Today is President Barack Obama's 55th birthday; it is also his final birthday in the White House. It's a shame that he can't spend more birthdays there but he is term-limited and even if he could run again, a part of me thinks that he is tired of all constant conflicts with Congress and fed up with being blamed for everything that goes wrong without receiving credit for positive developments, and that he is looking forward to a well-earned break.
Happy birthday, President Obama! All being well, your 56th birthday will be a much quieter one for you!
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Thursday, 4 August 2016
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
Some Super Tuesday 2016 analysis
Yesterday was Super Tuesday in the United States, the day on which the greatest number of state primaries and caucuses are held. I have some analysis to share.
On the Democratic side, last night's results guaranteed that the contest there will remain for now. While the media, pundits, etc., had all predicted that Bernie Sanders would only win Vermont, his own state, he secured decisive victories in Colorado, Minnesota and even Oklahoma in addition to Vermont, while conceding a minor loss in Massachusetts. Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won the Deep South and Texas but those victories were expected and states friendlier to Sanders are on the way, as proved by his Oklahoma win; however, Clinton did expand her delegate lead.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump won the majority of the contests while Ted Cruz won two and Marco Rubio won one. Establishment Republicans are opposed to the candidacies of Trump and Cruz, as they believe that if either one of them is their party's nominee, they will lose the main election by enormous margins and destroy the Republican majority in Congress; however, Rubio's win last night is his first so far and he is third in both vote and delegate count overall. The Republican establishment wants Rubio as the candidate but Republican voters appear to be saying otherwise. John Kasich had some respectable percentages but failed to win anything and Ben Carson appears to be exiting the race; barring something drastic, Kasich's chances of winning the nomination are unlikely at best.
Both Clinton and Trump are closer to becoming their parties' respective nominees thanks to Super Tuesday but keys wins by their nearest adversaries in the primaries ensure that the competitions continue.
On the Democratic side, last night's results guaranteed that the contest there will remain for now. While the media, pundits, etc., had all predicted that Bernie Sanders would only win Vermont, his own state, he secured decisive victories in Colorado, Minnesota and even Oklahoma in addition to Vermont, while conceding a minor loss in Massachusetts. Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won the Deep South and Texas but those victories were expected and states friendlier to Sanders are on the way, as proved by his Oklahoma win; however, Clinton did expand her delegate lead.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump won the majority of the contests while Ted Cruz won two and Marco Rubio won one. Establishment Republicans are opposed to the candidacies of Trump and Cruz, as they believe that if either one of them is their party's nominee, they will lose the main election by enormous margins and destroy the Republican majority in Congress; however, Rubio's win last night is his first so far and he is third in both vote and delegate count overall. The Republican establishment wants Rubio as the candidate but Republican voters appear to be saying otherwise. John Kasich had some respectable percentages but failed to win anything and Ben Carson appears to be exiting the race; barring something drastic, Kasich's chances of winning the nomination are unlikely at best.
Both Clinton and Trump are closer to becoming their parties' respective nominees thanks to Super Tuesday but keys wins by their nearest adversaries in the primaries ensure that the competitions continue.
Tuesday, 5 January 2016
Executive actions on firearms
Frustrated by Congress' constant inaction on cracking down on gun violence, President Barack Obama has taken matters into his own hands and issued executive orders:
In response, self-described "supporters of the 2nd Amendment" and Republican candidates for president have opposed his actions, saying that they are "unconstitutional" and should be repealed; however, a look at what the actions contain shows that the 2nd Amendment is not under threat, despite what a vocal minority seems to think. Here are some of the provisions:
"Background checks for all gun sellers, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers"
This seems entirely reasonable and in line with what the public wants. A Pew Research Center poll from last August found that 85% of Americans, including 79% of Republicans, support greater background checks for weapon sales.
"Increased workforce for the FBI to process background checks, hiring more than 230 new examiners"
This means that any backlogs relating to gun backgrounds checks will be cleared more quickly because of the increased staff. Theoretically, people waiting to buy a gun might be able to purchase them quicker.
"Congress being asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare in the US"
The aforementioned poll notes that Americans support limiting weapon sales to mentally ill people; in addition, many of those against gun control measures are also in favor of such a limit. Asking Congress to improve mental healthcare seems like positive step to make; I don't see why anyone would be against this.
At any rate, no president can unilaterally nullify an amendment; it requires the states themselves and Congress to perform such an action. Firearms are not being banned - if President Obama really were the "dictator" his opponents make him out to be, he would already have banned them by now. He wouldn't be bothering with executive orders that are short-term fixes.
