note 2

hey, what happened to those notes? you ask ('you' being Rob). Well, two reasons.

One, it has nothing to do with the blog

Two, the formatting got really screwed when i posted it from Word, so i thought it was to confusing

By the way, i would never have put up notes he hadn't checked yet

So... back to what this blog is supposed to be about

The Three Branches of Government

     Below is the un-revised version of an essay that I wrote for a school assignment.  I decided to include it in the blog since it is similar to the kind of stuff I write about here.  Enjoy:

Three, as a number, probably holds more significance in all fields and institutions (from religion to screen writing) than any other number.  It is thus altogether fitting that our Founders created a government with three branches.  One to legislate the laws, one to execute the laws, and just as an added bonus, one to interpret the laws.  This three branch system was the first of its kind to be attempted on Earth (Mars had tried it hundreds of thousands of years before, but a corrupt administration that ignored signs of global warming caused the death of all life on the planet, and the evaporation of most of the water) and led to the longest lasting democratic nation-state on the same.
     Having more branches on our metaphorical governmental tree wasn’t the only reason for our success, however.  Those branches intertwined in ways that balanced the system, preventing the entire structure from falling over (oh, you better believe I can talk in extended metaphor, wootness!).  The test of our nation is whether we can sustain that delicate balance and thus preserve for our posterity the gift of liberty.
Gradually, the legislature, which was intended by our Founders to be the first branch of government, has declined in power in comparison with the other two branches of government.  The executive branch’s powers have been expanded through strong-willed presidents and perhaps the amendment to the Constitution allowing the direct election of presidential electors.  The power of the executive branch also temporarily increases during war time (So, in the laughable event that a president declares a never-ending war on a noun, he could steadily increase his power to the point where he would be even above the Constitution.  But that, of course, will never happen.).  The Judiciary’s role has also increased over the years, as the Supreme Court began to take a more immediate role in governing, will such decisions as Marbury v Madison and Brown v Board of Education.
     However, the separation between the powers remained largely intact.  Although it may be frustrating for presidents when their Supreme Court nominees don’t turn out exactly as they would wish, it does demonstrate to the public that we still have an independent judiciary.  And it is an extension of our Founders’ foresight rather than an inherent flaw in our system that even when the president and the majority of Congress our of the same political party, they still find it difficult to get along.  The threat to American Democracy is not that Congress can’t get anything done, we’ve survived that for 200 years; it is rather that the system becomes more efficient, thus allowing the majority party undue control over the country.
     The first signs of trouble may already be appearing on the horizon.  Speeches by politicians stressing unity and the end of “partisan politics” are as un-American as they are dangerous.  We need not be of the same mind to be of the same country.  Our unity is inherent and unbreakable.  And partisan politics and bickering on not enemies to democracy, but a sign of strength!  Our country was founded on partisan politics.  Nominations to the Supreme Court have always been motivated by political issues.  No liberal president has purposely nominated a conservative judge, and vice-versa.  To say that Supreme Court nominees should be considered only by their experience is a slap on the face to our system.  Presidents do not nominate stupid people.
     And this new wave of ideology, this new stress on monism, is reflected by the decline in the most pluralist branch of government, the legislature.  The Congress is beginning to take a back seat to the much more publicized executive branch.  Presidential vetoes have risen steadily since 1787, and the executive branch has become an integral part in law-making, coordinating the drafting of legislation with members of Congress on many issues.  Congress has lost one of its most important abilities, that to declare war.  America has not declared war since 1941, and likely never will again as long as presidents frame conflicts as “police-actions” and find ways around the War Powers Act.
     As the Congress has declined, the Presidency has enjoyed more control and power than ever before.  This can be seen in the explosive increase of the number of staff employed in the executive branch and the equally stunning rise of the bureaucracy, which some have labeled “the fourth branch of government”.  It is a misnomer, however, because the bureaucracy is the arm of the executive branch, dutifully helping it to execute the laws and federal mandates.  The latter have increased of late in proportion with the increasing power of the executive branch.  These mandates along with executive privilege could theoretically allow the president to secretly authorize an illegal wire-tapping program used to spy on American citizens (rofl + lmao, like that would ever happen).  The growing influence of the Fourth Estate (the media) on American’s life has given the president increasing ability to use his position as the most public figure on Earth to campaign for causes that he supports.  Because no single legislator gets as much media coverage as the president (unless they’re under indictment for ethics violations, *cough* *cough*), he (or she… lol rofl j/k) has the media advantage.
     Thusly have the checks and balances in our Constitution declined.  Congress’s ability to declare war reduced to rubber-stamping police actions, their role in approving judicial nominees reduced to a several day long speechification process where the nominees spend most of their time declining to answer questions in case they (god forbid) reveal an opinion.  And the separation of powers built into our system has began to fall away, as the Supreme Court gets more and more politicized.
     I believe in the American system.  I have faith that the Founders created a system so strife with conflict, a government that played on the very vices of men, that not even the most determined political force could destroy it.  And I can only hope that the cycles of our political system that mean no party is in control for a very long time will prevent a party from piercing the Constitution’s defenses.

