Tag Archives: President

by

Pot and Love

We must cease this senseless war on marijuana and this unconscionable undermining of marriage law. The opposition (primarily) comes from the religious sector who attempts to make the morality argument. In both cases the proposal set forth is that both activities are moral evils and as such any measure to prevent (including willful law breaking not civil disobedience) them is considered heroic. The fault lies in that the arguments are based on appeals to emotion and authority, not logically rational discussion. Indeed on these issues it would appear that there are gross gaps and severe lacking of any rational reason for prohibition and mountains of impartial evidence on why both activities, under the social contract theory law is based on, should be permitted. It is the willingness of the populace to buy into the fallacies of the prohibitionists and the willful blindness of the consequences inherent in allowing those arguments to hold sway at the ballot box. We must, to progress socially and individually, see past these scam arguments to the facts and reason and carry that into the voting booth. Thoughts or comments?

by

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

These past few weeks have been rather eventful though hardly novel.  A quick review of the best and worst moments might add a little perspective to the pulse of the United States and the world.

The Good:  Not unexpectedly the good comes from a change to once dearly treasured (though not backed by solid research) traditions.  Oregon, that great trail of a state (sorry, couldn’t resist the old game reference), has elected a bisexual woman to the highest office of the state, Governor.  Though the election has long since past, this woman is preparing to enter her first term as the Honorable Governor of the State of Oregon.  Whether this is her only term is debatable, but one thing is sure, she is the first person to open up to the press about this highly personal issue (odd how heterosexual people don’t have to justify their qualifications for office with detailed descriptions of their bedroom activities) and to stand behind her clear beliefs (her platform is well-defined, somewhat partisan though no more than anyone else, and was well enumerated to the people prior to the election on numerous occasions).  She is the first lawfully elected Governor that has stated she is bisexual and unabashedly stands behind it.  (Before I get a note, here is an addendum: Though she was elected as Secretary of State, she assumes her office lawfully and can thus be considered to be elected to the position of Governor, should the Governor resign, die, etc. as part of the Constitution of Oregon which the people retain.)

Why it’s good:  In the LGBTQIQ (Political correctness for the recognized orientations- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexed, and Questioning- Intersex includes things like hermaphroditism, gender dysphoria, and other conditions in which the “parts” as it were are not matching up to the gender a person identifies with.  The 2 “Q’s” are best left to the experts(PFLAG) to explain.) bisexualism is seen as the “black sheep” as it were of the community.  Gays typically view them as closeted homosexuals and heterosexuals view them as simply promiscuous.  A cursory search of the social networks can easily confirm this.  Currently the United States seems to vacillate between approving and disapproving of these classifications, but that has nothing to do with the good here.  The good is that, for once, the system worked precisely as it should:  a candidate expressed her viewpoints and plan of action clearly and concisely during the campaign and started her term as Governor with what appears to be an honest and open administration, the people elected her and soon she will assume office, despite the hemming and hawing of the Right wingers across the nation whose argument against her is only her bisexuality (her platform would have been an easier target since it does all the things they don’t want done, but hey, I’m not their strategist).  Her being bisexual is something that shows promise for that state, not because of the orientation issue, but because she was honest about her life (as far as is possible for us to know) and was willing to run with a label that has never been widely approved of attached to her.  She did not run away, hide an affair (Gay Governor of New Jersey resigned for this), or try to make it look like anything more than what it is nor did she apologize for her being her.  This is the good, hope that politicians might see this and take heed, and that we have a Governor willing to run as she is.

The Bad:  The bad is probably readily apparent, but with all the terrible things going on it may have gotten lost in the woodwork:  Obama’s War Powers Proposal and Congress’s Response.  Essentially it seems that the only way Congress will cross Party boundaries is with their desire to do absolutely nothing.  The whole story amazed me but can be broken down quite simply:  Boehner and other Hawks in Congress requested Obama do something about ISIS (because using their ability to declare war would require work and would inch them closer to the Constitutional powers they are given).  Obama, in a bid to have a moderate strategy came up with a vague but more potent version of 2001’s war powers.  Republicans and Hawk Democrats complained it was too mild.  Democrats and Dove republicans claimed it was too strong.  Both agreed to decline the powers and did NOTHING more.  They are the only branch that can declare war but for 14 years they have relied on Executive Orders authorizing military action (the Executive’s version of war-in essence it’s all the death of war, but doesn’t pay our soldiers wartime pay, which is substantially larger than current pay and can be roughly equated to hazardous duty pay or overtime, albeit VERY roughly, and as a bonus it doesn’t require Congress to do their job or put their own necks on the chopping block as it were) and the good old-fashioned, tried and true method of “blame someone else so I can get elected again”.

