Author: jpritikin

I recently was contacted by someone that asked me to check out Whitehouse2.com. I was thoroughly impressed with the site because of the simplicity of the premise that it incorporated in its design. It was a simple, straightforward way to make your priorities known to the incoming administration. The beauty of the concept was that if you had a concern that was not listed, it is possible to add it to the list of hundreds of actions the Obama Administration could take to make sure it is following the wishes of the people. Of course, it is very doubtful that the administration will follow the intentions and precepts of the website, but if enough people were to participate in this unique way to further the concept of direct democracy. This is something that is within our reach with the advent of instant communication along with broad access to almost everyone, courtesy of the internet which has become a virtual necessity in this new century.

 

While the National Initiative 4 Democracy is my desired outcome in the quest for a direct democracy that operates on laws proposed and enacted by the people, and for the people, as our forefathers intended, the Whitehouse2.com is a good step forward. I discovered that there was a particular issue that was not included in the hundreds of other goals that people had submitted. I was going to write an article on the subject anyway, but on the site, I found a perfect opportunity to make my opinion known.

I want to preface this with the fact that I am not a religious man, I subscribe to no particular view in regard as to whether or not there is a God, and if there is indeed a power responsible for everything, which most major religions profess to believe. I reject all of the precepts of most of them except maybe the Buddhist philosophy which is actually more of a self awareness than a religion in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In my view, I compare the belief in Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed to be no more or less credible than the ancient beliefs in Ra, Zeus, Jupiter and Odin among many other supreme beings. I believe that there is no human on Earth that can state with certainty who or what God is, or what God wishes. I realize that any belief in a God or a religion is in my opinion usually predicated on what society someone is born into. Unless one is a convert later in life, faith in any particular philosophy is usually a product of nurture, not nature. A belief system in some kind of supernatural being is the result of indoctrination based on blind faith rather than logic.

I imagine that I am probably ruffling a few feathers when I admit that I don’t subscribe to any particular belief, and that there are those that actually believe that I am destined to go straight to hell. Well so be it, if that’s what some believe, they are entitled to their opinion, which brings me to the actual point I am trying to get to in this particular essay, and that is the bias and hostility some self proclaimed “true believers” feel about someone or some group with beliefs that are different than their own. There are of course, many who maintain a “live and let live” approach to those that do not think the same as they do. There are however, many diverse religions that look at religions outside of their own as blasphemous or heretical, and actually consider a different point of view as worthy of death. This, in the history of our planet, is more the rule than the exception. So many wars and deaths can be attributed to differences in believing what or who the Supreme Being is, and what that being does or does not condone. If one considers what I expressed about my own particular view on religion, I have a basic outlook of neutrality no matter what any particular sect or religion espouses. To me, they are all based on wishful thinking more than anything else.

So therefore, I am amazed at the current paradigm that exists between the Muslim and Christian and Jewish religions. This is more amazing when you consider how far up the hierarchy these hateful prejudices actually are. I see governments that subscribe to them in such deep-seeded beliefs that they influence an entire nation or an entire regions behavior as can be seen with such clarity in the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent. The most disturbing thing about this is how this nation, the United States, is also so involved in, part and parcel, in this atmosphere of hate and prejudice, to where actual national policy is set. The period since 9/11 has seen ever-growing hate and distrust, not only directed toward fundamentalist militant Islamic groups and governments, but has spread to include all Islamic sects that have no interest in violence or Jihad or violence directed towards infidels. What many people are failing to realize is that with most Muslims, like with most Christians, that their religious beliefs may be part of their lives, it doesn’t control their lives. Religion may add to their belief in how the world should be, but religion doesn’t dictate how the world should operate.

I see the differences between Jews, Muslims and Christian fundamentalists, but I also see many similarities that I believe are lost on those who have a strong religious value system. Unlike people who have a specific belief system ingrained in their emotional and mental preconceptions, I have no such beliefs. I see human beings that have the same physical traits, the same intellect, and the same needs and desires to procreate and to care for their families and loved ones with the basic necessities of life, and to enable them to live happy and healthy lives. They begin hating another group of people, not just because they believe differently about God, but because of things that neighbors, friends, relatives and even their governments have been indoctrinating them with. Sometimes, the manipulation of prejudice and distrust toward a different society or religion is presented as fact by those in positions of authority. They don’t actually come out and tell you to hate another culture; they instead focus on differences that are foreign, or things that seem repugnant to those that are being cultivated. A good example of this is the way women are treated in some Islamic cultures. It would seem that most women are treated as slaves by Muslim men and they are regularly stoned to death for adultery or not being chaperoned with another male that is not their husband. The perception then becomes that all Islamic countries abuse women. Cutting off the hand of a thief is another example of this same hate cultivating rhetoric. It happens but it’s not commonplace as the government would have you believe.

The truth is that most religious wars and clashes don’t happen because of different beliefs in a supreme being, but because of border disputes, economics or war for resources as in the Iraq War. It is totally shameful to impugn an entire religion and culture because of the actions of radical fundamentalists that represent such a slight percentage of Muslims. To think that the United States of America in the 21st century could hold the same basic perceptions that led to the crusades in medieval times is almost unbelievable. It’s relatively easy to understand that since the Communists in Russia were taken from power and the Chinese were so obliging towards buying up U.S. debt, we had to find a common enemy to justify our defense expenditures to keep the military industrial complex in business. The Islamic world just happened to fit the bill and Bush threw them all into his definition of “evildoers”. The Muslims were also the natural target for the Christian fundamentalists like Reverend Hagee, who needs to support the Jews return to Israel (along with their own vendetta against the Palestinians and along with confrontation with Islam) to keep on script as in the Bible’s Revelations. The pay-off for those that truly believe is “Rapture”, when the true believers are called back to Supreme Being. Meanwhile, while we wait, Gaza is again cut off from the basic needs of life, like food and electricity, and the world doesn’t seem to notice, after all… they’re Muslims.

