Politics 1, New York 0

I was an ambitious plan, worthy of the greatest city in the world. Reduce traffic, increase mass transit, increase the use of solar power in city buildings, plant more trees, the list goes on. It was the most ambitious undertaking in decades, but PlaNYC has been beaten by short-sighted politicians who can't put the good of their city before their own egos.

(Read the stories in the NY Times and NY Sun)

The Assembly's failure to even vote means the city loses the federal funding, the MTA does not have the money to improve the mass transit system, and the plan as a whole loses a major source of income.

So the next time you're stuck in Manhattan traffic and choking on the exhaust fumes of those around you, thank the New York Democrats.

The Cult of Ron Paul

In the lackluster show that is the 2008 presidential election, one candidate has managed to create a cult of followers who attack his critics and blindly believe he is the next president, despite losing every debate and barely cracking the margin of error in most polls. This is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's online cult (we'll call them Paulites) has pounced on every online poll to try to push their candidate. They have, with or without the candidate's knowledge, created an amazing campaign based on fraud.

In 2000, the House of Representatives voted almost unanimously to fine spammers $500 for each piece of unsolicited junk email they send. The almost was Ron Paul who voted against the bill. Now it seems obvious why he voted against it. Thousands of spam messages flooded inboxes with mail supporting Paul. When faced with the breaking news, Paulites accuses Wired magazine of being paid by Rudy Giuliani. Apparently the Paulites believe that when the facts don't match your belief, blame the messenger.

Paulites have created multiple phony websites pretending to support other candidates, apparently in order to attack any unsuspecting people who may think they've stumbled onto a legitimate message board.

Legitimate Ron Paul supporters, if there are any, will point to his recent record breaking fund raising initiative to point that his support is overwhelming, but the previous record went to Howard Dean, who couldn't even beat John Kerry.

The fact that the Paulites engage in such fraud is an indictment of the candidate. He has not repudiated them, and in fact seems to be encouraging the criminal acts such as hijacking computers to spew the Ron Paul spam. If he's so good at inspiring criminals and nutjobs to do his bidding, how can he ever be considered credible.

On The Anniversary Of 9/11

September 11, 2001 was the New York primary elections, or it would have been had events not unfolded as they did. As a political consultant, I was working with several political campaigns in Brooklyn, NY that day. As with most election days, my day had started at 3:30 a.m. with a last minute push to make sure our signs had not been vandalized, and an inspection of the voting sites. I was shepherding a young candidate on his first campaign for City Council.

He watched as I worked on another campaign in addition to his. A smaller, yet much nastier campaign for State Committee. The incumbent, who I was working against, had been arrested for beating his wife. Political organizations not affiliated with the campaign had posted his mug shot all over the district. We were accused of mudslinging, despite having nothing to do with the postings. All in all, it was the ugliest campaign I had been involved in.

When this young candidate saw this campaign, and heard the things being said against us, he asked why we keep putting ourselves through this. I told him two quotes that I have always remembered. The first was from Thomas Jefferson, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The second was "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This conversation was around 8:30 a.m.

Having been working for 5 hours already, we decided it would be a good time to grab something to eat. We piled into a car and headed for a local McDonald's when the candidate asked if he could stop at his home for a minute. He was having a problem with his contact lenses and wanted to replace them. He ran in while we waited in the car. He came out in a panic. The television had been on in his house and they were announcing the first plane hitting the World Trade Center.

By the time we reached McDonald's, the second tower and the Pentagon had been hit. We tried to call for information but it was impossible to get through to anyone. We sat over breakfast, debating whether we should concede the election and send everyone home. The primaries had not been officially canceled at that point, but we decided that too many of our workers had friends and family in the towers. We pulled everyone out and got them home.

By the time I returned home the second tower had fallen. My wife, who was unable to get a hold of me was in a panic. We desperately manned the phones until every friend and family member was accounted for.

Now, six years later I am appalled at what I see. Conspiracy theorists with no knowledge spout that we blew up the towers ourselves. As the bells tolled at the moment the second tower was hit, The Today Show couldn't be bothered to break away from their story on how women can find husbands to show the ceremony. The Clinton administration made mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. They can't admit it. The Bush administration made mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. They can't admit it.

For too brief a moment after the attacks, this country was united. We need to unite again.

Is Thompson Really Late?

Much has been made about Fred Thompson finally throwing his hat into the presidential race. Most of that has been about how late his entry is.

We're over a year away from the election. How could this be late? States went nuts this year rescheduling their primaries because they wanted to feel like they mattered. I've long said that Iowa and New Hampshire should not be first, because they don't really represent a cross section of our population. But this year's scheduling is ridiculous.