Why it’s bad:  Why its bad should be a little evident already and requires little explanation: 1)Congress declares war and there’s a reason for that- the people are represented in Congress (ideally) and since military action of any kind involves ALL of America, the people should at least be consulted prior to sending their sons and daughters to die.  2)War pays more both in the life and death of a soldier as is commensurate with the dangers and risks inherent in war (or ANY military action beyond EXTREMELY limited engagements-2 weeks tops) and the trauma to entire communities when they lose loved ones.  It also provides more supplies to our troops and comes with international restrictions like the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Convention that protect our troops and engender world support (and that we are not currently observing).  3)MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS ARE WAR- excepting in certain circumstances (limited engagements that limit exposure).  A famous line from Shakespeare says it all, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” or my version, “You can call a turd a life-vest but if you do, I’m never sailing with you!”  Take your pick.  finally 4)The three branches of government should all work together, checked by their equals through the Constitution, NOT bickering like children, NOT expanding their own powers beyond what they are lawfully or even ethically entitled to, and NOT IGNORING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!  It amazes me how Congress didn’t think to go back to their districts, ask the voters what they want (war or not war) and then return to Washington to REPRESENT their constituents.  They didn’t even look at the polls, just their own desires.  Tho I will not argue it here in full, if a government (which governs by consent of the governed) is ignoring the very people it is duty-bound to protect, it loses its authority to govern.

AND NOW THE UGLY:

The Ugly is a picture everyone should be familiar with, and ashamed of.  Vote by your convictions, not Red/Blue, Dems/Reps, N/S or any other reason.

 

blue-states-vs-red-2012-elect

 

by

How far we’ve come or “Welcome Back McCarthy”

A little background information:  John McCain on CodePink

First a little background information (for those of you who passed 5th grade civics class I apologize for the review; it’s more for our illustrious representatives):  The opening to the founding document and the highest law in the land begins with “We the People,” includes numerations of rights assured to the people (including Freedom of Speech and Expression), and has been interpreted by one of our greatest Presidents as meaning a nation, “for the People, by the People, and of the People.”  Even our Declaration of Independence describes the fundamental principles on which liberty is founded and includes, in part, a description of legitimate government as being, “Government by consent of the governed,” and assures us of the right to alter or abolish any unjust government that has become so oppressive as to be tyrannical in nature and practice.  Above all though, these documents make it clear that the entire purpose of the legislature (state and/or federal) is to listen to the constituency and act according to what the people want (while protecting the minority from abuse).

Now the current way things work:  The legislature is elected by infusing commercials with misinformation and relying on the comparatively tiny amount of voters that participate.  Once in office, the majority of them rely on “Campaign Contributions” from special interest groups while conveniently ignoring the pleas of their people (or at least the ones without money).

All of this leads me to the group CodePink, a women’s anti-war group that frequents congressional hearings (their right as citizens) and are routinely thrown out for “disruptions” no different than Republican disruptions in a Democratic congress and vice versa.  A good deal of them are Mr. McCain’s constituents, yet because of their unpopular opinion, he calls them scum.  Sen. Feinstein (D) threw them out of a CIA confirmation hearing because of less than audible disruptions: Audio of Hearing and no Congress or Executive has given credence to this large movement (a very poignant fallback to the difficulties of the Suffragettes).

If the problem is not evident by now, let me spell it out.  While I may agree with CodePink and what they are trying to do, that point is irrelevant.  I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and many other bigoted groups, but they still have the right to express their opinions (so long as they do not interfere with others self-same rights) and should be heard in the context of their overall populace representation.  That is what Freedom of Speech means!  I may not like what you say (or I may support it on different levels) but everyone has the right to be heard.  Government employees at every level are duty bound to hear and give credence to their citizenry.   If they feel it is interrupting their important “business” (you know, bilking the public and so forth), their responsibility would be to offer truly public hearings that would allow those voters to express themselves and give the legislature (Executives and Justices as well) the full picture, regardless of personal opinions.

