Who Am I?

This politician has been mentioned an AWFUL lot recently. Can you guess who he is?

• One former president said of him: "There could not a be a finer candidate for President."
• New York Times named him amongst the "Ten Most Important Living Americans."
• To his critics, he is "Wonder Boy."
• His political career has seen him spearhead a campaign to promote home ownership amongst lower income families and he has promised unprecedented influence of African-Americans upon being elected president.
• He came up with plans to end popular tax cuts by the previous administration.
• He's been accused of "reckless and extravagant" spending plans and "leading the country down the path of socialism."

Who could I possibly be talking about? Answers in the comments section, please, and all commentor's will be entered into my Christmas Competition (since only five people entered the original one!)

An Uneducated Housewives Guide to Politics

The lovely Coffee Bean has started an ambitious project over at An Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics - and asked me to contribute!

Coffee Bean, who describes herself as a 'fun lovin' and home makin' Christian wife and mama' has two kids set to vote in their first presidential election this year - so she started a blog to peer into the murky world of politics and help give her kids the opportunity to cast an informed vote come November.

Coffee Bean, who really doesn't live up to her self deprecating title of 'uneducated', isn't going to do what most of us bloggers do (wax lyrical with a pompous sense of self importance.)

Instead, she's going to highlight a few important issues and ask some of her blogging chums (myself included) to give their opinion on the subject. This allows her kids to see a broad range of political punditry and make their own decisions about who to vote for.

Along with me, there'll be Liam and Two Dogs - diametrically opposed, but fluent and enthusiastic bloggers. They'll be giving two very different views of the American political process. I'm sure Coffee Bean would LOVE your opinions as well, so do take a peek and leave a comment with your own opinions.

Tarred with the same brush?

Coffee Bean has been giving me a run for her money over on her blog, with a very brave and honest post about her faith and how it's ebbed and flowed throughout her life.

From what she wrote, I learned it's very easy to tar one group by the same brush as its more extreme members. For example, as April pointed out, not all people who identify as conservative Christians believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and condemn homosexuals.

This proves one important thing - that Christians are clearly more evolved than politicians. Apparently, to be a Democrat or Republican you must - MUST - believe in certain things to meet the approval of your party.

I find this very frustrating as we march towards the 2008 election.

Mostly because John McCain, who I respect enormously, is getting more and more ensnared by party political bullshit.

What I really admire about John McCain (apart from the fact that he can fly a fighter plane) is that he's a maverick. He has his own beliefs and for most of his political career, he wasn't afraid to share them.

Immigration. The Environment. Abortion. Homosexual rights. John McCain bucked the Republican trend on all of them and that made him an outstanding candidate in my book. A man who had sensible Republican financial ideals, but was able to rise about the social conservatism that I despise.

Sadly, now he's won the nomination for President in the face of more 'conservative' Republicans, John McCain faces the challenge of not only winning over undecided voters, but the more right-wing members of his own party as well.

That's meant he's been forced to compromise on some pretty important issues. His campaign website has shown a u-turn on certain issues - which is bad. Not just because it scares off more moderate voters. It also makes people concerned that McCain is buckling under the pressure of a party that has spent the last eight years making a litany of poor judgement calls.

McCain's biggest asset (aside from his gorgeous and brilliant daughter, Meghan) is his history of bipartisanship. If he loses the ability to cross party lines on decisive issues, he'll lose his appeal to the more moderate voters and that will cost the Republicans the election.

You have to ask the more right wing Republicans - what's more important? Sticking to your (hand)guns on all your so-called 'values?' Or actually winning the election?

Because until the right wing is willing to swallow their pride and stump up support behind their candidate, they have little hope of defeating Obama.

What it would take to make me vote Republican...

(Citizenship, for a start...)

If you'd asked me a week ago, I'd have said Senator John McCain would come off better in the McCain/Obama November showdown.

But as former Prime Minister Harold Wilson admitted, 'a week is a long time in politics.'

A week later, I think I've got it figured out - and believe the election will go to Barack Obama.

That being said, I'd consider voting for McCain if he could just keep that damn party of his in check. I like McCain. I think he's an honorable and independent politician who represents, in his own stuffy Republican way, real change.

But to make me support McCain, he'd have to make some alterations:

Dump the Social Conservatives: The Republican party is supposed to be the party of liberty and constitution. When it was founded by Thomas Jefferson, his political philosophy was one of personal freedom. These days, the Republican party seems dominated by faithful fascists who want to control every aspect of the American way of life.