American must not believe the fear and hate mongers. Americans must realize that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in domestic matters but in our foreign policy. We cannot exterminate the entire Islamic culture in order to serve the right wing reactionary government in Israel and their minions that run AIPAC. Our politicians should put America first, not Christianity, not the bible, not Israel. Muslims are not all bad and Christians all good. It is really unbelievable that in this day and age, that I should feel the need to remind people that there are no absolutes in human nature. No religion is all bad; no religion is all knowing and good either, no matter how you were raised or what you believe. Intellectually most of us know that, however emotionally we’re not evaluating what we feel and why. I believe that it is time the Americans embraced some of our better selves. It’s not only the moral thing to do; it’s also the practical thing. We’re in a quagmire and its time we pulled ourselves out using some moral principles and a little common sense. Its not about left and right, its about what is right and wrong.

timgatto@hotmail.com

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com

 

Here are some things you should know about ballot initiatives in California.
In all of the 1960s, there were only nine statewide initiatives placed on the ballot. In the 1970s, that number rose to 22. In the 1980s, Californians were asked to vote on 46; then, in the 1990s, it climbed to 61. So far in this decade, there already have been 63 — and there’s still a year to go, with a possible special election in June.
That’s a record every decade — and a sevenfold increase over 50 years.
Here’s something else: Supporters and opponents of these initiatives are spending more and more money to ensure that their side wins: $9 million in 1976, $127 million in 1978 (the year of Proposition 13), $140 million in 1996, $280 million in 2004 and $330 million in 2006 — a 37-fold increase in 30 years.
This money comes from individuals, corporations and unions, but increasingly it comes in large chunks — very large chunks. In the 1990 elections, for example, one-third of all contributions for initiatives were given in amounts of $1 million or more. In 2006, it jumped from one-third to two-thirds. One person — real estate heir and Hollywood producer Stephen Bing — gave more than $46 million of his own money to support the (unsuccessful) 2006 initiative to impose oil depletion taxes.
Last week, Californians voted on 10 statewide initiatives (five of them placed on the ballot by billionaires) plus two measures put on the ballot by the Legislature. This is more initiatives than usual, although not the most. The record was set in November 1990, when 18 initiatives plus 10 legislative measures were on the ballot.
What all this suggests is that California’s policy agenda today is increasingly driven by ballot initiatives rather than by the elected members of the Legislature. Prompted in many cases by legislative deadlock or legislative inaction, these initiatives effectively shift the policymaking burden to voters, and often leave them overwhelmed and bewildered by poor drafting, misleading campaigns, look-alike counter-initiatives and highly technical policy details.
The ballot initiatives that voters are being asked to decide are too often lengthy, rigid, inflexible and error-prone. The initiative process is badly outdated and needs to be reformed.
What can be done? The most important reforms would reduce the number of initiatives on the ballot, improve the quality of those that do make it on the ballot and strengthen voter information.
For instance, if an initiative is on the ballot, but at the last minute the Legislature adopts its language (or an acceptable compromise) into law, then the proponent of the initiative should have the option of withdrawing the initiative from the ballot. This would help solve the problem of poor drafting and mistakes.
Currently, initiatives must remain on the ballot even if the Legislature adopts the same measure into law. This leads to ridiculous situations like the one this year over Proposition 91, a measure dealing with the use of gas-tax money, which had already qualified for the ballot when the Legislature passed a law addressing the issue. Unfortunately, it was too late to remove it from the ballot, and as a result, the measure’s original supporters urged Californians to vote no on it.
Voters also should be given more and better information on ballot initiatives. The secretary of state should update and improve its website to include video statements from proponents and opponents. In addition, the ballot pamphlets that go out to each voter should contain a full page listing the supporters and opponents of each measure. Voters, particularly when considering confusing propositions, often take cues about what to support from those who have endorsed or opposed the measure.
Another useful reform would be to extend the circulation period for initiatives to one year (rather than the current 150 days, which is among the shortest in the nation) in order to allow more grass-roots circulation of initiatives. This would put citizen proponents, who must rely on volunteers to circulate signature petitions, on a somewhat more level playing field with well-financed proponents.
Initiatives should not impose supermajority requirements on future legislative or voter actions unless they pass by the same supermajority. In other words, a measure passing by 51% could not require a 67% vote in the future, say, to raise or lower taxes. Simple majorities should not be permitted to disenfranchise larger future majorities.
Direct democracy is an extremely important and valuable part of California’s political process. Ballot initiatives have been used to write, debate and adopt many of the state’s most important laws. And California voters remain committed to the process, which many see as a rare and precious flowering of democracy, a remedy of last resort for a public often frustrated by an unresponsive government.
Improving the flexibility of the process by reducing the number of initiatives that appear on the ballot, reducing the influence of money over the process and enhancing voter information — these reforms can address the public’s concerns while preserving the essence of the initiative process.

By Robert M. Stern and Tracy Westen

Robert M. Stern is president and Tracy Westen is chief executive of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization in Los Angeles that recently published “Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government.”

This article was originally published on November 10, 2008 in the Los Angeles Times

The former senator and one-time Democratic presidential candidate explains why both Obama and McCain are cut from the same imperialist cloth, and what he thinks of fellow Alaskan Sarah Palin’s rise.

