal counsel, and separate but equal would still be the norm.  But when faced with a case involving torture – an extremely important case – that is all U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel is concerned about.

     Jose Padilla, a man convicted of plotting terrorism, alleged that he was repeatedly tortured right here at the Charleston Naval Consolidated Brig, but Judge Gergel said the man had no constitutional right to sue, even though Padilla is a U.S. citizen.  Furthermore, he did not want to hear the case because it would mean “America’s present and former leaders” would have to testify.

     If no wrongdoing occurred, the judge should hear the case and only then should the case be dismissed.  However if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the brig, these issues must be addressed.  Judge Gergel, precedent is meant to be set in the courthouse, but by refusing to hear this case, you are setting the precedent that potential cases of significant importance will not be heard if they might damage the reputations of top government officials.

Let's Make Prison Work

Right now there are over two million U.S. citizens somewhere in our correctional system.  This is a profound waste of time, money, and human power.  Billions and billions of dollars are spent each year on detention center, and what is the end result?  Once released, many inmates find themselves right back in a cell a short time later.  So what can we do to fix this problem?

1)  Obviously the first step to empty out the prisons and detention centers is to stop sending people there.  How do we do this?  It is necessary to thinks of the top factors that may lead to someone being incarcerated.  Undoubtedly education level and socioeconomic status would be near the top of that list.  This may seem like a no-brainer, but Americans are terribly under-educated right now.  More focus needs to be put on good quality education by parents, the community, and the government.  Parents need to be #1 though.  Budget cuts that target education would be a terrible mistake right now; in fact education needs a raise.  Socioeconomic status may also seem obvious, but when someone has no choice but to tearn to crime in order to survive, that's what they will do.  More job opportunities need to be given to minorities, urban areas, and lower-income Americans.  And of course this goes right back to education.  On a related note: winning a war on drugs is just about as feasible as winning a war in Vietnam or Afghanistan, but the focus should always be to give Americans more reasons NOT to use drugs.
2)  People are spending too long incarcerated.  Surely those convicted of violent crimes are right where they belong, so not much can be done about that population.  However, those convicted of non-violent crimes are wasting too much of their lives and too much of our money sitting in prison.  Programs need to be set up to get these folks back out into the community much sooner.  "Good behavior," in my opinion however is not enough.  Those convicted of non-violent crimes need to be out in the communities helping to revitalize those communities.  I am talking way more than highway cleanup here.  Those convicted of non-violent crimes need to be painting buildings, cleaning graffiti, cleaning the streets - things that will make the community look good again.  This will have a two-fold effect: not only will it give the inmates a sense of purpose and community involvement, but it will help to raise land values in these areas, bring businesses back to these areas, and reduce the crime rate.  And this goes back to improving our socioeconomic status as mentioned in paragraph one.
3)  Stop sending people back to prison.  Recidivism is unusually high in this country, at that is because when someone gets out of prison, they usually don't have much choice but to go back to their former life.  While in prison, much more focus needs to be put on rehabilitation and counseling, and along with that, job skills.  I would also be very much in favor of giving tax breaks to companies who are willing to partner with the correctional system to hire these folks after they are released.  In fact, I would be in favor of companies letting the prisons know exactly what skills they require, and helping the inmates to learn these skills.  This will help ensure that they see that there is something better than a life of crime when they get back to the real world.

I believe these are just some of the steps needed to help make prisons an asset, not a burden.

FDR's Second Bill of Rights

Just came across this.  You think maybe this idea has merit?

FDR's Second Bill of Rights

Alternate Realities: My Federal Budget

As a huge comic book and science fiction fan, one of the greatest storylines I enjoy is that of an alternate reality, a "What If?" story, if you will.  These stories are designed to make you think about how things might be if just one event in history was changed.  For example, what if Hitler was killed as a child?  What if JFK had not been assassinated?  You get the idea.

So for my first trek into alternate realities, I am going to write the federal budget.  And I am only going to make one small change.  I am going to take my pencil, erase where it says "national defense," and write in "education," and I'll do the same for "education," and write in "national defense."  Just one small adjustment right?  To see what kind of an impact that might have, first you need to see the way the budget is now:

2011 Federal Budget Proposal

As you can see, before my small change, national defense racked up $738 BILLION.  Education racked up an impressive $122 billion.  But not things are different.  Now education will be getting the big bucks.  So what do you think would happen with $738 billion a year?  (Please feel free to post and add on to this list if I forget something:

1) Teachers would get paid what they DESERVE
2) Classes would not be oversized
3) Computers with internet access would be in every classroom
4) Every child would be afforded the opportunity of higher education, regardless of race, gender, or socio-economic status
5) Schools would not be falling apart
6) Americans would once again fall in love with science, art, theater
7) America would once again be competitive around the world economically and technologically
8) Prisons would be much emptier, and small businesses would be much more abundant
9) Inner-city communities would be revitalized like never before
10-250) I'm sure I'm missing - please help me out here

Now the flip side.  This world would be unrealistic because now we are only spending a fraction of what we were on national defense.  What would happen to our military?