So let CodePink speak, at the very least, with equal opportunity as the wealthy special interest groups.  Their message is sound and agreed with by 66% of American (27% Approve): American Current War Support. And their message is not in least bit unsound:  CodePink.  Yet the opinions of the citizens (unless they pander and flatter to those with money and/or power) are ignored even though Congress works far less than anyone in any country (not counting their “vacation” which come out of your taxes).  To verify, follow this link (the blue days are work days and Congress is paid even when they don’t work):  Congress work days and what they spent their time on (bear in mind some activities overlap and were done at the same Time:  Congressional Breakdown.  This is the President’s priorities (golf is more important than poverty apparently): Presidential time.  Finally, the Supreme Court works 5 hours per day(End of October to beginning of June, excluding  federal holidays, can choose which cases to accept, recesses frequently and takes an enormous amount of time to be even heard and thus works a maximum of 143 days or 715 total hours:  Work days Supreme Court Calculator.  The point being that no elected official works enough to even logically say they can’t listen to their constituency.

CodePink deserves to be heard and McCain’s comments are indicative of how Congress feels and by extension how the government feels about our populace.  They are so disconnected sitting in their golden mansions an deaf ears that they use the guise of democracy (which we have none nor are we headed towards it again) and placate the people with plenty of gadgets, games, and make sure no one notices the clear violations of the social contract (for example, several wars that are killing our young people in droves but few efforts are being made to change things because as long as we have “Candy Crush” we can ignore our attempt to occupy the world and keep our populace ignorant by reducing education, science, etc.).  If we were to educate our young and old people we might understand CodePink, and at least have rational debates on the many viewpoints out there.

I fear, however, that we have past this point.  The income divide is too great and the people too indolent to make the changes necessary.  I encourage CodePink and any of those who share the beliefs of a free, peaceful, and united nation to join together in arms to set up and defend a nation founded and sealed on truth, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood (sisterhood, etc.). We have been oppressed and insulted by the wealthy rulers long enough,  We must join together and exercise our right to revolt: Declaration of Independence.  If a new and better nation that listens and addresses your complaints, concerns, ideas, etc. sounds like a place you would want to be a part of, feel free to contact me.  If you believe we can save this current United States, please contact me for a rational discourse.  I am always looking for new ways of looking at things.

Foundational Documents:

John Locke

Federalist Papers

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Thomas Hobbes

US Constitution

SCOTUS Oaths of Office

All Other Oaths of Office

Voter Turnout 2014

Historic VEP

 

by

The Bare Minimum

What is the job of the state?  Ultimately it breaks down to (according to social contract theory) a responsibility to protect and provide for its citizens what they either can not provide for themselves or are in need of protection from.  The job of capitalism is to make the most money with the least cost.  Usually this eventually leads to paying the employee the least amount they have to pay.  Without the intervention of the state, this amount will gradually approach 0.  The state is needed to protect the worker from abuses that are inherent in a free market system.  All of this is, of course, very basic but appears to be a concept that we have forgotten.  Currently the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  Let us assume that the rare miracle of a full time job pops up (a quick aside, when employers can’t decrease pay they will invariably decrease hours).  Let us also assume that taxes will only decrease that wage by $0.25 per hour.  Now we have a person that has the following income monthly: $1,120, which turns out to be $13,440 per year.  Bear in mind that this person will pay on average $949 in rent alone per month (http://www.myapartmentmap.com/rental_data/) amd thus really makes around $200 per month for food, clothing, car affairs (gas, tax, registration, maintenance, etc.), and all the other trappings of life.

For some strange reason, no one has a problem with this.  Those that do, manage only to increase the wage in their state to a few pennies more.  Meanwhile, our paymasters in congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive are sitting on large salaries, multiple perks (pool, spa, vacations, only work about half a year but still get housing, etc.), and a complete disconnect from the plight of those who can’t even afford to see D.C. much less have a voice there.  All of this is acceptable to the American Public it would seem.  While those who work their fingers to the bone can barely survive, those who can’t even be bothered to lay aside their own wants for others unless its a press shoot, relax comfortably in their expensive offices, grumble at the “help”, and get drunk on the misery and misfortune they don’t even acknowledge exists.