Maybe the federal government should step in and schedule all primaries for federal offices, on a rotating basis. And maybe Fred Thompson isn't late, he's just fashionable.

Elected To Serve The People

Liberal activists are up in arms over the failure of the Democratic Congress to enact the changes they want. It seems that the elected officials are realizing what the activists refuse to admit. Congressmen and senators are elected to serve all of the people, not just the activists.

Democrats who were elected to Congress on anti-Iraq platforms neglected to remind these activists that Congress doesn't control the military. Activists also fail to realize that this is a country of laws and elected officials need to follow them. An excellent example of this is the impeachment laws. You can't simply impeach a president, there has to be just cause and due process. Impeachment doesn't mean you don't like the president, it means he broke the law.

Activists are great about insisting their will is followed. It's too bad more of them don't have an understanding of how things really work.

Much Ado About Nothing

Last night was the much-publicized CNN/You Tube debate. Why is this debate different from all other debates? Because the people get to ask the questions, albeit in prerecorded video. Did it make a difference. Not really.

The problem with political debates has never been with the people asking the questions. The problem is with the lack of answers. Candidates have talking points that they continually fall back on. These talking points are meant to sound impressive while saying nothing.

Want to fix the debate? Let me suggest some changes.

1) Start by making each answer a two-part question, with the first part being yes or no. Go through every candidate, with each one getting to say yes or no and nothing more. Then go back and have them explain why they answered that way.

2) Give the candidates scores that are shown on their podiums, like a game show. They get 3 point for a direct answer, 1 point for a rambling answer that ultimately gets to the point and they lose 5 points for going off-topic or skirting the issue.

3) Alternatively, don't air the debate live. Force the candidates to keep talking until they answer the question, then edit out everything but the one sentence that answers the question for broadcast.

4) Finally, after the election, rerun all of the comments by the winner, alongside video of their campaign promises immediately before the inauguration. Rerun this package every three months while the person is in office and have them explain why they haven't lived up to what they said.

Politics As Usual

There are those in office that want to fix things, and then there are those who just want things their way. Senator Harry Reid wants things his way. Reid is holding the Senate for an all-night debate on Iraq. The problem is he doesn't actually want to debate what's going on in Iraq, he wants the Senate to vote to withdraw the troops.

This is not debate. Debate is here's a problem, let's get people's opinions and see what the best decision is. Reid doesn't want to debate, he wants to placate his liberal constituents. But if he really looked at the issue he'd realize that we don't get a do-over. Pulling the troops out of Iraq does not turn back the clock so everything will be like it was before we went in. You can't base a decision on what could have been, you need to base it on what is. Of course, Reid doesn't want wait for the September report on what is, he wants his way now.

This isn't just going on at the federal level. New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is willing to jeopardize $500 million in federal money because he doesn't like Mayor Bloomberg's plan for congestion pricing. Bloomberg, who has been fighting to meet a federal deadline for the money, has stated that this would be a pilot program, which means let's see what happens and we can stop the program if it doesn't meet expectations. What does Silver want to do? Nothing. He agrees there are environmental and traffic problems, but he wants to create a committee of his cronies to study the problem. The Speaker held the Democratic contingent of the Assembly in New York City, keeping them from attending the debate and voting in Albany.

Enough of politics as usual. Can we get rid of these do-nothing politicians who would rather argue than actually come up with solutions?

Lies, Damned Lies, and Presidential Politics

Hillary Clinton is trying to ride her husband's coattails. She is campaigning to bring us a return to "when Bill was President." She claims the Bush administration policies have reversed the federal surplus that existed when Clinton was in office.

Stop!

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. There NEVER was a surplus. There was an anticipated surplus, based on what the U.S. would receive in Capitol Gains taxes assuming the Internet bubble of the late 90s would NEVER end. Guess what. Bubbles burst, and with it any imaginary surplus. So let's see what the Clinton administration would return us to.

Most people lost a fortune in the stock market thanks to easy availability of stocks and no oversight of analysts. The recession that hit earlier in the decade had its seeds planted on Clinton's watch. These things don't just happen overnight. So maybe she's talking about a safer time. Like when the U.S.S. Cole gets blown up and the Clinton administration let Osama bin Laden go after finding out where he was. After all, he wasn't ever going to do anything like that again. Oh wait, he did.

Let's not look at presidential policies through nostalgia. The good old days weren't all that good.

To vote or not to vote?

Democratic presidential hopefuls are wavering in their support for our troops. They know that not passing a funding bill will put our troops in graver danger than they are already in, but they are more concerned about how their vote will affect their election chances.