1) The size of our military would only be a fraction of its current sizes
2) Many good people would not be able to get a job in the military
3) Bases would have to close around the world
4) We would have many less ships, planes, and tanks
5) We could not afford to keep fighting the War on Terror

But wait, I guess I can think of a few more benefits.

1) We wouldn't need as many jobs in the military because of how many private sector jobs would be available
2) We wouldn't need to fight in so many wars because we would have much smarter diplomats
3) We wouldn't need to worry about so many attacks from other countries because we would have destroyed ignorance

So, do I really think this is possible?  Not any time soon, but hey, food for thought right?

We're on twitter now!

Please follow us @populistpapers

Those Who Forget the Past

South Carolina's brand new GOP school superintendent of schools is at it again. No surprises here: our educational system is strapped for cash. Obviously raising taxes is not an option. Nor is cutting money for other programs that are more politically popular. Cutting teachers' salaries? Maybe. But here is superintendent Mark Zais's new plan...

Let's cut funding for education on the topic of...the Holocaust. South Carolina funds a group of educators who teach both educators and students all about this atrocity. No one can argue that learning about and fully understanding these events are crucial to the future of mankind. On top of this, this program is only costing the state $31,000 a year. Chump change compared to our $800 million budget gap.

What's even more interesting, or just perhaps strange, is that Mr. Zais is of Jewish descent. And his father fought in World War II. So you would think that he of all people would be a little more sensitive to this issue.

Cuts need to be made, Mr. Zais. Just not here.

See the full article here

Who cares about education? Obviously not SC.

You know, if we cared about education half as much as we cared about the military, disgusting ideas such as these would never arise.  South Carolina's new GOP school superintendent wants to pay our teachers "based on performance."  And of course this is backed by our legislature and new governor, Nikki Hailey.  Only one small problem with this.  Correction, there are a million problems with this. 

1) There are no completely legit ways of measuring teacher performance
2) Teachers grading teachers? Bad idea
3) No extra money for experience? Brilliant
4) No extra pay for advanced education? Genius
5) Parental involvement? Not addressed

And let's face it folks, our problem is primarily #5 there - not our teachers.  Our President just praised teachers as builders of the future in his State of the Union, and now we want to implement something like this?  Outrageous.

Please read the attached article, and I hope your blood boils as much as mine did.

New Plan to Overhaul Teacher Pay

Profile in Courage: Wayne Morse

In early August, 1964, President Johnson informed the country that some of our naval vessels had come under attack by North Vietnamese forces, and this became known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  Nearly immediately, LBJ asked for Congress to grant him the power to take "All necessary actions" in order to respond militarily to the North Vietnamese.  This would of course lead to full-blown war in Vietnam.

Still on somewhat of "patriotic high" following WWII and the Korean conflict, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.  The Senate was nearly just as unanimous, save two Senators - Ernest Gruening of Alaska and Wayne Morse of Oregon.

Although a terribly unpopular decision at the time, Wayne Morse said this regarding sending troops to Vietnam:

"Our government has no right to send American boys to their death in any battlefield in the absence of a declaration of war, and Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution vests the prerogative of declaring war in the Congress of the United States. And no war has been declared in Southeast Asia, and until a war is declared, it is unconstitutional to send American boys to their death in South Vietnam, or anywhere else in Southeast Asia. I don't know why we think, just because we're mighty, that we have the right to try to substitute might for right. And that's the American policy in Southeast Asia. It's just as unsound when we do it as when Russia does it. " (see a full transcript at National Radio Project)

Senator Morse would later be completely vindicated when the truth came out that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was nearly entirely fabricated, and because he showed unwavering dedication to the cause of peace under heavy pressure, Wayne Morse is the Populist Papers' first profile in courage.


Official Bio of Wayne Morse

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

On Externalities

When understanding capitalism and corporations, there is a key concept to grasp, and that is the concept of externalities.  From businessdictionary.com, the definition of an externality is:

Activities and conditions whose benefits (called external economies) and costs (called external diseconomies) are not reflected in the market price of goods and services. The primary feature of externalities is that one entity's action directly or indirectly changes the options available to other entities. For example, widespread benefits of an invention (such as electricity generation) accompanied by the widespread hazards of pollution (such as destruction of ozone layer). Externalities are an important consideration in cost-benefit analysis.