It is entirely possible to be pro-2nd Amendment while also supporting measures to exercise caution during gun sales. For example, the poll notes that 79% of Republicans support stronger background checks; this is significant because Republicans are generally more hostile to gun control than Democrats. From personal experience, most of the gun owners I knew in the United States supported background checks on the sales and were distrusting of buying weapons from unofficial venues.
Finally, regarding any such actions or legislation pertaining to firearms sales being "unconstitutional", it should be noted that at least three amendments (the 15th, 19th and the 26th, in particular) all defend voting rights. Using consistent reasoning, any restriction on voting rights is also unconstitutional and any state with voter ID laws or other methods to limit voting is going against the Constitution.
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Biden declines
United States Vice President Joe Biden has declined to run for president in 2016:
While I think that it is a shame that Biden will not be contesting the Democratic nomination, I respect his reasons why. It is late August and usually by now, everyone who wants to run for president has usually been in the race for months. Biden has stated that his family was ready for him to run even with the death of Beau Biden, his son; however, Beau's death occurred back at the end of May, which is still fairly recent. I shouldn't speculate but it wouldn't surprise me if that has played a factor in Biden opting to keep out of the race; it was a devastating loss.
Biden is a recipient of continued bad press but I think it's unwarranted; his job as the vice president is to support the president and even before his election to the position in 2008, he had achieved a long and respectable record in the Senate. Overall, I think he has been an excellent politician.
While I think that it is a shame that Biden will not be contesting the Democratic nomination, I respect his reasons why. It is late August and usually by now, everyone who wants to run for president has usually been in the race for months. Biden has stated that his family was ready for him to run even with the death of Beau Biden, his son; however, Beau's death occurred back at the end of May, which is still fairly recent. I shouldn't speculate but it wouldn't surprise me if that has played a factor in Biden opting to keep out of the race; it was a devastating loss.
Biden is a recipient of continued bad press but I think it's unwarranted; his job as the vice president is to support the president and even before his election to the position in 2008, he had achieved a long and respectable record in the Senate. Overall, I think he has been an excellent politician.
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Melissa Gilbert's Congressional run
Actress and former President of the Screen Actors Guild Melissa Gilbert is running for Congress is Michigan's 8th District. She moved to Howell - a town in the district - in 2013 after she married her current husband. Her reasons for running can be summarized as, "wanting to help others".
What are Gilbert's chances of winning? The media has described the seat as "solidly Republican" and, to be fair, the seat has been held by that party since 2001. That being said, it's certainly not impossible for Gilbert to emerge victorious: it's a swing area on the presidential level (Clinton x2, Bush x2, Obama, Romney) and its current incumbent was first elected in 2014 with 54.6% of the vote to the Democrats' 42.1%. Before the main election, though, she still needs to pass the primary.
Why am I writing about Gilbert? To the general public she is known for her prominent role as Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1970/80s TV series Little House on the Prairie and for her work with the Screen Actors Guild; however, I saw her in some episodes of the 1990s science fiction show Babylon 5, in which she performed with one of her former husbands, Bruce Boxleitner. I remember being disappointed when that marriage concluded.
All I can do with her run is watch what happens. I'll be sure to post about Gilbert again once she's undergone the primary and - if she succeeds in the former - the main election.
What are Gilbert's chances of winning? The media has described the seat as "solidly Republican" and, to be fair, the seat has been held by that party since 2001. That being said, it's certainly not impossible for Gilbert to emerge victorious: it's a swing area on the presidential level (Clinton x2, Bush x2, Obama, Romney) and its current incumbent was first elected in 2014 with 54.6% of the vote to the Democrats' 42.1%. Before the main election, though, she still needs to pass the primary.
Why am I writing about Gilbert? To the general public she is known for her prominent role as Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1970/80s TV series Little House on the Prairie and for her work with the Screen Actors Guild; however, I saw her in some episodes of the 1990s science fiction show Babylon 5, in which she performed with one of her former husbands, Bruce Boxleitner. I remember being disappointed when that marriage concluded.
All I can do with her run is watch what happens. I'll be sure to post about Gilbert again once she's undergone the primary and - if she succeeds in the former - the main election.
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
United States midterm elections, 2014 (2)
To say that my brother and I are disappointed by yesterday's election results is a colossal understatement. We had expected the Republicans to make gains but not to the extent that they did; we both thought that the Republicans would lose several gubernatorial races and at least one senator. Alas, we were wrong.
