Wikileaks

Today, since I can't think of anything of anything else to write about, I will discuss why Wikileaks is an important part of a free and democratic society. Since this is mostly all opinion, my stance on Wikileaks is that it should not be taken down. As for Assanage, I support him for publishing the documents, but I disagree with some of his tactics, as well as those of a few of his followers. Mounting a DDoS isn't going to promote a peaceful society. In fact, it just promotes hostility. While I haven't read much of the leaks other than from the major media outlets, I feel that exposure to hidden secrecy that our government has should be revealed. Of course, I'm not surprised that the government wants to hide the information. Whistleblowers deserve protection because they are the ones who intervene in something unethical or corrupt. By exposing corruption, the people can remove it. In a way, this is similar to the Pentagon Papers, or any other leaks that went on in the past. A ban on reading exposed information would amount to censorship, which is against our Constitution. The only problem that I might have is that they didn't verify their information. If they revealed false information, it would damage their credibility.

What are the requirements to be a President?

With buzz of who's going to contend for the 2012 presidency, let's look at the requirements posted in the Constitution.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Tl;Dr:
1. Be a natural born Citizen, as in being born in the United States.
2. Be 35 years old.
3. Be a permanent resident of the United States for 14 years.

With the 22nd Amendment-
4. You can't be elected more than twice (Something that I disagree with; If voters decide the President has done a good job, why should they not reelect him? I also didn't mind for Bloomberg's third term, since I believe it is up to the voters to decide whether someone should stay in power or not. The argument for a monarchy is frivolous as voters can vote them out; however, the argument for excessive power is not, as history shows there has been quite an abuse of power. I'd recommend limiting presidential powers to combat this).

All serious matters aside, there are some things that people take into account when deciding if a runner is qualified. These can include, but are not limited to:
1. Ideology
2. Public Experience
3. Charisma
4. Voting for the lesser of two evils*

*It seems that this is the trend during the last 4 years.

I'll discuss the potentials of prospective candidates as more information is revealed.

Earmarks

If you've been reading up on politics, you know that there's a stigma on earmarks, or pork-barrel spending, or whatever you want to call it. Anyway, I'm here to DEFEND the use of earmarks. I do agree that wasteful spending is bad, but that doesn't mean all earmarks are bad. On a more interesting note, the definition of wasteful may be different to some. Anyway, these are my reasons:

1. Congress can spend to provide/promote the general welfare.
    Of course "the general welfare" clause is something that's quite controversial.

2. It's less than 2% of discretionary spending.
    I realize that we have to cut spending, but to imply that banning earmarks is a panacea to the deficit is ridiculous.

3. Earmarks, when used PROPERLY, is beneficial to communities.
    If the earmarks can help local communities, it can promote the larger economy.

For some strange reason, the only think tank that shows up on the news is the Cato Institute. Anyway, in short they propose to limit/ban earmarks on the grounds that it promotes corruption. In this sense, I would agree that it promotes corruption, but I believe that greater transparency would offset this.

The problem with deciding what is "wasteful" is quite opinionated. The Bridge to Nowhere is something that most people would agree is wasteful. Funding for research on flying snakes, in my opinion, is not. For the article, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/science/30obflight.html?src=twrhp
Anyway, the article basically says that the Pentagon is funding this research in order to examine the physics of how these snakes "fly". Close minded people would dismiss this as useless, but when people think about the
potential uses for this it's quite amazing. A breakthrough in aerodynamics can lead to a dramatic change in how airplanes work. For those that love war, the new research in aerodynamics can lead to breakthroughs in war planes. Even if the findings wouldn't benefit as much, it doesn't hurt to have more knowledge in how these snakes work.

Edit: 3:50 12/6/10
They should just have a bill only with earmarks, and not filled inside other bills. This reduces the volume of words in any given bill, and is more transparent.

The U.S Defecit

Personal note: Lots of work = no fun; I'm not sure how to attribute this image, but I think you can tell who the author is from the bottom left. If this image violates copyright or whatever, I apologize in advance and will take it down when I have time.
---
As some of you may have noticed by now, Congress is in lame duck session and the budget, along with the Bush Tax Cuts, are in hot debate. Almost a month ago, the New York Times (or as my old American History teacher once punned, The New York Slime) created an interactive medium in which readers can decide what to kill in order to reduce the deficit. A similar proposal by the GOP created YouCut, which encourages voters to pick what they wanted to cut from the federal program. In my personal opinion, I think the New York Times does a much better job, as the YouCut program is more opinionated. Anyway, I'll list what I think of these two programs.

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

In short, this interactive puzzle addresses both short term issues and long term issues. However, many critics point out that it is limited in choices. I definitely agree with them, but I believe that what the Times has presented is a contributing step towards handling the deficit.