Democrats have to weigh doing what is right with doing what is popular. The main problem is that they're not sure they want to vote for funding that doesn't tell the enemy when we're leaving. If this is confusing for them, I don't want them in the White House.

The Good, The Bad, and The Idiocy

The Pew Research Center released a survey yesterday of Muslim-Americans that has been covered in the press. Most of the coverage runs under headlines such as "Muslim Assimilate Better In US" and Most US Muslims Reject Suicide Bombings." While I am relieved to know that "most" reject suicide bombings, I find the results as a whole disconcerting, moreso since the media seems to be ignoring that part of the story.

According the survey, "many doubt that Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks." Given that Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, isn't this like saying 40% of Muslim Americans don't believe the sky is blue?

What I find more disturbing is that "younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified." NO!!! Suicide bombings are NEVER justified. If you feel oppressed, or believe that something is wrong, vote, protest, lobby, or do any one of dozens of options that don't involve taking innocent lives. Most people killed in suicide bombings have nothing to do with the conflict that the bomber is interested in. This is NEVER acceptable.

Additionally, according to the survey, "Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda." These are people born in the United States, with more rights and freedoms than any other country on the planet. Yet something in these people believe that Al Qaeda might be right.

It is inconceivable that people can read these numbers and think that the news is good because it isn't "most" Muslim Americans.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

The Hypocrisy of Green

Green has become a buzzword lately and like any fad, it has its johnny-come-latelies jumping on the bandwagon. Former president Bill Clinton is one of these. His foundation has spearheaded a program which will allow skyscrapers to go green and cut their energy use by 20%-50%. This is an excellent idea, but one can't help wonder where he's been for the last 14 years?

During the Clinton presidency, he did nothing of consequence for the environment. Since living office, he's done nothing at all. Suddenly, now that Hillary is running for president, he comes out of hibernation to grab headlines by going green. Is this nothing more than a campaign publicity stunt? Probably.

Aside from publicity grabs, the environment is being degraded by environmentalists who refuse to look at the whole problem. There is a huge movement to ban incandescent light bulbs. Why? Compact florescent bulbs use less energy and convert energy to light more efficiently. However, these bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is toxic. If one of these bulbs break in your home, it's not a simple clean-up. You must have hazardous materials removed from your home. On top of that, these bulbs will eventually find their way into landfills, with all the mercury. Banning incandescent bulbs is just another way of people jumping on the bandwagon and not paying attention to the consequences.

Of course, there are other groups that impact the environment and pay no attention to what they're doing. Why do Americans drive big cars? In many cases, we're forced to by a group I refer to as "safety-nazis." These safety-nazis have convinced politicians that children need to be in car seats much longer than they have to be. They always back-up their position by saying "studies show," but after considerable research the only studies I could find were put out by car-seat manufacturers. Of course, they're going to show that their products are necessary. How does this translate to bigger cars? Thanks to the new draconian laws requiring older children to be in car-seats, many families with two children have to have them both in car-seats, even if the kids are as much as eight years apart. Have you tried fitting two of these things into a small, fuel-efficient car. You can't do it unless they're installed in such a way that they are completely useless. The fact is you can keep your kids safe by being a good driver and following the rules of the road. The car-seat manufacturers don't want you know that. They'd rather you buy their products and get a gas guzzler to fit.

The pot Continues to Call the Kettle...

Almost one month ago, Al Sharpton went on a tirade about Don Imus' comments. Maybe he should learn to keep his mouth shut. On Monday, Sharpton was up to his old tricks stating, "those of us who believe in God" will defeat Mitt Romney.

"It was a very unfortunate and un-American thing to say," Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and current presidential candidate, said. "I think it was a bigoted statement and I have no interest in seeing bigoted statements about my faith or anyone else's faith put into the public discourse."

Sharpton has claimed that he wasn't saying that Romney didn't believe in God, but the statement speaks for himself. So where is the clamoring for him to lose his radio show?

Are There Any "Love" Crimes?

Last week The House of Representatives passed a revised hate crime bill. The changes include adding sexual preference and gender to race, religion, color, and national origin to those attacks labeled as hate crimes. President Bush has already said he will veto the bill and church leaders are up in arms because they are concerned it will infringe on their first amendment rights.

Church leaders should stop worrying. There is nothing in the bill that would keep them from preaching intolerance, but if they're that worried, they should make sure to remind their audiences that speech is free, beating people up is not. There are two things, though, that concern me about the bill.

The first thing that bothers me is that this law will punish certain people more harshly than others, based on motive and victim. Why should someone who attacks a someone out of ignorance be punished more than someone who attacks out of greed? I want someone to know that if they assault me to take my wallet, they're going to face the full force of the law. Under the hate crime bill, that's not the case. That attacker is going to get a more lenient sentence than the one who assaulted a homosexual, Hispanic, Asian, or any other minority. They should ALL face the full force of the law, not just some of them.