Many of the races have baffled us but were especially perplexed by the defeat of Senator Mark Udall of Colorado. He has a track record of voting for the civil liberties of Americans; one would think that he would have easily secured re-election based on the general public's concerns about surveillance.
I am especially concerned about how the rights of women and racial minorities will fair under the new Congressional leadership. In several states, healthcare centers for women have been closed en masse and strict voter laws, which disproportionately affect non-white voters, have been implemented. On the bright side, Barack Obama will still be president for over two more years and he possesses the power to veto any such legislation should it arrive at his desk.
My brother and I haven't lived in the United States for over four years but we still care about what happens there. Besides, what occurs in American politics tends to affect the world, which is why people carefully observe what happens in American elections.
Oh, and Clay Aiken was unsuccessful in his bid for a House seat. That's also a shame, as I think he would have made an excellent addition to Congress.
Many of the races have baffled us but were especially perplexed by the defeat of Senator Mark Udall of Colorado. He has a track record of voting for the civil liberties of Americans; one would think that he would have easily secured re-election based on the general public's concerns about surveillance.
I am especially concerned about how the rights of women and racial minorities will fair under the new Congressional leadership. In several states, healthcare centers for women have been closed en masse and strict voter laws, which disproportionately affect non-white voters, have been implemented. On the bright side, Barack Obama will still be president for over two more years and he possesses the power to veto any such legislation should it arrive at his desk.
My brother and I haven't lived in the United States for over four years but we still care about what happens there. Besides, what occurs in American politics tends to affect the world, which is why people carefully observe what happens in American elections.
Oh, and Clay Aiken was unsuccessful in his bid for a House seat. That's also a shame, as I think he would have made an excellent addition to Congress.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Naming current U.S. Senators
Two years ago, I wrote a piece about naming United States Supreme Court cases and a piece about naming U.S. state nicknames. I've now come up with a new challenge: naming current U.S. Senators.
I was able to name the following seventy-two Senators; if you wish to participate in the challenge, I would recommend thinking of Senators before looking at my list. The Senators I couldn't name are listed separately:
I was able to name the following seventy-two Senators; if you wish to participate in the challenge, I would recommend thinking of Senators before looking at my list. The Senators I couldn't name are listed separately:
1. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee)
2. Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire)
3. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
4. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
5. Michael Bennett (D-Colorado)
6. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri)
7. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey)
8. John Boozman (R-Arkansas)
9. Barbara Boxer (D-California)
10. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
11. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington)
12. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland)
13. Tom Carper (D-Delaware)
14. Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania)
15. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia)
16. Dan Coats (R-Indiana)
17. Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi)
18. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
19. Chris Coons (D-Delaware)
20. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee)
21. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
22. Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana)
23. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
24. Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
25. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona)
26. Al Franken (D-Minnesota)
27. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York)
28. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
29. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
30. Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina)
31. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
32. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
33. Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota)
34. Dean Heller (R-Nevada)
35. Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico)
36. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)
37. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)
38. Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota)
39. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)
40. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota)
41. Angus King (I-Maine)
42. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois)
43. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana)
44. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
45. Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
46. John McCain (R-Arizona)
47. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
48. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
49. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey)
50. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon)
51. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
52. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
53. Patty Murray (D-Washington)
54. Bill Nelson (D-Florida)
55. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
56. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas)
57. Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
58. Harry Reid (D-Nevada)
59. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)
60. Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
61. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire)
62. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
63. Chuck Schumer (D-New York)
64. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina)
65. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
66. Jon Tester (D-Montana)
67. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania)
68. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)
69. David Vitter (R-Louisiana)
70. John Walsh (D-Montana)
71. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island)
72. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
I had to look up/ask my brother for the remaining twenty-eight Senators:
1. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming)
2. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut)
3. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina)
4. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
5. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
6. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
7. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming)
8. Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska)
9. John Hoeven (R-North Dakota)
10. Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia)
11. Mike Johanns (R-Nebraska)
12. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
13. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia)
14. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia)
15. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts)
16. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas)
17. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut)
18. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
19. Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
20. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia)
21. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)
22. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)
23. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama)
24. John Thune (R-South Dakota)
25. Mark Udall (D-Colorado)
26. Mark Warner (D-Virginia)
27. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts)
28. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi)
Being able to name 72% of the Senators is a high percentage, although I facepalmed when my brother told me that I'd forgotten Elizabeth Warren. How many Senators can you name?