What is the point of all this?  Our government has been tasked with ensuring justice and liberty for all.  It has failed.  For over a decade now the people have cried out for an increase in wages to make ends meet.  The government has shown it is deaf to those cries.  Though it has the means and knowledge of how much is required to live with dignity, it has deliberately failed to put that to any use.  We must choose to either accept things as they are and allow the injustice to continue, or claim our right to a government that cares and rise up against those who are apparently trying to starve their own citizens.  Unfortunately the pleas of the people and the current system has failed to produce results.  It is our duty, therefor, to get a living wage for all, whatever the means.

by

The New Hampshire Rebellion

The idea that the system is broken and needs to be fixed is by no means a new or novel one.  Novelty arises in all the ways it could be fixed or should be fixed.  To this end one in particular stands out as a plausible, albeit optimistic, way of changing things while still keeping the basic framework intact.  Lawrence Lessig is the face of this and similar movements in The New Hampshire Rebellion which endeavors, in a nutshell, to use the loopholes and lack of campaign finance regulation to raise enough money to elect people who will ultimately get rid of those problems thus allowing future congressmen to be a truer representation of the people and therefore willing to pass laws that will address all of the other woes America has.  In principle this seems to be a very accurate representation as to the root cause of our social ailments.  At the moment, Representatives and Senators both are far richer than their constituency.  They are also allowed to accept enormous sums of money from special interest groups which undoubtedly sways their vote on a great many things.  This makes the run for Congress far less about platforms and issues and far more about who can pay enough to get their image out there favourably.  All of these things are very true and in addressing the central issue of cash flow, the NHR would seem to have nailed it on the head.

Now I am by no means belittling Lawrence Lessig nor am I belittling his intelligence (he is nowhere near a stupid man and has many accomplishments to prove this).  I do find fault though with his project in this, he has not accounted for the issues that allow the system to function this way to start with or at least has not underscored their importance.  A little thought experiment can help illustrate one of the issues.  Let us say that the NHR raises a sufficient amount of money to accomplish their goal (presumably electing at least 51% of both House and Senate and the President or 2/3 of both Houses without the President who are sympathetic to his cause and willing to actually implement it), and let’s say that the money is distributed to the individual candidates and said money is spent on advertising, campaigning, debating, and the whole lot.  Then let us think about election day bearing in mind the platform has been campaign finance reform and apply the trends of the last several elections in regards to turnout.  A problem should immediately come to mind, i.e. even spending as much or more than the other candidates the actual turnout is still not representative of even half of what the nation wants.  Even if it were, it does not represent those who are almost perpetually forbidden to vote (the felons, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants in some places, even just minorities in some communities where they are “discouraged” from voting, etc.).  It belies a very powerful idea that no amount of reform can change, i.e. we do not have “government by consent of the governed,” nor can we as long as we remain bound in our own chains and bound again by the immense effort put forth to keep us distracted from those chains.

Voter turnout aside (for that is within the change Lessig proposes) it is exceptionally optimistic to think the wealthy and powerful would stand by and simply let their gravy train be derailed.  It is also optimistic to think that by uniting people under one flag that the other issues would be solved.  After all, special interest groups do have a role to play in helping to protect the rights of those not able to get into the halls of Congress, they have simply gotten out of hand in their available power.  Who is to say that by reforming Congress that it will not need reforming quickly again?  After all, the source of power does not change, and even a Congress of this type can not strip money of its power; only the Fed (non-elected) could conceivably do that on any degree.

All this said, Lessig is a brilliant man and his ideas deserve merit, even this one.  The issue of campaign finance reform is a vital one, and one that should have been reviewed long ago.  It is simply too optimistic to think that the broken system can be fixed with the broken system.  It is like hammering a nail in with a nail.  Perhaps at one time if this issue had been addressed in this manner and if the people of America still had the time to wait for this change to happen would this be a realistic goal.  The simple fact of the matter is that the system has given itself over to despotism and additional delays will only cause more unnecessary suffering.  Now is the time for action, and Lessig is a valuable asset to that action, but the current plan as it stands simply won’t work.  Something a little more drastic is required.

by

Part II: The Executive Department of “The Ideal Government”

