The "S" word...

Socialism, a word that encompasses a political philosophy that is sometimes hard to quantify except for in one manner, in the United States, calling yourself a Socialist is practically a guarantee that you will LOSE an election, regardless as to how good your ideas actually are. Is it any surprise that out of the 535 people in Congress, only ONE is a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist, and that's the guy on the left, Bernie Sanders, Senator of Vermont.

So what makes Bernie different? That's a good question, and, to be honest, I don't think I can answer it, only the people of Vermont can answer it, they elected him, Gods bless them.

It could be simply a part of the iconoclastic character of the state of Vermont, which seems to me to like to buck trends and be a trend setter themselves(I hope).

However, on the national stage, being a Socialist can cost you an election. This is because of a combination of misinformation and accusations that date back to the Cold War and even before the war. "Red Scares" and accusations of Communism were enough to wreck lives and suppress political activism in all areas of life. The erroneous association of Socialism with Communism, which are related, but also different, political philosophies, lead to electoral and personal failures of many Socialists in the country.

The irony is that while Americans generally don't like the word "Socialism" itself, the policies of Socialists or ideas of Socialism itself aren't nearly as strongly opposed. A classic example is that of Upton Sinclair, who was an author in the first half of the 20th century, and was also a political candidate in California for Senator, Congressman, and Governor. He was a Socialist, and when he ran under that label, he lost, however, on his Governor run, he ran under the Democratic Party, and, while he still lost, didn't lose by nearly as large a margin, the Republicans smeared him as a "Communist" during his run.

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."--Upton Sinclair

He was right, of course, the American people like the policies of Socialism, at least to a limited extent. Most Americans prefer Socialism in small doses, if not in one solid platform, and they prefer solutions to problems that work, regardless of what political party or philosophy those solutions sprung from.

Issues #4 "Free" Trade and the worker

The first thing you will notice is that I put the word "free" in quotes when referring to "free" trade. This is done for a simple reason, most trade agreements that are BILLED as free trade aren't free trade. A classic example of this would be NAFTA, which, if you actually read it, has 22 different chapters to it. Much of it is dense, legalese, but basically it allows for freeing up capital, but not labor. This isn't free trade, this is an agreement to screw over the working poor in three nations, at the same time.

I'm against free trade as it is billed and implemented in the world today, the biggest problem is two-fold, lack of transparency in the process, like closed door WTO meetings, and the lack of international standards in labor rights, environmental protection, and respect for domestic laws. The biggest problem is that free trade is regulated from one end of the spectrum, the employers, rather than the workers.

Proponents of "Free" trade as it is implemented today refer to it as a tool for world peace and economic development. They are right insofar as "world peace" is concerned, but only partially, for while two nations that have such an agreement in place may not declare war on each other while the agreement is in force, this doesn't mean violence itself stops. What good is peace if you require paramilitary forces to break strikes, burn villages, and force people to work in Free Trade Zones?

By my thinking, if we are to have free trade agreements, they need to be equalized, if a World Trade Organization is to exist, there should be a World Labor Organization as well. A WLO would balance out the WTO in many aspects, because it would include a group of people in the regulation of trade that have been ignored up to this point, the workers themselves. This could include helping workers to establish unions that are independent of governments and allow unions from one nation to join the unions of other nations when their interests and concerns are similar enough. The composition of a WLO would be from the unions themselves, through democratic elections. In addition, to make sure it has teeth, no trade agreement or regulation can be agreed upon unless the WLO and WTO both agree to it, and the meetings and dealings of both organizations should be a matter of public record, including unfettered media access.

This is one of many reforms that can be instituted that are more closely related to what is called fair trade than "free" trade. We need institutions and policies in place that will allow us to protect domestic workers in all nations, and to allow for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, worldwide.

Labor Rights and the Employee Free Choice Act

It may seem odd that a self proclaimed Socialist would wait this long to reflect on labor rights, and, to be frank, it is. Then again, I'm somewhat scatterbrained as is, my mind will wander on its own, and, when I feel like it, I write down my thoughts.

I wanted to comment on the Employee Free Choice Act, right now there are four versions of the bill, mostly this is a scheduling thing with the Library of Congress website. More information can be found at the AFL-CIO website. The law in question is a good first step, and let us hope it passes the Senate. If you look at the AFL-CIO website I linked to, you can find out if your Representative is against working people or for them.

I think the law is a good first step in restoring labor rights and union representation in this country because it levels the playing field a bit between employers and employees. It increases the penalties against employers for employee discrimination and intimidation, it also allows for easier certification of Union in the workplace, and for help in mediation on behalf of Unions.

This is one of those items that makes me glad that the Democrats won back Congress last year, and hopefully, increase their majority in 2008 and win the Presidency. This is but one step in the correct direction to protect American workers against abuse.

Small changes to the blog...