Wednesday, 8 January 2014
The third Tuscon anniversary
It's hard to believe that it's been three years to the date that the Tuscon shooting took place, when nineteen people, including Arizona House Representative Gabrielle Giffords, were shot. Six people died and Giffords barely survived a shot to her head, a shot that, to this day, gives her suffering.
What has been done to prevent a tragedy like the one in Arizona from happening again? Nothing, it seems. Despite the vast majority of Americans and National Rifle Association members supporting greater background checks on guns (when my family and I were living in the United States, the Democrats, Republicans and Independents we met all supported them, too, and we lived in an area where almost everybody owned a gun), a bill that would have increased said checks failed in the Senate. In addition, despite all the calls that were made to help address mental health problems, nothing has been done about that, either.
It's a shame that paranoia over a potential repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is preventing anything from being done, even something as simple as educating people about violence or increasing awareness of mental health problems. I don't think that Second Amendment supporters even have anything to fear, for few American politicians, if any, would ever vote for an outright ban on guns. The Second Amendment itself will not get repealed anytime in the near or foreseeable future: To introduce a new amendment with the purpose of repealing another, the state legislatures of three-quarters of the states would need to approve it...and that's just not going to happen against the Second Amendment.
I once again made the mistake of reading the comments section of a Tuscon shooting-related article. I had foolishly hoped that people would perhaps pay their respects to all the victims and their families, given that it's been three years since the shooting, but instead it was a hate-filled thread with nothing but anger being directed at Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. I found it both infuriating and upsetting.
What has been done to prevent a tragedy like the one in Arizona from happening again? Nothing, it seems. Despite the vast majority of Americans and National Rifle Association members supporting greater background checks on guns (when my family and I were living in the United States, the Democrats, Republicans and Independents we met all supported them, too, and we lived in an area where almost everybody owned a gun), a bill that would have increased said checks failed in the Senate. In addition, despite all the calls that were made to help address mental health problems, nothing has been done about that, either.
It's a shame that paranoia over a potential repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is preventing anything from being done, even something as simple as educating people about violence or increasing awareness of mental health problems. I don't think that Second Amendment supporters even have anything to fear, for few American politicians, if any, would ever vote for an outright ban on guns. The Second Amendment itself will not get repealed anytime in the near or foreseeable future: To introduce a new amendment with the purpose of repealing another, the state legislatures of three-quarters of the states would need to approve it...and that's just not going to happen against the Second Amendment.
I once again made the mistake of reading the comments section of a Tuscon shooting-related article. I had foolishly hoped that people would perhaps pay their respects to all the victims and their families, given that it's been three years since the shooting, but instead it was a hate-filled thread with nothing but anger being directed at Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. I found it both infuriating and upsetting.
Friday, 4 October 2013
A lesser-known effect of the United States federal government shutdown
One of my first blog posts was about the Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial, which is located near Madingley, Cambridgeshire. As I think we're all aware, the United States federal government has been shut down, with all non-essential services ceasing operations and nearly a million personnel furloughed. Places such as national parks, museums and national have closed down; unfortunately, this also means that the Cambridge American Cemetary and memorial has been closed:
The cemetery is maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), which is one of the areas of government affected by the shutdown. Without any funding, the commission cannot keep its 24 overseas military cemeteries and 26 monuments open to the public. These places, along with the Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial, will re-open once the government has been restored, but at present there is no immediate end to the shutdown in sight. The current inability to pay respects to those who are buried in those cemeteries is an inconvenience to most people and heartbreaking to those who are family of the dead or served alongside them.
Too many people think that a government shutdown means that Congress is out of a job. They could not be more wrong, as Congress is not only still active but its members are still being paid. The overwhelming majority of the people who have been furloughed are ordinary folks; the fact that they happen to work for the government, in itself, does not change that. They have families and most are not rich; it's deeply unfair and inhumane to celebrate their suffering.
The ABMC is a small and relatively unknown government agency, yet its current closure has had a profound effect. Now think about how many people are being affected from furloughs in the larger agencies...and that's not including how many people not working for the government are being affected by the disruption.
Some other consequences of the shutdown can be found here.
The cemetery is maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), which is one of the areas of government affected by the shutdown. Without any funding, the commission cannot keep its 24 overseas military cemeteries and 26 monuments open to the public. These places, along with the Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial, will re-open once the government has been restored, but at present there is no immediate end to the shutdown in sight. The current inability to pay respects to those who are buried in those cemeteries is an inconvenience to most people and heartbreaking to those who are family of the dead or served alongside them.