 

You might remember Mike Gravel as the cantankerous 78-year-old who shook up the early Democratic debates with his fiery denunciations of the other candidates—“Some of these people frighten me, they frighten me!” he said at the first debate. Maybe you saw his many YouTube videos or read his blogs—an effective and cheap way of talking about policy for a candidate who often took the bus to get to his campaign events. But Gravel also has a long record of public service: Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives for two years, and a U.S. Senator for Alaska from 1969-1981. He famously released the Pentagon Papers, official government plans and memoranda concerning the Vietnam War, and filibustered to end the draft after President Nixon proposed a two-year extension in 1971. Since founding the Democracy Foundation in 1989, Gravel has worked to promote the National Initiative, which would allow for voter-initiated legislation at the national level. I talked to Sen. Gravel this week by phone.

SPLICE TODAY: What are some of your thoughts on your 2008 presidential campaign? Do you think anyone else was saying the things you were saying?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, obviously Dennis Kucinich was anti-war, but I didn’t think on balance that he was all that effective on the issue. He’s run for president now for, what, six years? And I must say that I’m not that effective on the issue either. The difference is that I have a solution other than just making a speech. That applies to not only Kucinich but to Ron Paul and others who were anti-war. I brought into the campaign the issue of American Imperialism and the Military Industrial Complex and said, look, representative government is broken. Well, Kucinich and others tell us representative government is the solution, but they’re wrong. The Democratic Party is a war party just like the Republican Party.

If Obama gets elected you’re going to see the same approach—you know, you talk about moving some troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, this is American Imperialism. You’re going to see continued support for NATO, which is a device to continue the arms race with Russia. This is more of the same.

Now with George Bush you saw the extreme of this; we’re gonna move away from the extreme, but it’s going to be the same American imperialist policies, and that is not a solution to the problem of war. The solution of course is to change the American way of thinking, which is founded on fear—fear that’s been induced for the last 50 years. The only way to change the American way of thinking is to empower the American people to become lawmakers, so that they can vote on the issues that affect their lives and in that way reset political priorities.

Now will the American people do this? I think so. I think that if they had the power, they would rise to a level of maturity that would allow them to break away from the skewed priorities brought about by the Military Industrial Complex. Now they’ll make mistakes as they do this, but those mistakes would be corrected rapidly.

ST: You’re talking about the National Initiative for Direct Democracy that you founded?

MG: Yeah, that’s the solution. Like I said, these other people don’t offer a solution. They talk about representative government. They say we’ve got to elect good people to office. Well, hell, we’ve been electing good people to office for over 200 years and it hasn’t done anything, we’re still same old, same old.

ST: Can you tell us about the National Initiative? How would that work exactly?

MG: It’s legislation that I’ve written to directly involve the people in the affairs of government. I was informed by similar initiative procedures in 24 states, all enacted at the turn of the 20th century, before World War I, and also by similar initiative procedures in Switzerland and Uruguay at the local level. It took me 10 years to come up with the National Initiative. It’s made up of a Constitutional Amendment and a Federal statute and sets up legislative procedures that are copied from the Congress and based on my experiences as Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives and as a United States Senator. It equips the people to be able to enact law and to participate in their own self-governance in partnership with their elected officials at all levels of government. An Electoral Trust is set up to oversee the initiatives. The people need a procedure to be able to function as a government and that procedure is the National Initiative.

It’s interesting: the Swiss were the first to develop the Federal system back in the middle ages. We copied their system here in American with our Constitution. And then the Swiss copied us with their 1848 Constitution by bringing the people in. But, you see, they never really brought the people in in an actionable fashion until the turn of the 20th century. And at the same time we were doing it here, and so was Uruguay. So you’ve got Switzerland, Uruguay, and the United States all working in procedures for direct initiative within a generation of each other. All I’ve done is build on that. We all stand on what those before us have done.

ST: Have you received much support for the National Initiative?

MG: Well, I ran for president because I wanted to make the American people aware of the National Initiative and it worked, it brought a lot of attention to it. But you’ve got to appreciate that the body politic, that is, the representatives in public office all over the country, they don’t understand the National Initiative and when they do understand it they don’t support it. They don’t believe that the citizens who they themselves represent are knowledgeable enough. There’s no reason for this. They’re looking at it wrong. We’re talking about a majority decision made by a national constituency of 130 million voters. The constituency of most states is roughly several million. But the constituency of the congress is 535. The constituency of the Supreme Court is nine. If you agree that democracy works then you agree that the larger the constituency the better the decision you’ll get on any issue. So it’s that simple.

The representatives who understand the National Initiative don’t support it because they know it takes away some of their power. It’s the same with the media. They know it takes away some of their power too, because the media is the intermediary between the representative and the citizen. And since we don’t have a lot of money to go out and advertise it we have a tough battle. Especially since this would require the majority of the people who voted in the last presidential election to support what we’re doing.

But let’s keep in mind the definition of freedom by Cicero, which is, freedom is the participation in power. If you don’t participate in power you’re not free. Well, power is the exercise of lawmaking. We don’t make the laws, the our elected representatives make the laws, so all we can do is obey them or go to jail.

ST: Your campaign was noted for its well-managed Internet strategy. You were very smart in your use of YouTube videos, for example, to gain support and get your message out. Who managed this part of your campaign and came up with the ideas for the videos?