Limiting civil rights for gay people. Forcing religious doctrine into the classroom. Censoring freedom of speech in the interests of 'family values.' There is not a single constitutional amendment [Except the 2nd one - Editorial Bear] the social conservatives are unwilling to trample on - all in order to turn America into neat, twee, homogenized Christian Disneyland.

Politically, the social conservatives are dynamite. Evangelicals represent upwards of 80 million Americans and their vote can win or lose elections (just ask John Kerry.) That doesn't change the facts, however. The social conservatives are hypocritical, fascist and unAmerican. Until the Republicans return to their roots and shed these political parasites, they remain unsupportable.

Fix the Damn Budget! Hypocrisy again. The Republicans rant that Democrats will raise taxes - yet our last three Republican presidents have nobbled the economy and crippled the working and middle classes with higher taxes (or rampant inflation.)

The philosophy of the Republican party - and this dates back to Thomas Jefferson as well - is a small federal government. The smallest possible, existing only to organize the operations vital to a country's survival. Things like an effective army, a postal service, federal highways (although even those Jefferson was against.) By keeping federal government to a minimum, the tax burden on American citizens would also be kept to a minimum.

Yet essential to this idea was a government that operated effectively. Instead, we have a bloated federal government that spends far beyond it's means (the taxpayer will feel the burden of the Iraq war for decades to come) and the operations it takes responsibility for are mired in bureaucracy and inefficiency.

If John McCain wants my support, he has to fix Bush's mistakes. The federal government needs to do it's job cost-effectively. No more loans. No more deficits. No more bankrupting and mortgaging off of American assets. If the Republicans honestly want us to trust them with the responsibility of running our nation, prove that they can balance a cheque-book first.

End the Fiscal Dogma - If another Republican raves about Ronald Reagan, I will slap them. Reaganomics was a farce. Ronald Reagan's idea of tax cuts for the rich 'trickling down' to the working and middle classes has been proven not to work. Back when Reagan was slashing his rich friend's tax burden, payroll taxes for the average American actually went up.

Low taxes will stimulate the economy - but not if you give them to the rich. The rich save their extra money, so it doesn't stimulate the economy at all. Only by giving tax cuts to the working and middle class will more money actually be pumped into the economy. Middle class Americans actually have to spend the money they get - on gas, clothes, food and utilities. Giving 100 working class Americans $1,000 will see more money put back into the American economy than giving 1 rich American $100,000. Yet the Republican party is too stupid (or too politicised by rich people) to see this. As a result, the poor make less (the bottom 90% of Americans saw a dismal 3% increase in income) while the rich make more (the richest 10% saw their income raised by 31%.)

I'm not suggesting any socialist rubbish. I'm not advocating taxing the rich any more. I don't want to redistribute wealth. I want tax cuts, that's all. I want an efficiently run government to reduce the tax burden it places on it's citizens - specifically it's middle and working class citizens.

When it comes down to it, there's no more Republican philosophy than that.

In the Mean Time...

Pipe dreams.

When it comes down to it, that's all my ranting comes down to. The fact is, the Republican party isn't going to change. They're not going to realise overnight what a farce they've become and how removed they are from the party of Jefferson and later Lincoln.

Like the oil industry it's so entrenched with, the Republican party has a (generally) successful strategy for success and they're not interested in changing it - even if they are vaguely aware that the resources they've relied on for so long are drying up.

Until reality bites, I'm going to have to support Obama. Not that he isn't without his faults - and not that the Democratic Party isn't almost as stupid as the Republican party. For many people, Barack Obama and the Democrats offer the possibility of change. As far as I'm concerned, they just offer the lesser of two evils.

I'll leave you with some wise words from the great American himself - highlighting a problem that has plagued American politics since the day it was conceived.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

Election Fever 2008!

I haven't had a post about the election in ages - because it's been pretty boring so far.

John McCain might as well be sitting in a hammock drinking cocktails, since his job is done. He's wrapped up the Republican primary and a good job too, since fundamentalist nutjob Mike Huckabee and crazy mormon Mitt Romney would have been scary if they'd been given a shot at the White House.

I like John McCain. His age doesn't worry me, since he's only slightly older than my dad and papa is still sharp as a lick of paint. McCain also wins points because the extreme left despise him (labelling him 'McSame' and accusing him of being 'Bush Mk.II) only slightly less than the extreme right of his own party despise him (calling him a 'leftist' and a 'token Republican' for crossing party lines on certain issues.)