The other thing that concerns me is on more of a practical level. This bill gives the federal authorities the right to run roughshod over the local police. I think if authorities at the federal level need to get involved, it should only be at the request of the local authorities. They may feel they need assistance. If they don't, all you're going to get is a lot of jurisdictional fighting, and very little justice.

The Key Word Is Illegal, Not Immigration

One year ago today, hundreds of thousands of people marched for the right of illegal immigrants to stay in the United States. One year later, protests are again scheduled to take place but far fewer people are expected to participate.

The atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past year, and not in favor of the illegal immigrants. Deportations are up 20%. Enforcement at the borders is much greater, and as a result fewer people have gotten into the country illegally. Raids have been conducted on factories that employ illegal workers. In short, the crack down on illegal immigrants has already begun, and has been successful.

The idea of the protests is mind boggling. Would anyone support protesters who were claiming that shoplifters had the right to steal? Would anyone support drunk drivers who protested for the right to be on the road while intoxicated? Of course not. So why do people feel that it is fine to break immigration laws with impunity?

One person who is in the country illegally was interviewed in the New York Times. He stated that he and his wife came here illegally because it is too hard to get into the country legally because so many people want to come here. People are literally dying to get into this country. What makes this man think he deserves to get in faster than anyone else? There are people trying to get into the United States who will be killed if they stay in their own country. They should have to stay out so that this man, whose only reason for coming here is to get a better quality of life, can come in?

While it is noble to want to provide a better life for your children, how is living like a criminal setting a good example for them? Everybody wants a better life. But the United States government has an obligation to the people who live here legally. Social services such as unemployment, social security, etc. are stretched as it is. The people who pay into the system deserve to get the benefits of the system. Illegal immigrants put a strain on emergency room care, fire and police departments, emergency medical teams, etc.

People are quick to point out that our country was built by immigrants. They're right, but it was built by immigrants who came here legally, learned English, and became citizens. The key word in this debate isn't immigrant, it's illegal. Come to the country legally and the welcome mat is out. Many illegal immigrants claim that they should be allowed to stay because they are law abiding people. They are not. They broke the law by entering the country illegally and they continue to break the law by staying illegally. Like any crime, they must pay the consequences. Then, they should be able to start over with a clean slate.

FCC vs Violence On Television

The FCC accepted its latest report on television violence and asked Congress to define excessive violence and give it the power to regulate it. Once again, a government agency has decided that it needs to babysit the American people.

The report (which you can download here) came from a congressional request to answer several questions, one of which was "What are the constitutional limits on the government's ability to restrict the broadcast of excessively violent programming when children are likely to be a significant or substantial part of the viewing audience? In particular, could television violence regulations, including possible time channeling requirements, be narrowly tailored to the governmental interests they are intended to serve?"

I'd like to call attention to the last part of that question, "the governmental interests they are intended to serve."

As I recall, laws aren't supposed to serve government interests, the media are not supposed to serve government interests, and certainly the people aren't supposed to serve government interests. The government is supposed to serve our interests. How is limiting what we are able to watch serving our interests? How is limiting our free speech in our interests?

What I find most interesting is that the FCC has completely failed to define "excessive violence," although they seem to like the idea of limiting when it is on television to when kids aren't around. I guess that means we won't have football games on Sunday afternoons anymore. Newscasts will have to wait until after prime time if they want to cover Iraq, Virginia Tech, or the recent prison riot.

I'm as concerned about the effects of violence on children as the next person. That's why I don't let my children watch "The Sopranos," even though I never miss an episode. But more government intrusion is not the answer. In fact, instead of giving the FCC more regulatory power, let's take some away.

The FCC was supposed to make sure that broadcasters served the public interest as part of their deal to use the public airwaves. This was because the airwaves were scarce. There were limits to them and the government had to regulate how they were used. Well guess what? There's no scarcity in television anymore. There's a lack of quality, but there's no scarcity. Also, broadcasters were held to government standards because they came into everyone homes for free. When was the last time you saw a pair of rabbit ears on someone's television set. I pay the satellite provider to bring me these stations. Without satellite or cable, I can get three stations on a good day. So if I'm paying for these stations, I don't want the government limiting them.

You want limits? Let the marketplace limit them. If people don't want a show because it's too violent, they won't watch it. In turn advertisers won't buy advertising time on it, and it will go off the air. That's the power of the people, and let's never forget that our country is supposed to be run by a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." At least according to President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address.