MG: I’m glad you said we were very smart. We weren’t very smart. We just deferred to the younger voters who identified with what I was saying, and they took over. The person who was doing most of that work within our conversation was Skyler McKinley. At the time he was 15 or 16 years old. The "Rock" video was done by a couple of guys, both 24 years old. They did it. We didn’t initiate any of this. But we were lucky to get all that support. We didn’t have the financial resources to wage a traditional presidential campaign. I started running for president with $3000 and ended up in debt. I’m still fighting to receive my matching campaign funds. I’m the only presidential candidate to not receive matching campaign funds. And believe it or not I’ve just been sanctioned by the FEC for $10,000 for not reporting my filings on time. Can you believe that? They were on leave from business until late August and one of the first things they do when they get back is sanction me.

ST: Was the Alternative Debate your idea? [When Gravel was barred in November, 2007 from participating in any further Democratic debates for lack of proper fundraising, he held his own "Alternative Debate"]

MG: Oh, yeah. That was my idea. Sure. But here too, it only came about because we had a young 23-year-old supporter and I told him about my idea and I said could we TiVo this and he said, "Yeah sure, and it wouldn’t cost hardly anything either," so we did and he did all the tech work. But I’ll tell you, we made a big mistake because we rented this big hall to TiVo it in and have an audience, and it was wrong. We didn’t need a hall or an audience. Hell, we could have TiVoed this in my living room and filmed it and put it on the website. Instead we spent $10-15,000 and wiped out our savings. We didn’t need to do that.

ST: I think your most popular YouTube videos is you trying to win over Obama Girl. How did that come about?

MG: That’s right. The Obama Girl video was set up by the Obama Girl producer, who is making a lot of money. They approached us, and my criteria for anything we put up on YouTube was very simple: It had to be either dignified, humorous, or deal with an issue.

ST: Do you still talk to her?

MG: [Laughs] No. No, I don’t. You know, she didn’t even vote in the primary election.

ST: Oh, really? Is that true?

MG: Yeah. Her name is Amber. She was very sweet but as far as any kind of political acumen I didn’t detect any. Nice sweet kid though.

ST: What do you make of Sarah Palin?

MG: Look, she is clearly a very sharp politician. She can market herself very well. But from an ideological point of view she is really a Neanderthal: her religious views are terrible, her political ideology is terrible, and her experience is really nonexistent. She was mayor of Wasilla. I know Wasilla, I’ve campaigned there door-to-door, and that’s a very narrow—narrow religiously, narrow politically—community, probably one of the two most conservative communities in the state. She’s not well read, she’s not well informed, and she doesn’t know a lot about energy. Just being governor of Alaska doesn’t make you know a lot about energy.

She has demonstrated one thing: she is very tough and has a good political mind. She knows the direction she wants to go in to satisfy her ambitions and there’s nothing wrong with that in itself, however what is wrong is that she’s totally imbued with the militarism which has existed in this country for the past 50 years—all the more so in Alaska, because it’s such a military culture.

ST: I was really struck by the difference between the Sarah Palin from the Katie Couric interviews and the Sarah Palin at vice presidential debate.

MG: Oh sure. Like I said, she’s a natural. But that has to be informed by intellect and she’s not informed by any intellect. She doesn’t read anything. I think she’s really being controlled by the narrow-minded people around McCain—that is, the Neocons. It’s unfortunate.

ST: Have you seen that Larry Flynt is putting out a Sarah Palin look-a-like sex-tape? Think you’ll check it out?

MG: [Laughs] I haven’t seen but I’d like to. Is it out? I haven’t had the time. If you send me a link to it, I’ll watch it. You know, I’ve met Larry Flynt.

ST: Have you?

MG: Oh, yeah. Sure. He’s great, but you know he’s a little over the hill at this point. But send me a link to that video if you can. I’d like to see it. A little porn never hurt anyone.

ST: [Laughs] Sure. And I won’t tell your wife.

MG: That’s okay, I’ll probably show it to her. It’s not her kind of stuff but she’ll probably watch it once.

ST: Fair enough. I also wanted to ask, what do you make of Joe Biden?

MG: Well, Joe I know very well. He’s a nice guy, but he’s not a heavyweight. When it comes to foreign policy he’s all wrong. He follows the typical imperialist attitude that Americans are the greatest and that America should be leading the world. Well, we’re not the greatest and we shouldn’t be leading the world. The world should lead itself. We need to reform the United Nations, let them lead the world. We’re not qualified to be the world’s policemen: we’re disliked around the world today by pretty much everyone because we only do good things for the world when it serves our own selfish interest.

ST: Do you have any hope that Obama will significantly alter American foreign policy?

MG: No. He’ll reconstitute it in a more acceptable form. And that’s really the danger. During the campaign sometimes I’d give this comparison: it’s like trying to boil a frog. With the Republicans, you throw it in the boiling water and it hops out so you’ve got to put it back in and hold the lid. With the Democrats, you have to put the frog in tepid water and turn up the heat and cook it slowly.

ST: So you don’t think Obama will end the war?

MG: Oh sure, he’ll end the war, but he’ll keep the bases there, he’ll keep an American military presence there. We have military presence in over 130 countries. We have over, what, more than 700 military bases around the world. It’s ridiculous. We don’t need that. We spend more on defense than all the other countries in the world combined. Russia is 10 percent of our military budget; China is less than 10 percent. They’re not a threat to us. There’s no one on earth who’s ever going to think of attacking us. Sure, Al Qaeda, a bunch of guys in caves with box cutters. So we spend a fortune on Homeland Security for no real reason. It’s just to train people to act like 1984, so we have a total invasion of government into our daily lives.

ST: What are the biggest challenges that the next president will have to deal with?