If the far left and the far right can't stand him, he's probably doing something right.

As far as the Democrats go... well, that whole scene's a bloody mess, isn't it?

Republicans are rubbing their hands together at Obama and Clinton locking horns. This whole battle should have been over long ago, but plucky old Hillary is refusing to let Obama win and that's dragging the primary on... and on... and on...


On the face of it, Obama's got her licked. He's got the majority of delegates on his side and is clearly the most popular candidate. Hillary isn't going out without a fight, though, and has awkwardly managed to win states like Florida (even if it didn't count) and Pennsylvania, which are the 'swing states' that will win (or lose) a Presidential election.

The more bitter the battle gets, the more damage Clinton and Obama are doing to each other's chances of victory in the Presidential election.

The consensus is that Hillary will have to use her support amongst the 'super delegates' to secure the candidacy - and if she does that, she'll have basically disenfranchised every person who voted in the Democratic Primaries (since she'd have rejected the popular vote and won through political clout alone.)

If Hillary does that, I can't see how she'd hope to win the 2008 Election.

A Grim Day for Politics

The Iowa caucuses are the first post in the marathon run to presidential nomination - which makes them incredibly important.

In both 1996 and 2000, the results of the Iowa caucuses accurately predicted which Republican candidates would run for election that year. If that accuracy is repeated, it puts former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on the bill to stand for election as the 44th President of the United States of America.

Which is a disaster.

I don't heart Huckabee

My major reason for disliking Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate is his slavish devotion to Christian evangelicalism. Now there is nothing wrong with being devout - but from the birth of the American nation to the present day, there has always been (in theory) a policy dividing church and state. Mike Huckabee doesn't want any part of that policy.

"Let's take this nation back for Christ." So said Mike Huckabee in 1998 - and on December 31st 2007, he stood by that comment on NBC's 'Meet the Press.'

Here is a man who believes that the bible is the literal 'word of God,' defiantly supports Creationism (and believes it should be taught in schools) and proudly declared that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle."

How on earth did this man win the support of the Iowa GOP?

"There's only one explanation for it," he proudly declared, "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

Divine intervention, apparently.

Blatant Hypocrisy

Although Huckabee claims to believe that the bible is the literal word of God (including that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' bit) he's still a grudging supporter of the death penalty.

Despite being a Republican (supposedly the party of 'small government' and fiscal responsibility) his tenure as Governor of Arkansas saw a 65% increase in spending and an explosion in the state's debt to a whopping $1 billion.

His 'dedication' to democracy is clear - in 1999 he attached a 4% tax increase on diesel fuel in the state of Arkansas without voter approval, in direct violation of his oath of office.

And his attitude towards government? In 1998, Huckabee proudly declared: "Government doesn't have the real answers. The real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

Jesus is not on the Electoral Roll

There is nothing wrong with being religious. The tenants of Christianity offer excellent moral guidance in how to live our day-to-day lives and interact with other human beings with kindness and tolerance (well, as long as they're not homosexual, apparently.)

However, a heavily edited, oft-translated, trimmed, tweaked and tailored manuscript written two thousand years ago DOES NOT offer an effective basis for running the most powerful nation on Earth.

America requires leadership dedicated to humanity, rationality and logic - and Mike Huckabee can offer the United States none of those things.

If Mike Huckabee wins the 'ticket' to run for the presidency, even the most devout Christian would be best off praying for a Democrat to win the election.

Howard Dean and Al Gore

Just tonight, I watched two interviews with former Presidential candidates.

First was Al Gore - who is an utterly charming, clever, sharp and highly capable man. I mean, he's won an Oscar and (part of) a Nobel Prize. Given that the man who beat him in the 2000 election can't even pronounce the word 'nuclear' it's kind of a sharp indictment of American society that he's not in the White House right now.



Second was Howard Dean, former presidential candidate (he lost the Democratic nomination to John Kerry) who now runs the Democratic National Committee. He again struck me as a clever, considered man who delivered sharp, quick responses to difficult questions.

Given that the Democratic nominees seem to be tied up in infighting and bitchiness - plus the fact that both front runners (Hillary and Obama) are up against discrimination regarding their sex and race, it's a real shame that neither of these two apparently capable men are throwing their hats into the ring.

I don't doubt either front-running Democratic candidate's abilities. I'm just not sure America is as ready for them as the world is.

Goodbye, Democracy. It was nice knowing you...