This is the first, and only, post, that isn't political in some way. Anyways, I added the labels for my posts on the right, above the archives, to make it slightly easier to navigate the site. Since this isn't a current events blog, the timing of the posts themselves isn't that important. With it structured this way, I'm hoping I won't repeat myself, though I may revisit an issue or post if relevant to something I want to comment on that relates to it.

Also, I added an actual license to my blog, a Creative Commons license, the details of the license, and any questions about it, can be answered in the link on the right side of the blog. Basically the rundown is this, anyone can copy my posts as long as they don't try to sell it, make sure I'm mentioned(Solon is fine), and they can even modify the content, or add to it, though I encourage anyone who does this to link back to this blog and the post you are modifying.

Issues #3 Congressional Reform

So what do I mean by Congressional Reform, well, let's narrow it down to the House of Representatives. The Senate, generally, is OK as it is, however, I have problems with the "People's House".

Two things strike out as problems to me, first is Public Law 62-5 which was passed in 1911 and limited the amount of Representatives to 435. The problem is that the House is supposed to represent the people of this country, yet, how effective is it when the country has tripled in population since this law was passed, and added 4 states? Given this limitation, the ratio of citizens to representatives is now almost 700,000:1.

The second problem is the districting system, which has been so pervasive in this country, that people think its actually part of the Constitution. To be frank, its not, in fact, the ONLY mention of how Representatives should be apportioned is in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, and it makes no mention of districts. Districts are the creation of states, nothing more, nothing less. As such, any reform to get rid of them is far less drastic than, let's say, the direct election of Senators, which required a Constitutional Amendment.

So why are these two issues problems? Well, Gerrymandering is a problem, its a fancy word for saying you can disenfranchise someone through creating district borders to create a political, or, in some cases, racial, minority, robbing them of Representation in the process. This is part of the reason why, if you ever seen Stephen Colbert's Better know a District, that the districts look so convoluted. This also leads to the incumbency problem, generally districts are either Democratic or Republican, hence, any Democratic or Republican Representative who wins in those districts can be guaranteed re-election till retirement. Its hard to dislodge an incumbent once they are elected, especially for the opposing party. Most districts are "safe" for one party or the other, very few, proportionally, are "in play", so to speak.

Having so few Representatives represent so many different people is also a problem and it will only be amplified as the population of the country grows. Many of us already have a huge disconnect between ourselves and our Representatives as is, imagine if the ratio grows to 1,000,000:1 or greater.

So, what are the solutions, it comes in two parts, one is that, through an act of Congress, they can repeal public law 62-5 and reapportion the House through a set ratio, like 600,000:1. The second part is harder, it involves getting rid of Districts, and will have to be done on a state by state basis. Basically allowing at-large elections within the States using Proportional Representation, which is basically just a fancy term for allowing everybody to vote for who they want based on politics and not strictly geography. In addition, this also simplifies the apportionment process in that politicians won't need to do horse trading to make sure they get the districts they want. In addition, we wouldn't lose representatives in one state due to another gaining more of a population than that other state, instead, both would gain representatives.

The fact of the matter is that, while this would be a change, it is actually less radical than other proposed changes to any level of government. This can also lead to a House that is less dependent on money and more dependent of keeping the people of the state they live in happy. They would also be more responsive, create less pork, due to the geography limitation being lifted, and third parties may actually have a chance at House representation.

Supreme court upholds Partial Birth Abortion ban...

So I read this link here, and, to my surprise, the Supreme Court, all medical experts, I'm sure(sarcasm), decided in their infinite wisdom that banning a needed medical procedure is Constitutional. Now, I could go on and on about how WRONG this decision is, the first thing that comes to mind is that the law in question ISN'T needed. All "Partial Birth Abortions" are done to save the life or health of the Mother. Apparently, Republicans value the lives of fetuses more than Women. Not to mention that Partial Birth Abortion is a POLITICAL term, not a medical term, for the procedures used.

To be frank about it, the Supreme court, at least 5 of the justices, are dumbasses. In my personal opinion, there should be NO laws outside of safety or compensatory laws, regarding ANY medical procedure. All this moralistic claptrap is just a thinly veiled attempt to control women's lives, and ultimately, the lives off everybody.

The truth is that this ban was and is an additional risk to women who end up having the most tragic things happen in their lives, their fetuses end up being non-viable, and/or pose a risk to the mother that she cannot carry to term. There has NEVER been one case of a perfectly normal and viable fetus being aborted in the 3rd term when the mother is capable of safely delivering it. This simply doesn't happen.

However, what the law does say is that, if a fetus doesn't have a brain, but is on the mother's life support, so to speak, she is FORCED to carry it to term, regardless of the risks to herself. The head of the fetus can fill with fluid and expand, increasing the risk of the mother developing severe problems during labor, and she could end up, in BEST case scenarios, being handicapped for life, not to mention emotionally damaged.