YouCut
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/

In short, it lets voters decide what they should cut from the deficit. I believe it's a nice attempt, but it's quite lacking. For one, it only has at most $150b in savings, which according to the Times is only 1/3 of what we need to cut. Also, I would only agree with about a little less than 1/2 of what was proposed.

There's also a Deficit Reduction proposed by the Cato Institute, but I won't discuss it here because I have no idea what some of these mini departments do. You can't just say "Throw it away" without knowing what it does.

From what I can tell, a combined tax increase and a spending decrease can help. Of course, it's quite hard to predict what will happen. I advise readers to look at both, though the inner politician inside me recommends the New York Times more because it has more discussions on the deficit than the YouCut website.

On a slightly off topic note, I don't understand why there's a stigma with "elitists" from both sides of the spectrum. The right believes (as far as I know) that they know better than elitists. I'm not sure how I can explain why I disagree with this, but here it goes: "Elitists" are people specialized in certain areas, and this goes along with that economic theory of specialization. I would rather trust a gardener about gardening topics than a carpenter with gardening topics. On the left, I believe there's a sense of "They make too much money". I tend to side with the left side of the argument, but I do believe that if people earned it ethically(a description that is vague), then they have the right to that money.

Gerrymandering of 2011

On my last post I mentioned that I would explain what the 2010 elections means for people. If you follow politics, then you know that gerrymandering is a system done after the census is taken. If you don't know what gerrymandering is, then you might have heard of redistricting.

The basic concept is that you redraw dividing boundary lines into whatever pleases your whim, as long as it follows basic guidelines. This is a simplified summation, and if you're interested in trying it out, there's a gerrymandering game:

"http://www.redistrictinggame.org"

For wikipedia information:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering"

Here's an example of how things will play out:

Since Florida took 2 of New York's House Seats due to changes in population, Florida now has more representatives in the House of Representatives. Since a Republican governor was elected in Florida, the governor has some influence in how the Florida districts are set. Generally, the party in power maximizes their power and minimizes the minority. If you look at the wikipedia example, you can see that a minority can overpower a majority, which in my opinion is a real problem. On a side note, both parties do this, so please stop acting innocent. On another unrelated side note, the GOP messed up in failing to take Nevada and Delaware senators. Had they gain it, it would have been an unprecedented swing worthy of applause (not that they shouldn't be applauded for capturing the House, although I have mentioned before that I just prefer the Senate more). Add in a few more states with Republican governors and you have a high chance of a Republican supermajority in the House (general assumption).

Now, if you didn't bother checking the wikipedia site, I'll post it here.
Suppose there is party X and party Y, with zones A, B, and C.
100 people in the zone, 60 support X, 40 Support Y.
Normally, X would be the majority. However, suppose we have this scenario:
Let A have 34 people that support X
Let B have 13 people that support X and 20 people that support Y
Let C have 13 people that support X and 20 people that support Y
If you wanted perfect distribution just add 1 more X voter to B and C, and you would still get a party Y majority.
*Super credits to the person that explained this, although I don't know who the author is.

From this, we see that the minority has power over the majority. Now onto the concept of packing and cracking.
Packing is when you place all voters of a particular preference to an area to waste there votes. If this statement doesn't make sense, think of this: A district is known to vote 100% to a particular party. Assuming everyone votes the same way, the marginal effect of a vote is 0. Why? Well, if a district only voted party X then it wouldn't matter if 1 person voted for X or 1,000,000 people voted for X. The result would always be X. This is similar to situation A.
Cracking is where you minimize opposing votes. Assuming a district always votes 51% X and 49% Y, we see that X always wins. As you can see, the 49% that voted for Y is voided. This is similar to situation B and C.
I asked a few people if they knew what gerrymandering/redistricting was, and from what I can tell it's 50% (2 yes, 2 no). Obviously, I kind of expected it because of the education that they received (all 18+, but different high schools in NYC).
I would go into a long rant about how I lost my faith in the American voting system, but that's another story (that would most likely not be covered in this blog).

If you want to see the current districting, "http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/house"
Edit 1: I would like to note that while the usage of technology has made it more bipartisan and the dirty tactics have been deemed unconstitutional, the fact that this system can lead to abuse is something every citizen should be aware of.

The Aftermath of November 2, 2010

If you've been following the news, now is the time where the Tea Party has a chance to shine. If you haven't followed on politics, I don't blame you. It's utterly disgusting. Anyway, I will be using the NYT report of the elections, because I find them "fair and balanced" more than Fox News. Then again, I prefer news with no opinions. But enough of the sidetracking. This is the link: "http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate"

Click on House-->Map for its section, and click Governor-->Map for its section.

Oh, If you're wondering why I'm doing this late at night, it helps to get all the info out. Not to mention that I procrastinate HEAVILY. At time of writing, the NYT election section is not complete, so I'll go with what I have and edit later.