Well, we're in a right state at the moment. Globally, I mean. Democracy has taken rather a beating and things don't look like they're going to change any time soon.

First off, we have President Bush and Gordon Brown, leading the west.

President Bush, of course, didn't actually win the 2000 election that brought him into the White House (if you'll believe popular rumour, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, but capitulated before it hit the supreme courts.)

Gordon Brown, over in the UK, didn't even have to worry about a vote. He was rushed into 10 Downing Street on Tony Blair's coat tails and the Labour Party couldn't even muster enough enthusiasm to offer a token opposition (even if it was for entertainment value alone.)

The European Union, now nudging America off the financial top spot by a few GDP percentage points, is a ridiculously undemocratic organisation. Oh, sure, there's a European Parliament which has elected members chosen from each member state - but the executive branch of the European Union - the body that makes the laws, decisions and treaties regarding the running of the Union - is made up of 27 commissioners who are handpicked by their nation's government. Not one of these commissioners ever has to worry about an election.

So considering the West's atrocious recent history with democracy, it's no wonder that the petty crooks and wannabe generalissimos on the other side of the political spectrum are neatly sidestepping due process and trying to keep that riff raff 'public' out of the important business of running their tinpot dictatorships.

Poor old Hugo Chavez, who was attempting to abolish term limits so he could be 'el presidente' for life in oil-rich Venezuela, was dealt a blow when the people of his country nixed his little scheme. His fatal mistake, of course, was having a referendum in the first place. Although being democratically elected 'leader for life' worked for the likes of Adolf Hitler, the problem when you do things 'the right way' is that you don't always get the result you wanted.

Old Vladimir Putin, the new Iron Man of Russia, wasn't going to make the same mistake. He's proudly boasting about his recent victory in the polls - which awarded his United Russia Party with 70% of the seats in parliament.

He wisely decided not to risk involvement with the 'democratic' process and swept to victory on the back of what Gary Kasparov called: "the most unfair and dirtiest election in the whole history of modern Russia."

Gary should be careful what he says. Putin has a radioactive response to his more vocal critics, as demonstrated by the grisly fate of reporter Alexander Litvinenko - who was poisoned by a pellet of Polonium-210 traced back to Putin's old KGB buddies.

The 'bad guys' like Putain and Chavez will always be petty crooks and dictators - but much of the criticism we in the west level at their crooked political process is diluted by our less than exemplary recent history.

We can only hope that the next general election in Great Britain and the 2008 Presidential Election will bring a bit of openness, legitimacy and authority to the way the western world is run - and serve as a shining example to the rest of the world about how great democracy can really be.

The Election Aftermath

Well, the voters of New Jersey have spoken.

On Election Day 2007 - which I covered here - the people of Middlesex County voted in resounding support of their incumbent mayors, with only South River's Robert Szegeti getting booted off in favour of Republican challenger Raymond Eppinger.

And while this leaves South River with a 'one party' local government (the mayor and five council members are now Republican) the rest of New Jersey remained grudgingly loyal to the Democrats - although how they approached the four 'voters questions' revealed that they want their democratic representatives to rein in the spending and stay fiscally conservative.

North Brunswick's mayor, Francis 'Mac' Womack III was welcomed back for another term - and good for him. He's done our township proud.

Aside from choosing our representatives, however, voters of New Jersey were asked to vote on four specific 'questions' that effected our great state.

The first was:

1: Should New Jersey permanently dedicate a percentage of revenue earned from sales tax towards property tax relief?

New Jersey said no.

Which was the right decision, no doubts about it. While New Jersey has some of the highest property tax in the whole of the United States, it seems entirely illogical to take money out of one tax pool to alleviate the sting of the other. If New Jersey has such an enormous surplus in their sales tax revenue, perhaps they ought to lower the tax rate?

Or, alternatively, they should use that revenue stream to pay for whatever it is that keeps the property taxes so high?

Although it is more complicated than that. Sales tax is raised on a state level, while property taxes are raised by the townships where people live. It's easy to forget that government in America is a multi-tiered structure and the different tiers have responsibility paying for different things.

But accepting that makes the proposed property tax relief even more illogical. If property taxes pay for schooling, rubbish collection and local police and fire services - things only a particular township benefit from - why should the entire state of New Jersey bail out particular townships via the sales tax?

Because rerouting sales tax revenue to offer property tax relief essentially leaves everybody in New Jersey - renters and property owners alike - bailing out the home owners. Which simply isn't fair.

2: Should New Jersey approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research?