MG: The biggest challenges are threefold: one is going to be dealing with the economic meltdown, which I don’t think they’re going to be able to do. You can’t use the same people that caused it to deal with it. So it’ll continue with band-aids until it really brings the whole crushing defeat of capitalism. Even before the meltdown we were in a catastrophic economic situation where all the things that they were promising could not be met and they still promise tax cuts and all the rest of it. It’s unbelievable.

Second has to do with the decline of American economic and political hegemony: how are we going to handle that psychologically as a populus? When you’re going downhill it begins to affect your ego. The American people think they’re the greatest people in the world; well they’re not. How are they going to handle our decline with Obama as our president? We’re going to admire ourselves because it’s all about identity politics. So Hillary [Clinton] has proven that a woman can rise. Obama has proven that—not a black person but a biracial person can rise—but so what? It’s the success of an individual and tells us something about the maturity of the American people, but what about the maturity of the policies that affect the American people? We’ve proven nothing on that score.

Third, is the cleaning up the environment and the ability to redirect the economy of the nation to that end. If we buy into American imperialism we can’t redirect the economy to solve our domestic needs, which are education, health care, building infrastructure, and cleaning up the environment. What we should be doing is turning around and building five million windmills and solar power plants in a five-year crash program. That will create an unbelievable amount of jobs. We don’t have to worry about bailing out the banks. Screw the banks. Just set up a process where people can finance building windmills and solar power plants across this country and let the ordinary citizen hold these windmills, not the wealthy people. It could be done. It’s a simple process of letting the profits of capital pay for the cost of capital and then the end product is letting the people be the owners of capital. The way it is right now with our system it’s the wealthy owning the capital and the people have nothing but wages. When the crunch comes, they’re left unemployed.

ST: During one of the early debates, the question was asked: If elected, what would be your priorities during your first 100 days in office. They didn’t really let you or some of the other candidates answer. So what would your priorities be?

MG: The first thing I would do is sign an executive order to end torture. Obama has to do that. It’s really the bellwether as to whether or not we’re going to turn the moral corner. We’ve got to signal to the world that we’re going to change morally. Now maybe Obama will do that but I don’t know that he will. But if I were president, then in my first 100 days I would not only sign that executive order but I would blow up the prison at Guantanamo, I would give Guantanamo back to Cuba, I would recognize Cuba, I would recognize Iran. I would blow up Abu Ghraib and I would withdraw our troops from Iraq. Then I would start to withdraw our troops from other countries around the world and I would pull out of NATO. That’s just for starters.

ST: You gave a lecture in France recently?

MG: Yeah, I spoke at the university in Grenoble. This is a university of 50,000 students—probably the largest university in France. It’s unbelievably beautiful. It was advertised that day that I’d be speaking in English so I assumed that I’d be speaking to 50-100 students. I walked into the room, this huge auditorium, and it was completely full of people—standing room early. They were sitting in the stairwell, the aisles, standing in the hallway, sitting in front of me on the floor. It was unbelievable. I was so taken aback when I walked into the auditorium that I threw my hands in the air and they started cheering. I spoke about American imperialism, about NATO, the National Initiative, how we’ve got to empower the people because representative government is broken. And it sold like hot cakes.

ST: What are you working on now?

MG: I’m trying to organize a TV program called Global Perspectives. There’s no American network to do it but I’ve got to find investors. It would be cutting edge political analysis. It wouldn’t be a news program but analysis of issues like the war, nuclear proliferation, and so on. It would be very international in scope and very controversial and so therefore I think very interesting.

EDITOR: Our country’s elected representatives and system are inept and totally controlled by two political parties, special interests and large corporations. Mainstream media, including this paper, now being owned and controlled by a few, have become nothing more than another very powerful, manipulative special interest group.

As a result, the American people are not in charge of this country, and the country is in a "death spiral." The near trillion-dollar bailout is an atrocity. For this country to survive and regain greatness, there must be a significant change in the balance of power between our elected representatives and the people. The technology exists to do this.

Subject to a direct vote by the American people, would the bailout have passed? Armed with the power to directly formulate and vote on bills, legislation and referendums, how long do you think it would take for the American people to reverse the flow of illegal aliens, fix public education, mandate English as the national language, downsize the military/industrial complex, win the drug war or solve any other major issue facing this country?

The National Initiative for Democracy (www.ni4d.us) is an organization attempting to implement this concept — they are trying to get enough voters to register and vote "yes" to directly making an amendment to our constitution and implement a more direct democracy. This is real change that offers real hope for this country. Get involved. We can do it!

David C. Finkbiner

Mosinee

Name: David Finkbiner

Age: 60

Occupation: CPA/financial analyst

Hometown: Mosinee

What inspired him to write:

If we’re talking about a democracy — in my own opinion, democracy means people voting and having some control over their government. We’ve never had a pure, direct democracy. It’s always been a representative kind of democracy. But for the people to have power offers enormous benefits for all of us. Take the bailout that just happened. If people had an opportunity to vote, the outcome would have been very different and you’d have a happier population.

We talk about apathy in this country. If we had a situation where people’s votes meant more, and people were more able to get involved, a byproduct of that would be better-educated people (who are more engaged).

What I’ve seen is the corporate interest groups, special interest groups and the two-party system is taking full control of this country. The balance of power has gotten to the point where the people do not have that much power.

The concept is not to eliminate the Senate or the Supreme Court or anything else. But it’s to shift the balance of power back to the people.

What kind of president will the winner of November’s national popularity contest be? If history is any judge, the nation’s next chief executive, whether Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, will be something of a monster.