This type of shit REALLY pisses me off, because laws like this address problems that DON'T EXIST AT ALL!!!!! Oh, and I don't care for the "graphic" depictions of the various procedures, that should not be a factor for anyone, open heart surgery is nasty itself, most people would throw up just because of the smell and the amount of blood involved, but guess what, its saves a life.

The fact of the matter is that most pregnancies fail, the key here is that most fail within the first 2 months of pregnancy, its called a Miscarriage, if you are Christian, this is God's way of having an abortion. Sometimes, though, the woman's body doesn't implement this self-defense mechanism in time, and fetuses that aren't viable then continue to develop past the point where they can be miscarried. In some cases, they are still "alive" in the Terry Schavio sense, without brains, and such, other cases, they actually die and decompose within the Mother. This can be exceedingly dangerous, blood poisoning isn't unheard of in cases like this.

The point is that these women, and their doctors, should be free from bad laws like this so that they are free to make decisions that are best for their own health. For if they can't even make that decision for themselves, how can anyone call this country free?

Issues #2: The Right to Vote.

This may come as a surprise to many Americans, but we don't as Americans, have a right to vote. The Constitution of the United States has several Amendments that restricted how states can restrict the right to vote, but there is no explicit right that is stated anywhere in the Constitution. You can read the Constitution right here.

Voting is a right that the States give to their own citizens, rather than a federal right. To give a comparison, all American citizens have the right to free speech because of a combination of the First Amendment and because of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. In this case, the 14th Amendment restricted the power of states to limit free speech, the First Amendment, originally, only applied to the Federal Government, hence why Congress is mentioned by name.

Next let's look at the 15th Amendment, which says this:

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notice the wording of the first section, it doesn't give an explicit right to vote to citizens of the United States, rather it restricts the power of states from denying that right on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Now, there are two other Amendments we are going to look at, the 19th Amendment, and the 26th Amendment. Both of which share the same wording as the 15th Amendment, and therefore neither one guarantees a federal right to vote to anyone, but restricts states from denying the vote to women or those that are 18 years old or older.

So what does this mean? The question can be complicated, first we have to examine Citizenship within the United States, first, there are two basic levels of citizenship, Federal and State, all citizens of the States are citizens of the Federal government, but not all State Citizens are Citizens of all States, does that make sense? Let's put it this way, I'm a Citizens of Missouri and a Citizen of the United States, however, I am NOT a citizen of let's say Illinois, I don't live there, and therefore the rights that may be extended to citizens of Illinois do not extend to me.

The Federal Constitution is not a restrictive document, the 10th amendment states that any power NOT mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments are instead enumerated in the states. When the country was founded, after the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, less than half of white males could vote, the reason was that most did not own property, and hence didn't qualify. This was, and still is, Constitutional, however, over time, the states themselves extended the franchise to include, at least, all white males over 21 years old.

Over the years, as the country expanded, laws in various states have expanded the franchise to other people, for example, before the 19th Amendment was passed, many western states extended the franchise to women, and many other states lowered the voting age before the passage of the 26th Amendment.

States have this power, but, at the same time, just because one state gave its citizens these types of rights, before the passage of these Amendments, doesn't mean that when a citizens moves away from that state, they retain that right. A modern day example would be with convicted felons, many states take away the right to vote, permanently, from convicted felons, while others do not. A felon in states that don't restrict the right to vote in this way may lose that right if they move to a state with these laws.

Now here is something that's somewhat of a gray area, Federal law. There are many Federal laws that further restrict how the states can restrict the right to vote, mostly as a response to the Civil Rights Movement. They include not having unreasonable tests to restrict the right to vote, like literacy tests, counting beans in a jar, and other Jim Crow type of laws. They also extend the non-discrimination started by the 15th Amendment by including National Origin in as a protected class of citizens.

These laws are enforced onto the states basically by saying the Federal Government will restrict funding for certain projects, like Highways, if the laws aren't enforced by the states. The states themselves will then enact the laws as state laws, to keep the funding. This isn't Unconstitutional because the States aren't guaranteed help by the Federal Government in the Constitution except for defense.

So what does this mean for the average citizen? Well, its perfectly Constitutional for states to restrict voting rights to only landowners, like many used to do in the past, or they could restrict it based on annual income, height, weight, criminal record, and pretty much any other reason OTHER than Race, Color, National Origin, Sex, or Age. Will any state actually do this? I doubt it, but that isn't the point, the point is that they could do this, not that they actually will.

In any case, this is a problem that should be resolved because of the potential for future abuse, and to alleviate concerns of botched elections. A simple solution was proposed by the Honorable Congressman from Illinois' Second District, Jesse L. Jackson Jr. A Constitutional Amendment giving an explicit right to vote for all citizens of the United States. He has a website up that illustrates this further, you can find it here. He also illustrates many of the problems of NOT having the right to vote in the United States, much better than I.