Again, the answer was a resounding no.

On the surface, I think that's a very good thing. Borrowing such an astonishing amount of money to pump into an uncertain science doesn't make good financial sense. The people of New Jersey pay their taxes to receive the benefit of public services - not to invest in ill-considered business adventures.

My suspicion is, however, that many people voted 'no' simply because of the scary concept of stem cell research. There has been a pretty good disinformation campaign about this fledgling science that has people scared of human cloning and other people worried about the thought of human embryos being used in research.

To reject this proposal because it made poor financial sense is a good thing. To reject it because of ignorance and fear is bad. Stem cell research can be conducted ethically and might offer the chance to repair nerve damage and diseases that are currently untreatable.

It could herald a new era in science and medicine. We shouldn't reject it simply because we want to remain in the blissfully ignorant dark ages.

3: Should New Jersey approve borrowing $200 million for open space preservation?

New Jersey voted yes.

Which is a great victory. A victory because the borrowed $200 million can be invested in keeping the 'Garden State' living up to it's name. Forests, grassland, farmland and plains can be preserved and protected from aggressive redevelopment, meaning a new generation of New Jersey children will grow up being able to enjoy the beautiful countryside.

In America, there are currently 1 million unsold new homes, suggesting that the drive to build, build and build is not a wise one. There are strip-malls and shopping centres enough in New Jersey. While I'm all for supporting free enterprise and market forces, I think New Jersey needs a hundred acres of woodland far more than it needs another K-Mart.

By voting 'yes,' the people of New Jersey created a market force of their own - and proved that preserving the countryside was something they were willing to invest their tax dollars in.

4: Should we revise language outlining when voting rights can be denied by deleting from the state Constitution the phrase "idiot or insane person" and replacing it with the phrase "person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting."

This was another resounding yes - and requires very little explanation.

The Next Step

Back when I was studying politics at Plymouth College of Further Education, we were taught that local elections can mean a lot of different things. Sometimes they can even predict the direction national politics will take.

If that's the case, I think New Jersey has spoken.

Support for the Democrats seems strong, suggesting that NJ will lean towards a Democratic candidate in 2008's presidential elections. However, this support is tempered by a growing demand for fiscal responsibility - and any hopeful candidates should accept and embrace that.

I think this might well prove to be a national trend. With America balanced on the knife-edge of recession, the important election issues are a lot closer to home than people suspect. Jobs. Taxes. Inflation. The Economy.

My father figures the 2008 elections will follow the 1992 ones, with the major campaign issue being 'the economy, stupid.'

It was that mantra, hung outside Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas, that helped lure voters away from the seemingly unbeatable President Bush Snr.

Bush Snr. had seen the end of the cold war and the successful Desert Storm through - but left America in the depths of a recession. James Carville, the campaign strategist for Bill Clinton, coined the phrase 'it's the economy, stupid' to make Americans consider domestic financial issues as well as foreign policy ones.

It was enough to topple Bush Snr, whose approval ratings had been at 80% just the year before.

Now history threatens to repeat itself! With a Bush in the White House and a Clinton standing at the gates. Except this time, the departing Bush Jnr has an approval rating barely half that of his father.

If the local elections in New Jersey have taught us anything, it's that the winning presidential candidate will need to have some sensible spending ideas that will send the American economy trundling out of the doldrums.

Election Day

Today Middlesex County holds it's local elections, to decide the mayors of the townships in the county and decide on four very serious questions.

It's an event taken quite seriously in North Brunswick - driving down some of the major roads, you can see dozens of signs and posters endorsing candidates and pushing for a 'Yes' or 'No' vote on the important local issues.

Living where we do, however, the local candidates - including standing Mayor Francis 'Mac' Womack - decided not to bother campaigning. Perhaps the vast majority of our neighbours are undocumented aliens and not on the electoral roll - or maybe they just figured our votes weren't worth winning. Whatever the reason, you can't help but feel a little left out!

As it happened, I always take an interest in elections. I'm disappointed so many people I know don't bother voting. At the turn of the 20th Century, women were starving themselves and throwing themselves under racehorses to win the right to vote. Now their descendants sit filing their nails and chewing gum, not taking an interest in what political decisions are happening around them.

In the township of North Brunswick, the major issue was whether or not Francis Womack would be reelected as mayor or not.

Despite the apparent snub of not campaigning on my street, 'Mac' Womack is clearly a fine candidate for reelection. In the past three years, this mild mannered Democrat has established a position of leadership and order in a troubled township.