Our current Executive Branch is bloated and inefficient. Through the guise of regulatory activity, its agencies create their own laws which are separate and above what Congress has enabled them to do. Our own NSA is a perfect example of this. Whether or not they were empowered to do so, they used the Patriot Act to justify the whole-scale spying on US citizens and US allies. They are not alone in their activities as each Department creates for themselves entire structures of regulations which are at best tangential to the original vague laws that authorized their goals. It is my goal to eliminate that red tape through remembering the purpose of the Executive Branch and limiting it to that purpose: to enforce the laws Congress has established. Thus I think the following structure would allow us a far better, and far less greedy Executive Branch.
Article I The Executive Branch

Elections

All elections should be based on the popular vote alone and the Electoral College should be disbanded. It is a hold-over from the days when calculating the popular vote and verifying it was tedious and could leave the nation leaderless if there was a dispute. This is no longer an issue.

The President

The President is the face of our nation, and the commander of our police force. As it stands, he holds powers outside of what the Constitution has given him. The Executive order allows him to create temporary laws and temporary military movements that can have wide-ranging and possibly destructive powers. His appointment of justices and other officers (ambassadors, etc.) even when confirmed by the Senate is an archaic and useless measure that is best left to the people through election. Only the power of veto still serves a purpose, though it is abused for partisan reasons.

The President, under my construction, would have only the power of veto without additional powers approved by congress. As the face of the nation, the President has no business in the budget, no business in moving and commanding troops without permission from congress, and no business issuing executive orders (law-making should be vested solely in one branch, not muddled into many). The President need not appoint anyone as all offices can now be expedited through the election system and chosen by the people. The President should be the bearer of the peoples’ will to other nations and the very essence of what it means to be American. He should be our ambassador to other nations, supervising other ambassadors and ensuring that the image of America is consistent.
He should retain the power of veto with one caveat, all vetoes should be ruled by the Supreme Court as either just or unjust. If a veto is made based upon threats to pass or not pass other legislation the President’s party holds interest in, then the veto is unjust and should be disregarded. If the veto, however, is made based on solid legal theory and holds the interest of the people and not the party, then it should be ruled just and upheld. (Overcoming said veto will be address in the legislative part of this series). The President should be no younger than 25 and no older than 65, should have served in at least 2 other elected positions, and should have attained a Master’s degree or higher. The President is elected for 4 years and may be elected twice. Because of the benefits the members of the Executive Branch receive, they should never be paid more than the minimum wage at the time (this includes ALL members of the Executive Branch)

The Vice-President

The Vice-President should serve as President of the Senate and should hold no other duties apart from serving temporarily as President should the need arise due to death or illness of the President. The VIce-President should be elected separately from the President and meet all the qualifications to be President. The Vice-President should serve at most 2 terms of 4 years

The Line of Succession

Should anything happen to the President, an election should be called as soon as possible to elect another. The Vice-President should serve as President during the interim. THe other lines of succession should remain in place, however all should be temporary until a proper election can take place. No person should assume office simply because of misfortune and all offices should be filled with the choice of the people as soon as possible.

The Cabinet

The President’s Cabinet should stay as small as is necessary to enforce the laws of Congress. They should never have the power to create regulations that serve in any way or in any semblance as law. As will be addressed in the section on the legislature, laws should be sufficient clear and well defined to allow them to be enforced with no additional regulations. Internal regulations (Hiring, firing, etc.) should be permitted. The Secretaries of the Cabinets should be no younger than 30 and no older than 70 and should have attained at least 1 Doctorate in the field they wish to be Secretary of. They should also be elected officials who serve a term of the same length of the President they are elected under.

The Fed

The Fed should be abolished and replaced by an elected regulatory agency.

THe Bureaucracy

The officers and employees of the various cabinets should stay as small as is possible to enforce the law. They are entitled to minimum wage at the time and are hired by the President. Their conduct, whether official or not, is a direct reflection upon the President and any and all actions taken by them should be regarded as actions by President. Their actions, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses as well as those of all federal and state employees should be published for public inspection and their homes and families will be protected by the US Marshals and the State Police.
They must at all times restrict their actions to enforcing the law and must never attempt to interpret it, go around it, use any loopholes in it or any similar action. They must never, without a court order, use secretive techniques on anyone. This includes the military who must abide by civilian law and whose Secretary of Defense must be elected from the highest ranking members of each branch.