It’s not because either of these men are overtly evil. I very much doubt that Obama or McCain is secretly plotting to create the American Reich after Inauguration Day, no matter what dire warnings are floating around the Internet about the supposed dictatorship to come. But both men are likely to leave the government more powerful and intrusive than they found it, and to do some measure of damage to our liberty.

Why?

Well, it’s not so much the president as the presidency. In the nation’s chief executive, we’ve created an office of vast powers — but powers still insufficient to satisfy the even vaster demands we put upon whoever holds that position. From a station of what were once really very limited powers and few defined responsibilities, the presidency has taken on the roles, as Gene Healy describes in his excellent book, The Cult of the Presidency, of "Chief Legislator, Manager of Prosperity, Protector of the Peace, World Leader — and more."

These are impossible responsibilities for any person to fulfill. They are in fact, impossible responsibilities for any human institution, no matter how enormous, to fulfill. But we insist that our presidents try, or at least appear to make the effort. The result, says Dana D.Nelson, author of the equally important Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People, is that "[n]early every president, regardless of party affiliation, has as a candidate denounced the presidential power grabs of the current officeholder. And every president since FDR has attempted to overpower the judicial and legislative branches."

That’s every president — all of them. The dynamics of the office and the demands placed upon it haven’t changed this year, so there’s no reason to assume that President McCain or President Obama will be that singular officeholder who leaves the presidency less powerful than he found it. Indeed, this is the era when some conservative constitutional scholars espouse the idea of the "unitary executive" — an explicit formulation of the increasingly imperial status of the presidency under presidents from both parties. And it’s a year in which Obama’s campaign has evolved the gloss of a cult of personality that promises to gift the candidate with freewheeling power even as it burdens him with superhuman expectations. And let’s not forget pundits like the New York Times‘s David Brooks wheezing that,"What we need in this situation is authority."

No, this is not the year for a modest candidate. This is the year for  … Superman.

In fact, "Superman" is exactly what both Healy and Nelson say is expected of the modern president. Coming from very different perspectives — Healy is senior editor at the libertarian Cato Institute, while Nelson would likely describe herself as a progressive and is a professor of English and American studies at Vanderbilt University — these authors have written remarkable parallel analyses of the rise of the imperial presidency. Nelson points to presidential action figures as evidence of the cartoonish superhero attributes we’ve come to expect of presidents. Healy emphasizes a line of movies dating back to the 1930s in which presidents are celebrated for exercising unilateral and even (in the case of 1932’s Gabriel over the White House) supernatural powers to vanquish hardship and evil.

This celebration of the power of one politican wasn’t manufactured in Hollywood or in the offices of a toy company. It came in response to grassroots demands that presidents take on more responsibility than any official of a republic should be permitted to assume, or that any human being could ever shoulder.

"In fact," writes Healy about FDR’s expansion of presidential power, "Well before the war, it had become clear that increasing numbers of Americans looked to the president for personal help in a way that would have seemed peculiar — even dishonorable — to their fathers and grandfathers."

Politicians were all too happy to take advantage of the opportunities provided by cries for presidential intercession. They built up the myth of a special relationship between the people and the "national leader" (a role that was never supposed to adhere to the presidency) despite the clear constitutional role of the House of Representatives in representing the people. Says Nelson, "Significantly, the notion of the mandate suggests that the basis for presidential power comes not through the Constitution but directly through the people. … This idea, combined with the ambiguity of the Constitution itself with regard to the specifics of presidential power, installed a creative new logic that presidents could exploit in defining the office’s scope and reach."

Scholars have been all too happy to drink the imperial Kool Aid. Before ever assuming the office that he would abuse at great cost to American liberty, Woodrow Wilson penned books calling for expanded presidential power. Historians took to celebrating the expansion of the office — and excoriated those who tried to hold to the presidency’s modest scope. "Whether they’re conservative or liberal, writes Healy, "America’s professors prefer presidents who dream big and attempt great things — even when they leave wreckage in their wake."

Healy points to some sickening sentiments voiced in recent years by pundits who regretted the relative peace of the 1990s and seemed excited by the potential offered by the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Two days afterr the world Trade Center’s collapse, Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball and a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, praised George W. Bush’s good fortune: "Lucky though he was, Bill Clinton never had his shot at greatness. He could lower the jobless rate, balance the budget, and console us after the Oklahoma City bombing. But he never got the opportunity George W. Bush was given: the historic chance to lead. Our American spirit, power and enterprise now stand ready for orders. Only the president can give them."

Oh great. A chance for President Bush to issue orders — we know how well that worked out. But it would have been bad to one degree or another no matter who was in that office. Superhuman responsibility and superhuman power are a terrible combination to hand to or inflict upon any mere mortal.

Unfortunately, but logically, neither Healy nor Nelson has a clear plan for breaking the cycle that has turned every president into an overburdened focus of ridiculous expectations who reaches, in response, for ever greater authority to meet the demands of the office. Nelson asks us all to step "away from the childlike fantasies of complete harmony with each other and the dependencies that presidentialism fosters in us, into a clear-eyed and adult awareness of human limitations and human creativity." To this end she explores several ideas to encourage or require increased citizen participation in democracy, including increased volunteerism, mandatory national service, national initiative and referendum and an extended series of representative councils on the congressional district level. All of them seem intended to make Americans be other than they have been — the fantasists who created the imperial presidency to begin with.

Healy, on the other hand simply concedes that "overweening government and the swollen presidency that inevitably accompanies it are the product of incompatible public demands." He hopes that the skepticism and cynicism toward government of recent years might produce something resembling the Revolutionary-era consensus that the president should not be a stand-in for a king. But today’s skeptics and cynics also handed George W. Bush — however briefly — an approval rating of around 90% after 9/11.