He's reduced crime, made the political process more transparent by televising public township meetings and is dedicated to making North Brunswick a pleasant place to live by stopping urban sprawl and preserving parkland and open spaces.

His election promises included getting a hold on local developers, so the township didn't get overwhelmed by business development as has happened in nearby New Brunswick and Highland Park. He's also promised to dedicate more effort to environmental issues and the community by 'creating a livable and welcoming environment in town' and constructing a new local library and senior centre.

The drawback to Womack's pledges are a possible rise in property taxes, which are often offset by increased business development and more conservative community spending.

At the end of the day, residents of North Brunswick have to decide whether they're willing to spend a little more in order to make their community a more enjoyable place to live or not. Given the high tax rates of other local townships (Highland Park especially) I think 'Mac' has quite a good handle on things.

On the election ballot are also four questions facing residents of Middlesex County. Voters are asked to vote 'Yes' or 'No' on them.

1: Permanently dedicate all revenue earned from last year's sales tax toward property tax relief.

I think people should definitely vote 'no' on this issue. The extortionate property taxes in New Jersey are no joke - even a modest home can cost the owner as much as a rent-cheque every month. However taking money from one stream of taxation revenue to offset another tax seems totally redundant. This just illustrates that the current taxation system in New Jersey is skewed and needs to be totally reassessed.

2: Approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research.

Some of the leading research into stem cells is done just down the road, in New Brunswick. We already have a reputation in New Jersey as a leader in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical developments. A gamble into the future of Stem Cell research might pay off handsomely in a few years time. However, the $450 million has to come from somewhere and eventually residents of New Jersey will feel that pinch. My recommendation is to say 'no' to this question and source the money some other way (perhaps with all that sales tax left over from last year!)

3: Approve borrowing $200 million for open space preservation.

New Jersey is known as The Garden State. Once you get passed the big industrial and chemical plants on the outskirts of New York City, you really see that she lives up to her name. With beautiful woodland, rivers and forests, New Jersey is absolutely gorgeous. The problem is that continued urban development and sprawl threatens to swallow all the lovely countryside up. I think $200 million to preserve the beautiful forests and greenlands of New Jersey for future generations is a wise investment. Vote yes.

4: Revise language outlining when voting rights can be denied by deleting from the state Constitution the phrase "idiot or insane person" and replacing it with the phrase "person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting."

Vote 'yes'! As fun as old fashioned and politically incorrect language is, by making this change in the state constitution, we make it absolutely clear under what circumstances a person's right to vote can be refused. Besides, this restriction clearly isn't being enforced, because we saw plenty of idiots march into the ballot centres to vote for [CENSORED - Editorial Bear]

So there we have my brief election overview - if and when I hear the results of the local elections, I will update you on them.

Fred Thomspon on Immigration

My presidential hopes are pinned on Stephen Colbert at the moment - who is running in the South Carolina primaries as both a Democrat AND Republican.

But on the off chance Comedy Central's finest can't pull a win out of the hat, my general feelings are still pointing in the direction of the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani is an excellent 'moderate' choice, seeing as he's supportive of gay rights and other issues which the evangelicals get their knickers in a twist about, but make very little actual difference in the grand scheme of things.

If two gay men want to get married, how does that negatively impact my life? It doesn't - not one jot - and it makes two gay men happy at the same time. Win / Win. Further evidence that religion and politics need to be ruthlessly separated.

But Rudy has always been soft on immigration. As mayor of New york City, he fought hard for the rights of illegal immigrants and won them schooling for their kids (fair enough) and the right to avoid questions regarding their immigration status from city employees (not really right.)

Since he threw his hat into the ring, Rudy has flip-flopped about immigration. He's done an about-turn and come more in-line with the Republican party's official policy. That doesn't mean he buys it, however.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, seems to know exactly where he stands on illegal immigration and he won't let the Republicans or Democrats tell him any different. Today he released his 'presidential' policies regarding the thorny topic and they make for compelling reading. Read them here.

My highlights include: "Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States." Hooray! My one major gripe with illegal immigrants. Why should they be patted on the back for skipping over the border while I obey the rules and get stiffed out of three years of my life and thousands of dollars in 'fees.'

"Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home." If illegal immigrants were unable to work, companies would have to rely on American labour - and pay them appropriately. The minimum wage in some states is barely $5 a hour. If a company is too cheap to pay an American citizen even that pifling sum, they have no rights employing anybody in the first place.

"Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas." I waited nearly four years for the right to enter the United States because the immigration process was so backlogged and inefficient. If the systems were in place to give immigration hopefuls a 'yay' or 'nay' within a few weeks - instead of years - maybe there would be fewer incentives for illegal immigration to take place.

"Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs." If people are talented, dedicated and hard working - and can really contribute something to the American economy - give them a shot at working there. If the opportunities are available, people will choose legal immigration over illegal - and aliens would enter American based on their skills and knowledge, rather than their ability to scale fences.

"Make English the official language of the U.S. to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status." Are you reading this, Bank of America? Quit sending me stuff in Spanish just because you saw the 'non-American citizen' box was ticked on my application.

These are all sensible, reasonable and - most importantly of all - effective policy suggestions that could positively transform the dismal state of American immigration as it currently stands.

Fred Thompson? You have scored some brownie points today.

Who is Hugo Chavez and why is he saying those terrible things about America?

Kevin Spacey became the latest in a long line of liberal celebrities to hold court with Hugo Chavez, the apparently anti-American president of Venezuala.

The talented Hollywood actor, who rocked the kasbah in K-Pax and L.A. Confidential, spent three hours with the president chatting about, amongst other things, the Venezuelan film industry. Chavez has just started a 13 million dollar film centre to 'rival Hollywood Imperialism.'

A drop in the ocean. 13 million dollars, for example, is the amount Daniel Craig is getting paid to return as 007 in the next Bond movie.

Spacey's visit follows the likes of Sean Penn, Danny Glover and anti-war Mom Cindy Sheehan. It seems no Hollywood liberal or anti-Bush icon can hold their head up high until they've shaken hands with Hugo Chavez.

America's right wing, of course, is outraged.

But why, exactly? I know I should be outraged at the antics of this anti-American icon, but I'm not entirely sure why. In fact, I know nothing about Hugo Chavez other than the fact that he's a 'baddy' in the same mould as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - if you believe what the right wing tell us.

Although if you believe the left wing, he's an anti-imperialistic icon.

Herein lies the problem with American politics and the dumb people (myself included) who claim to possess an opinion. We don't really have opinions of our own - we're just repeating whatever our favourite political pundit tells us.

So in an experiment practically unheard of in the Blogosphere, I am actually going to look up Hugo Chavez and find the real dope about him. In honor of that old Dustin Hoffman film:

Who is Hugo Chavez and Why is he saying those Terrible Things about America?

Hugo Chavez was born in a mud hut in 1954. A bit of a mutt, his heritage included Amerindian, Afro-Venezuelan, and Spanish ancestry. Both his parents were school teachers, but that didn't stop Chavez growing up to be a petty crook with a criminal record as long as his full name (Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías.) After countless arrests, the future president gained his education unwillingly at various military reform schools.

The reform school background led to a career in the military, in which Chavez would prove fairly successful. During his days in the army, Chavez also developed an interest in political ideology - specifically a type of left-wing nationalism that promoted the unification of Latin America.

This is where his political ambitions blossomed.

Years later, in 1992, things were pretty bad in Venezuela and security forces were coming down heavy on rioters and protesters, killing hundreds as they blocked the streets (and looted anything that wasn't nailed down.)

This gave Hugo Chavez the inspiration to overthrow the unpopular President Perez with a military coup d'etat. Unfortunately things didn't go as planned and Chavez was forced to surrender to the government, with almost a hundred of his men being slaughtered.

The coup was a failure, but it did provide Chavez with considerable media and public attention and revealed that the wannabe military dictator was popular amongst the people of Venezuela.

So just like Hitler before him (an unfortunate but valid parallel) Chavez decided to accomplish with ballots what he couldn't do with bullets. Once released from prison, he started the march to the presidency and won over the Venezuelan people with his informal oratory and idealistic rhetoric. Coming from an ethnic Indian background, rather than the pure blood 'Spanish' elite, he found much popularity amongst the working class and went on to win the 1998 presidential election with 56% of the votes.

Chavez started off his presidency by making sweeping changes in line with his political ideology. Amongst them was a campaign of road building, housing construction and mass vaccination. In addition, his left-wing beliefs inspired him to halt planned privatizations of the Social Security system, national industry holdings and the Venezuelan oil business.

Now, not wanting to get into conspiracy theories, it's interesting to note that his nix on privatising the Venezuelan oil industry, plus some rough interference on the way it was run, led to a 2002 coup attempt that was openly approved and supported by the US Government.