First, the Governor elections.

Democrats lose 9, Republicans gain 9, 1 Independent gain, and 5 Undecided. As of post, 15 Democratic Governors, 29 Republican Governors, 1 Independent Governor, and 5 Undecided. Since we have 50 states, it goes without saying that Republicans have a minimum of 4, maximum of 9 more than 25. Generally, you wouldn't really care about this. But since it's 2010, we should (more on that later). Oh, and for those that ran for governor for NY, thank you for your time, and congratulations to Andrew Cuomo.

Next, the Senate elections.

Democrats lose 6, Republicans gain 6, 2 Undecided. As of post, 50 Democratic Senators, 46 Republican Senators, 2 Independents that generally side with Democrats, and 2 Undecided. I would like to note, in my heavily biased opinion, that I congratulate: Barbara Boxer for defeating the former HP CEO because I have an issue with HP more than Dell, Harry Reid for managing to remain a senator, Lisa Murkowski if she beats the Tea Party-backed Joe Miller even if she employs Benjamin Ginsberg (the lawyer in the  in defending 13,400 votes "http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1104-alaska-senate-20101104,0,2136105.story", Delaware for not picking O'Donnell (honestly GOP, you probably had a better chance if you went with Mike Castle),and Rand Paul for showing the most promise of all Tea Party members (even if you did stupid things). 


Finally, the House elections.


Democrats lose 60, Republicans gain 60, 10 undecided. As of post, 186 Democrats, 239 Republicans, and 10 Undecided. In my opinion, the Senate is much more prestigious than the House, and I don't really care much about it, so I won't be making any remarks here.


What does this mean? Check the next post!

On Ground Zero

To begin, let me state my stance on the "Ground Zero Mosque" or "Park51". I am in full support of it. As for my main reason, here it is:

1. They have a permit.

They went through the appropriate channels to obtain a permit for construction, which means that it's legal.

---

On a strict scale, this would be fine. However, the rise of several debatable issues lead me to address them as well.

1. We should honor the families who died on 9/11

I agree completely with this, but it doesn't pertain to the issue. Just like the pastor from Florida. If he had a permit to burn any holy book, then on a technicality he should be allowed to under the protection of the First Amendment. It may be in bad taste, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Not to mention the fact that families of both sides of the argument disagree with each other on this issue, which leads to the question of who should we side with? If we side with the families that support the Mosque/Park51, we won't side with the families that oppose the Mosque/Park51. If we side with the families that oppose the Mosque/Park51, we won't side with the families that support the Mosque/Park51. Either way, it's superficial to say that we should respect the families of those who died on 9/11. The only way I would consider this is if ALL families would want or wouldn't want the Mosque/Park51 to be built.

2. The funding of the Mosque/Park51 is suspicious/lead by terrorists.

I've only heard this once or twice, but I'll address it anyway. This is, in my opinion, a red herring. One reason is that I don't really think that the people who oppose the Mosque/Park51 would have cared whether it was funded by terrorists or regular people; I think they would rant regardless. Another reason is that I wouldn't care who's building what with what money. If, hypothetically, the KKK wanted to build something right next door to my apartment, a red flag would raise in my mind. If the city allows it, then I'll side with the city. The main point is that they have a permit; therefore, they have a legal right to build it, regardless of the funding. However, if you really want to see who's financing the project, be my guest as I could care less.

3. It's two blocks down.

I'll use an extreme point to showcase my view. Assume that 2 blocks is not enough. Ok, then what about 3? If not, how about 5? If not, how about 10? If not, how about out of NYC? If not, how about out of NY?(That was rhetorical and exaggerative. I'm trying to say that "close" and "far" are subjective terms.) To me, the only test on closeness for me is if was 0 blocks down; that is,if it's right on the WTC. And honestly, I'd oppose any religious organization trying to build it right on the WTC. 1 block difference is enough for me.

---

And now for attacks on people (which may or may not be ad hominem):

1. Those who feel that Arizona should be able to pass their law, but that the Mosque/Park51 should not be build.

Honestly, blatant hypocrisy is amidst. These people believe that Arizona has the right to pass an immigration law (that generally belongs to the federal government), but believe that New York City should not let people build something.

My personal take on is is that Arizona has the right to pass the law, even though I disagree with it. There are also some portions which may be considered unconstitutional, but other than that I support Arizona for putting it's citizen's interest, even if there are dire consequences. For the Mosque/Park51, these same people who champion more local government are bashing New York City for allowing the Mosque/Park51 to be built. If you don't see the connection, please post in the comments and I'll elaborate more. I would bash Obama on immigration reform, but that's another topic.

-

I may add more to this, but this is all I can think of now.