Healy and Nelson shouldn’t be slighted for failing to come up with a solution, though, in their otherwise excellent and timely books. There probably is no solution.

The presidency will continue to grow in power and scope for as long as Americans insist as seeing it as the center of the political universe — or even of the whole universe. It will be a problem so long as the office is loaded with unreasonable power and inhuman expectation. And so long as that is the nature of the office, contenders for White House residency will be politicians who (insanely) think they’re up to the job or else are simply willing to grin and promise everything under the sun.

And that’s why President Barack Obama or President John McCain will certainly be a monster.

Mike Gravel, who ran to be the Libertarian nominee for president this year, was recently interviewed on Al Jazeera English. He talked about various subjects, including his presidential campaign, his book A Political Odyssey, Sarah Palin, the United States’ role as a world police, and, most notably, how the two major parties rig the system to work in their favor and against other candidates. The interviews can be seen below:

Part 1

Part 2

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Citizen-initiated measures, such as gay rights and physician-assisted suicide, are not a uniquely Western U.S. phenomenon as traditionally thought, but have their roots across a wide geographical area that includes the Deep South, a new University of Florida study finds.

“Our study challenges the dominant historical narrative of why citizen initiatives were adopted in some American states a century ago,” said Daniel Smith, a UF political science professor whose study appears in the current issue of American Political Science Review. “The phenomenon may bring to mind places like Oregon, California, Colorado and Washington — states with populist and progressive traditions — but we found that lawmakers in the West were no more likely than those from other states to accede broad powers to voters in this way.”

Smith, who collaborated on the study with Dustin Fridkin, a UF doctoral student in political science, said political considerations — the degree of competition between political parties in a state legislature, party organizational strength and the presence of a third party — are the strongest predictors of whether a legislature gave voters the power to make their own decisions through the initiative process.

In 1898 South Dakota voters became the first to approve a constitutional amendment granting residents the power to decide initiatives and by 1918 voters in 20 states had followed suit, he said.

Southern states were thought to be more apprehensive about the initiative process because of its potential to mobilize African Americans, but the facts do not bear this out, Smith said. The legislatures of Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi and Texas were among the early states to place referendums on the ballot-granting residents the opportunity to adopt direct democracy reforms, he said.

Minnesota and Wisconsin, two progressive states, have never implemented this form of direct democracy because voters ultimately did not approve it; and the supposed populist explanation does little to explain why Missouri adopted the initiative, Smith said, but not neighboring Kansas, a hotbed of populist sentiment a century ago.

“Lawmakers inherently don’t like the initiative process because it takes power away from them, so it raises the question of why they would give up their institutional authority in order to allow citizens to pass laws,” Smith said.

The study found that legislative competition between political parties played a key role in lawmakers’ decision to give citizens a direct role in shaping public policy. On average, the majority party’s surplus of seats was 22.5 percent among the 20 early state legislatures that referred the initiative process to the ballot compared with 26.7 percent for those state legislatures that did not, Smith said.

“A minority party might be willing to sell out the institutional powers of the legislature and allowing citizens to gain political power, in order to curry favor with the people and hopefully become the majority party,” he said. “And the majority party is put in the position of not wanting to be anti-populist.”

Also more receptive to citizen initiatives were states with weaker political parties — possibly because they achieved statehood later and had fewer established political traditions — and states with third parties, which further diluted majority power, he said.

In place in 24 states today, the initiative process is arguably the most important political institution available to citizens, but it has repercussions, Smith said. By allowing citizens to pass laws and constitutional amendments that can impinge upon the legislature’s ability to raise money, restrict certain taxes or direct types of expenditures, state legislatures become inherently weaker, he said.

“I think there are some aspects to it that are clearly troubling when you have votes taking place that are not fully informed and there’s no iterative decision-making — it’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on a particular policy with no chance to amend it,” he said. “On the flip side, there are a lot of positive ‘educative effects’ about the initiative process.”

States with initiatives over time have higher turnout in midterm and presidential elections, drawing voters to ballot measures and presenting candidates with substantive issues that can help set the campaign agenda, Smith said.

“People who live in initiative states are more likely to talk about politics and contribute money to interest group,” he said. “It makes sense because they are more engaged in the process, which is something the Progressives argued in its favor back in the early 1900s.”

RENO, Nev.—Nevada voters will decide only a handful of ballot measures in November after what started out as a dizzying scramble of competing initiatives was reduced by court challenges or behind-the-scenes compromise.

Of the four statewide questions remaining, one deals with eminent domain; two involve tweaking tax law oversight; and a third would remove from the Nevada Constitution a six-month residency rule for voter eligibility—a requirement the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional more than three decades ago.

The bigger, still-simmering issue involves what won’t be on the ballot—a dozen or so citizen initiatives that were either withdrawn by their backers or scrapped by the courts for failing to meet tougher new qualifying requirements adopted by the 2005 Legislature.

Legal challenges over Nevada’s revamped petition procedures continue and ramifications for this year’s ballot remain uncertain. But with time running out before the November election it’s unlikely voters will see any of the previously tossed measures on the ballot.

Advocates of the disqualified measures and political observers say they are likely to re-emerge in future elections.

First, a snapshot of what voters will be asked to decide:

— Question 1: Amends the Nevada Constitution to remove an unconstitutional requirement that a person must reside in Nevada for six months before being eligible to vote. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 and later years ruled that lengthy residency requirements for voter registration were unconstitutional. State law already imposes a less restrictive, 30-day residency requirement, which has been deemed reasonable by courts.