quote

I can’t remember where I read this, but I love this quote:

“The media is only as liberal as its Corporate owners”

Just felt like throwing that in there

hope

     I was listening to him speak on CNN today, and it really gave me hope.  From a political point of view, he speaks clearly, stays on message, appeals to voters, he’s young, and he might be able to win Democrats the black vote back (I don’t blame their dwindling support in recent years, btw.  I think Democrats have sort of failed their constituents by not getting elected).  From an ideological point of view, he’s perfectly satisfactory.  This young charismatic figure is just what the Democrats need to reenergize them, and I’ll be watching his career with interest.
     That being said, I hope no one tries to pressure him into running too soon.  I was relieved when I heard him say that he will not be running in ’08 and that he will complete his full six year senate term.  Once he has some experience behind him he’ll be perfect for a presidential run.  In the mean time, I’d like to see the Governor of Virginia run for president in ’08, but I would hope that Gore and Kerry stay out of it, as they are not… exactly… how should I say this… inspiring.

Its the policy, stupid

“Should I feel happy that their hypocrisy and culture of corruption will continue to give fuel to attacks by democrats?”

I re-read this sentence in my last post, and thought to myself, that’s not something to be happy about.

Usually when I hear Republican attacks along these lines: ‘they don’t have a plan so all they can do is attack’, I tend to dismiss them out of hand.  “We do too have a plan,” I’ll say, or “Well, its easy for you to say, you guys are in charge, so you have to form a plan, otherwise the country will stop running!” (which, by the way, would almost be a better alternative).  But lately I have gotten a little frustrated with my fellow Democrats, because they aren’t articulating a clear message.  Of course, one reason is that Democrats tend to put together more complicated talking points than “FREEDOM GOOD, ugha ugha”, but that still doesn’t excuse us.  We have a lot of differing opinions within our party, for instance people of different faiths (‘ooh,’ gasp the Republicans, ‘how exotic!’) and different ethnicities (‘oh,’ says the CEO, ‘like those guys that mow my lawn?’), and sometimes all this intra-party democracy can lead to a slightly jumbled message, but again, that’s no excuse.

Democrats need to start formulating a more concise message, and laying out plans for various issues.  Yes, there are many things that Republicans are doing that can be attacked, but the primary focus needs to shift to coming up with alternative policies for foreign and domestic policies, and GETTING THOSE POLICIES OUT THERE in the public sphere.  Jon Steward (oh, man, I wish that guy was running for president) came up with a neat idea.  That the Democratic National Committee create a shadow government of sorts that, for every action taken or legislation passed by the Republicans, outline what the Democrats would have done in their place.

The Republicans will always be better at raising money and campaigning than we will (which I think says a lot about their character), but if we present policies that are good for the American people, all the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth groups in the world won’t be able to stop us.

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

replacing DeLay and 2006

How should I feel about the Republicans who are trying to replace Delay, all of whom have been involved with similar unethical activities?  Should I feel happy that their hypocrisy and culture of corruption will continue to give fuel to attacks by democrats?  Should I feel amazed that they would have the gall to try and get away with this?  Or perhaps I should just feel amazingly tired and collapse onto the couch and give up on it all.

The worst part of it all, though, is the Democrats.  I can always trust us to lose an election; it’s what we have consistently proven to be good at.  I can see myself sitting there, in November 2006, watching with horror as Democrats lose more Senate and House seats and Republicans wax poetic about how Americans “voted for freedom” and “stopped the un-American liberal agenda” and “made our nation safe again”.