The coup failed however, as did the following political campaign to get Chavez booted out of office. Amid accusations of electoral fraud, Chavez defeated a recall referendum and settled back into his presidency with some security. From then on, he started rattling international cages by fighting for a place on the U.N. Security Council and harbouring friendships with traditional U.S. enemies such as Cuba.

And now, having been safely returned to the presidency once again (with 63% of the national vote), Chavez is becoming even more active in South American politics. His socialist reforms are winning him further support amongst his people and his ambitious plans - like re-taking control of the Orinoco Belt oil reserves - offer the possibility of Venezuela becoming a real international player in the near future.

He's a powerful, dynamic and charismatic leader and his ambitions often conflict directly with the foreign policies of the United States - or, more specifically, President bush. George Bush's open support of Chavez's enemies probably had something to do with the Venezuelan president developing an undisguised hatred of him. Bush, Chavez declared to his people, is a 'pendejo' and 'the devil.'

Yet despite Chavez' hatred of George Bush and the current administration, the president of Venezuela has offered many olive branches to the US. Venezuela was the first country to offer aid to hurricane-devastated New Orleans. That offer was snubbed - but a later agreement saw Venezuela supplying discounted heading oil to low income families across the Northeastern U.S.

All in all, ignoring the right wing propaganda, the facts stack up and don't make Chavez look too bad at all. He's not really anti-American so much as anti-Bush.

But, of course, his very existence is a thorn in the right wing's side, so they keep pushing the anti-American angle. And why not? He stands for everything the US is against!

I mean, Chavez is a socialist. Ick! He's also vehemently anti-Israel and politically bullish, stamping out free expression on Venezuela's most popular television station, fighting for an end to political term limits and demanding that all Venezuelan schools teach his party's political ideology in class.

But those accusations of corruption don't really hold up. They're entirely true - but despite the very clear good Chavez is doing, he's still a South American 'el presidenti' and they do things differently south of the equator. Horses for courses. Complaining that a South American president is corrupt is like accusing a computer technician of being nerdy!

Really, the major reason the right wing hate Chavez is because he's a loud and vocal enemy of the current administration. Chavez is certainly an enemy of George Bush. But is he an enemy of the United States?

I entered into writing this with little prior opinion - or so I thought. Actually, I had always considered Chavez a crooked South American politician and a nasty socialist scumbag to boot. Now, having done some research, my opinion of the man has mellowed.

Venezuela is politically corrupt and crime is rampant. But despite the corruption, there's no state-sponsored torture and even the U.S. observers struggled to debunk the election results. Chavez is truly president by popular demand and the worst of his crimes are nothing compared to what goes on in countries that are traditionally 'friendly' to the United States (such as Saudi Arabia.)

He is often guilty by association. His friendship and support of Iran - one of the scariest countries on the planet right now - is enough to earn him the hatred of many. Likewise, anybody who earns the glowing tributes of corrupt little rat George Galloway finds themselves tainted as a result.

I still don't like him, but at least the reasons I have for not liking him are my reasons instead of anybody else's.

• He tried to overthrow the government.
• Yet he got moody when somebody tried to overthrow his government.
• He's friends with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran.
• He's shut down free speech and expression.
• He's added political indoctrination to the school curriculem.
• He wears a sombraro.
  

However, having looked into Hugo Chavez and his life, I can't really find anything treasonous about Kevin Spacey visiting him in Venezuela. He's not betraying his country by the trip, as the right wing would have you believe.

I only hope that Spacey's political opinions - along with those of Sean Penn and Danny Glover - honestly reflect what he thinks and feels. The liberal left has just as much capacity for blind allegiance and band-wagon jumping as the reactionary right wing.

Maybe Spacey should sit down with an open mind and come to his own conclusions about Hugo Chavez. I just did and it was a very liberating experience. I'm still no great fan of the man - but I won't be jumping onto any soap-boxes and repeating right wing rhetoric against the man now that I know not all of it is accurate.

Presidential Foresight

Today I watched an episode of Law and Order filmed in 2000. In this episode, the District Attorney Arthur Branch (played by 2008 Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson) is replaced by Nora Lewin.

And who introduces the new District Attorney? None other than 2008 Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani, in a brief cameo.

One potential president backs out. Another appears alongside his replacement. The episode is called 'Endurance.'

I wonder if life will imitate art. With Fred Thompson announcing his intent to run for the White House, the two Law and Order stars are going to cross paths sooner or later.