Common examples of externalities are:

Pollution from coal-burning
Second hand smoke
Health risks associated with fast food
Cutting pensions or layoffs
Unstable economy due to shady business practices (see 2008)

There are of course positive examples of externalities as well:

Lower crime rate due to quality education
New medicines from scientific experiments
Higher land values as a result of community service activities

The main question to ask here is: how many negative externalities are you willing to accept as a consumer and a member of society?  Is there anything you or we could do to mitigate these externalities?

The Most Dangerous Man in America...getting a Nobel Peace Prize?

In 1971, the Nixon administration called Daniel Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America."  Ellsberg was a Pentagon insider who initially supported the war in Vietnam, and actually helped gained much of the intelligence needed to start the war.  In the mid to late 1960s however, Ellberg's conscience started to eat at him.  This led to Ellsberg leaking thousands of classified documents to the press which became known as "The Pentagon Papers."  The release of these papers helped greatly to influence the public opinion of the war in Vietnam, and helped to shed light on what was really happening, instead of the stories that were falsely being fed to the public.  Ultimately these papers along with the administration's response, followed shortly thereafter by the Watergate incident, led to the resignation of President Nixon.

Fastforward to present day, and now we have Julian Assange, founder of the website WikiLeaks, doing much of the same thing that Ellsberg did in the sixties.  The website has leaked thousands and thousands of classified war documents regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many other foreign affairs as well.  Many critics accuse Assange of endangering the security of our troops overseas and our national security at home.  Others like Snorre Valen, who nominated Assange for the Nobel Peace Price, said Assange and Wikileaks have helped "redraw the map of information freedom."  Valen says the website's actions have helped promote "democracy and freedom of speech" and that is why he should receive the Peace Prize.

Many years later, many Americans now see Daniel Ellsberg as brave and heroic during one of America's most chaotic periods.  Many still see him as a traitor who turned the press and the public against the war effort in Vietnam.  Only time will tell how history views Julian Assange, and this ultimately begs the question: which is most important, 100% government and military transparency, or the security of the troops and defense personnel?  How much should the public know?

On Self-Determination

For many years, U.S. foreign policy claims that we support the self-determination of countries around the world.  And for many years, we have made the mistake of saying one thing and doing another.  How many times have we preached this mantra and then ensured that the person who comes to power in that particular country is the one that WE would most like to have in power.  And more importantly, how many times has this backfired?

In the case of Egypt, it looks like we are ready to make the same mistake.  Whereas on one side we say we support the "will of the people" being carried out, but on the other hand, we want to make sure that the person who takes over will be an American asset.  Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said it would be unwise for America to take a "hands off" approach to possible upcoming elections in Egypt, and we should instead be on the "ground floor" with their decision making process.  I say: wrong.

The first argument to what I've said here is that I am being unrealistic and naive to boot.  If the U.S. doesn't have direct influence on who a country picks as their leader, how can we ensure the new ruler will be a friend to the U.S. and a trusted ally?  And that is specifically my point - we can't.  And that is specifically why we shouldn't be involved.

The United States continues to have a questionable reputation around the world (and especially the Middle East) because we have a perpetual need to mettle in other country's affairs.  If other countries started to see that the only thing we wish to support is the will of the people (even if their ideologies are vastly different than our own), then maybe, just maybe, these countries can again see us as a friend, an ally, a partner no matter what our differences may be.

If America did not have the opportunity to pursue self-determination, this world would be much different, and undoubtedly much darker.  Other countries should be afforded the same opportunity - with our full support.

Gay Straight Alliance Survives...for now.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/feb/01/01dorch2side/

The attached article entitled "Schools' Gay Straight Alliance survives board look at non-academic clubs" reports that a local school's club known as the Gay Straight Alliance, or GSA, survived a school board meeting held on Jan. 31, 2011.  Apparently the club came under some scrutiny because it was a "non-academic" club.  If I remember correctly, there were more than a few clubs when I was in high school that were not academic in nature, but were worthwhile nonetheless.  It's funny then that this particular club should get noticed.

I don't want to sound too negative about this because at least for the time being, the school board was wise enough to let the GSA continue, and furthermore recognized that an extracurricular activity doesn't necessarily have to be academic to have merit.  With suicide always being a major issue, especially for those who are homosexual and find themselves on the receiving end of a barrage of bullying (see many recent news headlines), groups like the GSA are essential for providing students an outlet in which to vent their thoughts and emotions.  Additionally, straight kids are encouraged to join as well, and this should help to build a bridge between the two groups so maybe some of that bullying can be mitigated.  As long as this group doesn't infringe upon the rights of any other students, there is no reason to shut it down.

All in all, I would definitely mark this as a victory for students' rights, and a victory for the local school community (especially because a couple years ago a principal elsewhere in the state lost his job for a similar club).  Since this is the first time the group is really making headlines though, I doubt this is the last we'll hear about this issue.