Too many people think that a government shutdown means that Congress is out of a job. They could not be more wrong, as Congress is not only still active but its members are still being paid. The overwhelming majority of the people who have been furloughed are ordinary folks; the fact that they happen to work for the government, in itself, does not change that. They have families and most are not rich; it's deeply unfair and inhumane to celebrate their suffering.
The ABMC is a small and relatively unknown government agency, yet its current closure has had a profound effect. Now think about how many people are being affected from furloughs in the larger agencies...and that's not including how many people not working for the government are being affected by the disruption.
Some other consequences of the shutdown can be found here.
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
On the results of the United States presidential election, 2012
At long last, the United States presidential election of 2012 is over. I stayed up all night to watch the results come in, and although it was quite a nail-biter at first, President Barack Obama pulled ahead in the electoral vote when the Pacific states, Iowa and Ohio were all called for him. As I have been strongly in favor of his re-election since before his 2008 win, I am delighted at his victory.
Mr. Obama won all of his 2008 states with the exceptions of Indiana and North Carolina - the latter which he lost narrowly - and as of this writing Florida, which hasn't been called yet but he is leading there. Nate Silver, the statistician who correctly predicted the outcome of 49 of 50 states in 2008 will have a 100% success rate on the presidential level this year if Florida ends the vote counting with a win for Mr. Obama.
I watched Mitt Romney's concession. I am far from a fan of his but I give credit where it is due: I thought that the speech Mr. Romney gave was decent, polite, and gave a call for national unity and support for the president. He sounded fairly cheerful and even looked as though he wanted to be there. I can only commend him for his graciousness.
Beyond the presidential election, the Democrats have both maintained and increased their majority in the Senate, while the Republicans have kept their majority in the House with minor losses; I had hoped that the Democrats would regain the House, but that was definitely a long shot in this election. Maine, Maryland and Washington have all approved gay marriage in referendums held in those states, and Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality there. Colorado and Washington have both voted to allow the use of medical marijuana.
The other interesting referendums of the night were the two held in Puerto Rico. One referendum asked voters in they wanted to change its territorial status or maintain the status quo, and the other one asked if they wanted statehood, free association or independence. Puerto Ricans appear to have voted for change in the former and statehood in the latter. Should Puerto Rico's request be approved by Congress and signed by Mr. Obama, it will become the first new state since Hawaii was admitted to the Union in 1959.
A ridiculous amount of money was spent on this campaign: over two billion dollars was spent on the presidential race alone. Hundreds of millions more was spent on Congressional races, with some Super-PACs having spent tens of millions of dollars just to defeat one person - Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) were swamped with massive amounts of money against them but they held onto their seats. I would like to see the end of the Super-PACs and other excessive wasting of money before the next elections; too much was being spent on elections before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was ruled upon, and now political spending is out of control.
I am mostly satisfied with the results of the election. I'm also glad that the whole campaign is finally over, and hopefully people will make the attempt to mend any fences broken by extreme partisanship. Sour moods, grudges and a refusal to work together will achieve nothing but more bitterness and political fighting.
Now that the election is finished and I've said my piece, I'm looking forward to writing some more posts about my recent visit to Suffolk and showing some of the pictures I took while there...something that we can all enjoy regardless of our political persuasions!
Mr. Obama won all of his 2008 states with the exceptions of Indiana and North Carolina - the latter which he lost narrowly - and as of this writing Florida, which hasn't been called yet but he is leading there. Nate Silver, the statistician who correctly predicted the outcome of 49 of 50 states in 2008 will have a 100% success rate on the presidential level this year if Florida ends the vote counting with a win for Mr. Obama.
I watched Mitt Romney's concession. I am far from a fan of his but I give credit where it is due: I thought that the speech Mr. Romney gave was decent, polite, and gave a call for national unity and support for the president. He sounded fairly cheerful and even looked as though he wanted to be there. I can only commend him for his graciousness.
Beyond the presidential election, the Democrats have both maintained and increased their majority in the Senate, while the Republicans have kept their majority in the House with minor losses; I had hoped that the Democrats would regain the House, but that was definitely a long shot in this election. Maine, Maryland and Washington have all approved gay marriage in referendums held in those states, and Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality there. Colorado and Washington have both voted to allow the use of medical marijuana.
The other interesting referendums of the night were the two held in Puerto Rico. One referendum asked voters in they wanted to change its territorial status or maintain the status quo, and the other one asked if they wanted statehood, free association or independence. Puerto Ricans appear to have voted for change in the former and statehood in the latter. Should Puerto Rico's request be approved by Congress and signed by Mr. Obama, it will become the first new state since Hawaii was admitted to the Union in 1959.