— Question 2: A constitutional amendment restricting government use of eminent domain to acquire private property for public use. Voters in 2006 passed the measure 63 percent to 37 percent. It needs final voter approval in November to become part of the Nevada Constitution. But after critics feared it would cripple local governments and public works projects, a compromise law that took effect in October, along with another proposed companion constitutional amendment, was passed by the 2007 Legislature. Lawmakers in 2009 must pass the amendment again before it goes to a public vote in 2010 for final action. It would supersede Question 2.

— Question 3: A constitutional amendment approved by lawmakers in 2005 and 2007 setting parameters that must be satisfied before the Legislature can grant property, sales or use tax exemptions. It requires a finding of specific social or economic benefits and mandates that exemptions have an expiration date.

— Question 4: Amends the state Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 by authorizing the Legislature to amend or repeal provisions to comply with federal law or interstate agreements. Any tax increase still would require voter approval.

Voters in Nevada’s two most populous counties, Clark and Washoe, also will vote on an advisory question backed by the Nevada State Education Association and some Las Vegas casino giants to increase hotel room taxes in those counties by up to 3 percent initially to fund public schools. The cooperative effort was forged in a deal that included teachers dropping an earlier initiative that called for a 44 percent increase in casino taxes.

As of this week, voters were not going to be asked to decide other contentious issues, such as various measures taxing casinos, funding education and capping property taxes. The property tax cap pushed by former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle has failed three times to qualify for the ballot. Though Angle is pursuing an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mark Gibbons questioned whether any legal remedy is available, since Nevada’s secretary of state already has told local election officials to remove the measure from November ballots.

Supporters of the failed initiatives point to changes made by the 2005 Legislature that they say effectively hog-ties citizen petitions.

Kermitt Waters, a Las Vegas attorney and supporter of several measures removed from the Nov. 4 ballot, on Thursday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, arguing the state law that limits initiatives to one subject and requires a 200-word explanation is unconstitutional.

"The fact they knocked them all off (the ballot) makes our case that much more stronger," Waters said.

Political observers are split over whether the initiative requirements are for the better or worse.

Supporters argue the requirements will bring simplicity and clarity to a process prone to "hijacking" by special interests, and point to the 2004 election as an example of why reforms were needed.

In that election, a group tied to the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association backed two measures that purported to roll back insurance rates but instead sought to prohibit limiting damage awards or attorneys fees in malpractice cases. Both failed.

Fred Lokken, political science professor at Truckee Meadows Community College, said while initiative backers are generally "well intended," the process is "really subject to abuse."

The only way to preserve the opportunity for citizens to actively push law changes is to "come up with some logical ways to sort of clean it up … and tighten the language so that everyone can understand it," he said.

Others worry of unintended consequences.

"It’s an effort to restrict this aspect of direct democracy," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. "I say you tread there at your own peril.

"We’re in this odd kind of anti-initiative backlash, but it’s coming from within government, which I think is very dangerous.

"I don’t disagree that the initiative process has been hijacked by special-interest groups," he added. "But you’re still taking away the right of voters to review that hijacking."

Today, September 17 is Constitution Day, but very, very few Americans know this or will celebrate it.  If you think of yourself as a politically engaged, civic-minded and patriotic American, then I urge you to celebrate today by expanding your mind about a critically important but never-used part of our Constitution.

 

All you have to do is go to www.foavc.org the site of Friends of the Article V Convention and spend some time learning the truth about the option given to us by the Framers because they anticipated that Americans would lose trust and confidence in the federal government.  That day has surely arrived.  So I beg you to suspend your current beliefs and fears and open your mind to learning the truth about this option.

An Article V Convention was envisioned as a temporary fourth branch of the federal government that, once convened, was not under the control of Congress, the President or the Supreme Court.  The Convention of state delegates could only propose constitutional amendments, just as Congress has done during our history, and like those they would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

 

So why have we never had an Article V Convention?

 

Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and the oath of office by not respecting the one and only requirement for a Convention given in Article V.  That is applications from two-thirds of the states.  Well, here is an indisputable fact that you can verify by going to www.foavc.org: there have been over 600 such state applications and our group is the first and only group to make these available to the public (our job of posting these is not quite yet complete).

 

Why has Congress refused to allow us to have an Article V Convention?  They and all established political interests on the left and right fear direct democracy as manifest through such a Convention.  They fear many kinds of constitutional amendments that are the only way to obtain major, systemic political reforms.  Many examples of possible amendments are on our site, though our organization does not advocate for any amendment, staying totally committed to a nonpartisan advocacy to compel Congress to grant us the first Article V Convention.

 

Want to rid the political system of corruption by moneyed interests?  Then contemplate an amendment that would remove all private money from all political campaigns and activities, replacing it with strict and pure public financing.  This approach has been called Clean Money/Clean Elections and has worked when adopted by several states.

 

Want to eliminate the perverse impacts of using the Electoral College for presidential elections?  Then contemplate an amendment replacing it with the popular vote.

 

Want to reduce the excessive powers accumulated by the presidency?  Then think about an amendment prohibiting presidential signing statements that undermine the legislative actions of Congress, and also making unconstitutional for Congress to, in any way, transfer its power and authority to declare war to the president.

 

Not only go to www.foavc.org to expand your knowledge, please consider becoming a member of our organization so that we become strong enough to impose effective pressure on Congress to obey the Constitution.  What a fine way to celebrate Constitution Day.

 

 

www.delusionaldemocracy.com

Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments. He is Chair of the Independent Party of Maryland.