Emergency Powers

Upon the vote of 51% of Congress, or by a special election called by the President in which 51% of the nation agrees, the President may, for a specific and exact period determined by the people or Congress, whichever is applicable, take full command of the military for the express purpose of defending the nation against an aggressor.

Removal of an Executive

Should any member of the Executive Branch prove incompetent, or incapable of filling their duties, he or she may be removed upon recommendation of a member of the House, who, upon obtaining at least 51% of their fellow Representatives and 2/3 of their Senators may take said recommendation to the Supreme Court who, after reviewing all the evidence will decide whether or not to issue an order of no confidence. Upon said order the Executive will be removed and an election will take place to replace said officer.

END
This of course is not a perfect design and would require a great deal more discussion to come up with something perfect. The fact of the matter is that the current Executive Branch has taken for themselves powers not intended for them to have. Take for example the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This entire Department was created as a fear reaction to 9/11. We have no need for an entire department to be created to do something many other departments already do. The NSA would be another perfect example. The CIA handles foreign intelligence (and domestic) and the FBI handles domestic concerns (and foreign to some extent). In addition, each branch of the military has intelligence operations. The NSA was created so we could spy on people we weren’t supposed to be spying on with our legitimate means (Geneva Convention, what’s that?). This is the effect of a bloated and misused Executive Branch. We haven’t seen anything of our Vice-President, nor has he been doing his job as President of the Senate, so why are we paying him? Another example. Time after time we can find perfect demonstrations of a fat, bloated, and lazy Executive Branch and a doddering nation unwilling to see that we can make a better way.

Well, let me know what you think and any suggestions to make this design I present to you better. The next segment will be The Legislature.

by

The Best Bet

As the shutdown continues and loathing of the Republican party grows steadily, it would seem that Boehner would look to the future of the country and the impending default crisis (and the ensuing aftermath) and just agree to a budget that funds healthcare. If, as the Republicans have been crying for ever, Obamacare is more damaging to the healthcare of the nation than the current arrangement, it will not take long for the American people to realize it and they will do exactly as the Republicans want them to (i.e. vote Republican in the next congressional election cycle and return control of the Senate to the Republicans, thus killing the healthcare bill legitimately and as grown adults, not the children everyone is acting like now). If, however Obamacare is the idea that Democrats believe it to be, then the Republicans will have done the right thing in allowing their own personal hangups to be pushed aside for the good of the nation. Either way, this bullheaded ideal of holding out because they don’t want to fund a law that was passed by both houses of Congress and has stood the test of the Supreme Court simply because they don’t like it and believe it violates some non-elaborated moral standard is at best irresponsible, and at worst, an evil beyond compare (Standing ground for rational beliefs is commendable, this is not that). If they ever hope to regain control of congress and pass laws they believe will benefit the American people, they must show that their interest is not narcissistic but rather the interest of the people and their economy. The best bet to do this is to pass a fully funded budget and let the people decide for themselves the benefits or liabilities of Obamacare.

by

Who’s REALLY to Blame?

The shutdown of our Federal government over the so-called Obamacare has left many newscasters asking “Who’s to blame?” Their question is, of course, only a ploy for ratings but it is a question that they have only offered a couple of answers to, The President, The GOP, or the Democrats. Unfortunately the answer to this question is none of the above. While it is true that each has a part to play in all this mess, we must press past the superficial if we want to see who is really to blame (although that begs the question of why we are playing the blame game instead of blowing up our congressmen and women’s mailboxes and emails with action demands). While the President’s ultimatum and the GOP/Democrats unwillingness to yield and compromise is certainly a blame worthy offense, it is we who are to blame. Study after study shows that the typical voter doesn’t vote their Senator or Representative in based on their platform or even their personal beliefs, but is directly related to how much money is spent on a campaign. More often than not we vote based on fundraising rather than true representation of what we as Americans believe. It is a despicable and ignorant way of choosing those who will directly change the very landscape of America and her policies, and we know this so we cast blame on those we the people elected. It is, to some small degree their fault but ultimately the blame lies directly on us the voters for caring more about the glitz and glamour of a politician rather than their actual policies and beliefs. If we are to cast blame, we must cast it to those who truly deserve it, ourselves. Now get out there and stop this mess by calling, writing, faxing, emailing, etc. your congressman or woman and if you don’t, then take what you deserve without complaining. Those who fail to act forfeit their right to complain. What do you think?