Well, I guess I’ll go get a paper bag for my vomit…

Chicken Hawks and Nukes

     Bush invaded Iraq because he said that they had nukes.  Well, that wasn’t exactly true… but that debate is getting pretty tired.  North Korea has nukes.  Not only do they have nukes, they refuse to get rid of them (May I remind you that Saddam not only didn’t have nukes, he was willing to get rid of the nukes he didn’t have!  But we invaded without giving the weapons inspectors time to finish their job).  Yet Bush has no intention of invading North Korea, or even pressuring them with the threat of military action.  He calls it a “diplomatic” problem even though we have about as much chance of solving North Korea diplomatically as a turtle has of climbing Mount Everest.
     So why doesn’t Bush pressure them?  Because for all his big talk about strength and fighting for freedom, Bush is a coward.  He’s a chicken-hawk, urging others on to war while he sits in the White House on a comfy leather couch calling up his Saudi friends.  In Vietnam, Bush “served” his country by staying as far away from the fighting as possible, and as close as he could be to good suthern cookin’.
     Bush can’t even stand up to Kim Jong Il, a guy probably half his height, and a softy dictator who spends most of his time enjoying luxurious living and forcing his citizens to change their hair cuts.  But though Kim might not be very threatening personally, his nuclear program is.  It is a matter of years before they have nukes that can strike U.S. targets, if they don’t already.  We need a more hard-lined approach to this problem.  If Kim is not in constant fear of his life, we’re not doing our job (I’ll bet you’ve never expected a liberal to say that, eh?).
     And as with North Korea, so Iran.  The rulers there might not be so unreasonable, but they have the same objective, and they need something sterner than talks with Britain and Germany to stop them.  When’s the last time Germany won a war?  What kind of threat is Britain to Iran’s national security?  All their troops are stuck in Iraq.  I strongly want this to be an international effort, but that means that our people have to be part of the negotiations.
     The problem with Iraq wasn’t that we shouldn’t have threatened Saddam, the problem was invading the country after threatening it had given us the results we wanted.  But the failed Texan oil-man G. W. Bush couldn’t stand to lose the opportunity to bring in all that ‘Texas Tea’ and take revenge for his father on the man who “tried to kill my daddy”.

wire taps

     There are some things for which debate is not a good idea.  I’m sure no one would agree to a debate about whether the holocaust existed because that would only lend credibility to neo-Nazis and those few who deny that is happened.  In the same way (and please forgive me for the ubiquitous Nazi metaphor, I’ll try to be less cliché later) I don’t think that it is appropriate to raise this wire-tapping issue to the level of debate.  There is no debate.  There were searches conducted without a warrant.  That is not only illegal, it is unconstitutional:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” – 4th Amendment to the Constitution

I’m I missing something here?  How does Karl Rove, in his twisted mind, reason that wire-tapping without a warrant is ok?  How can Republicans elevate this to the level of debate, how can the media allow them to do so?  I really feel like I’ve stumbled into a parallel dimension!  Now let’s have a debate about whether Watergate was illegal!  I don’t think is illegal because they breaking into a hotel for freedom’s sake!  Violating the constitution is the only way to defend the American people!!!  This is war!!!  The same rules don’t apply!!!  Plus Bush has been so honest with the American people so far, we owe him this one!!!  Just look at his face, how can you not trust him?  Doesn’t that condescending laugh always make you feel better?  The Orwellian backdrops he employs?

God Bless America, ‘cause we’re gonna need it

Why Block?

First, I would like to thank you for considering my argument. I have decided to format this post at a serious of points rather than an easy because I think that that will make it easier to read. I might add a bit of analysis after the end of each point, but I’m going to try to keep this as concise as possible.

I’m not sure if this is being discussed, but I would hope that is would be realized that it would be impossible to institute block as early as next year. A shift that sudden would unfortunately prevent some rising seniors from graduating on time (. The reason is that those who left off their foreign language requirements to their senior year would have literally no way of completing two courses in the same foreign language.

As to the reasons why Block should stay forever:

Many students at Page carry there books around in their book bags, sometimes avoiding lockers all together. It’s simply a matter of convenience. Often times peoples lockers are too far away from their other classes to use without being late or having to rush (run) to class. Not using a locker also prevents students from accidentally leaving there books in their lockers, which no matter how organized you are will always happen to you at least once. However, it is extremely difficult to fit all of one’s books in a single book bag. If we went to a standard 6 class schedule it would be more than difficult, it would be impossible. I simply cannot fit 6 notebooks and 6 textbooks in my book bag. And so with more people using lockers tardies would invariably increase, which is the last thing we want.

Probably the most important aspect of block is the eight extra classes. A student at Page is in the unique position to take as many classes in four years as a student at another school would spend over five years to complete. This certainly gives a Page student an advantage in college admissions, especially because those extra eight classes can be geared toward AP classes that would raise the student’s GPA. I will admit that not all student’s choose this path, but it is a much-appreciated gift by those who do.

Another aspect of block that is beneficial is the semester system. This gives students the unique opportunity to take two classes in the same year that build on each other (i.e. taking Spanish 2 second semester and Spanish 1 first semester). In fact, without this schedule in place, I see no way for a student to take Spanish 5 and AP Spanish, since they could at most take 4 years of the same language.

I’ll add more to this list as I think of other reasons, suggestions are most welcome