A ridiculous amount of money was spent on this campaign: over two billion dollars was spent on the presidential race alone. Hundreds of millions more was spent on Congressional races, with some Super-PACs having spent tens of millions of dollars just to defeat one person - Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) were swamped with massive amounts of money against them but they held onto their seats. I would like to see the end of the Super-PACs and other excessive wasting of money before the next elections; too much was being spent on elections before Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was ruled upon, and now political spending is out of control.
I am mostly satisfied with the results of the election. I'm also glad that the whole campaign is finally over, and hopefully people will make the attempt to mend any fences broken by extreme partisanship. Sour moods, grudges and a refusal to work together will achieve nothing but more bitterness and political fighting.
Now that the election is finished and I've said my piece, I'm looking forward to writing some more posts about my recent visit to Suffolk and showing some of the pictures I took while there...something that we can all enjoy regardless of our political persuasions!
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Waiting
I am patiently waiting for the results of the election. Besides the obvious presidential race, I'm also interested in multiple Senate, House and gubernatorial races, as well as the referendum in Puerto Rico. I will be staying up late to see what happens.
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
John Scott Harrison
I found a small yet interesting piece of American history last night. Recently I have been doing some research into the geography of Ohio, and I came across a place called North Bend, a town in the Cincinnati - Northern Kentucky metropolitan area. In the early second half of the 19th century a man named John Scott Harrison retired there after losing his House of Representatives seat.
Harrison is unique because he is the only man (and also only person) in all of United States history to be both the child of a president and the parent of another. His father was William Henry Harrison, the ninth president; and his son was Benjamin Harrison, the twenty-third. As for Harrison's own political career, he represented Ohio's second congressional district for two terms, serving from 1853-57, when he was defeated in his re-election for a third term. He lived in North Bend until his death in 1878; unfortunately, he did not see one of his sons become president (Benjamin Harrison was elected in 1888).
Small, obscure historical facts such as this always fascinate me. I appreciate looking up a particular topic and coming across minor events or people with an interesting, unexpected fact to them.
Harrison is unique because he is the only man (and also only person) in all of United States history to be both the child of a president and the parent of another. His father was William Henry Harrison, the ninth president; and his son was Benjamin Harrison, the twenty-third. As for Harrison's own political career, he represented Ohio's second congressional district for two terms, serving from 1853-57, when he was defeated in his re-election for a third term. He lived in North Bend until his death in 1878; unfortunately, he did not see one of his sons become president (Benjamin Harrison was elected in 1888).
Small, obscure historical facts such as this always fascinate me. I appreciate looking up a particular topic and coming across minor events or people with an interesting, unexpected fact to them.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Olympia Snowe
I was shocked last night to hear that Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) has decided not to run for re-election, despite her being a popular senator and because the election is a mere eight months away. Her frustration with gridlock and polarizing politics are among her reasons for standing down.
I am in two minds about her leaving the Senate: on one hand, I support the Democrats and it is my hope that they keep the Senate after this current election; Snowe's departure significantly increases their chances of holding it. At the same time, I think Snowe is a good and fair politician: from what I understand, her votes have often been what she thinks are best for the country, rather than for her or for her party. Snowe has been willing to work with members from either party, and vote against her own when she disagreed with them. She has rarely/never engaged in name-calling as far as I know, and overall she seems like a nice person. While I do not agree with all of her political positions, I have not had a reason to dislike her.
Snowe's departure will also mean another "true" moderate leaving the Senate, and will most likely lead to an increase in the polarization and negativity she wants to get away from. While it would not be her fault per se for any such increase, the loss of another senator both willing to listen to/work with the two parties and not wanting to push through an agenda, as well as not being a negative individual, will only lead to further gridlock.
Ultimately, it was Snowe's decision to step down. I suspect there are people who wished she had said so earlier, but I am sure she has good reasons for making her decision and announcement now. I will be curious to see if she pursues another role somewhere in politics or decides to retire completely.
Finally, I was not expecting to write two politics-related posts in such a short space of time, and I even find myself surprised to be writing this particular piece.
I am in two minds about her leaving the Senate: on one hand, I support the Democrats and it is my hope that they keep the Senate after this current election; Snowe's departure significantly increases their chances of holding it. At the same time, I think Snowe is a good and fair politician: from what I understand, her votes have often been what she thinks are best for the country, rather than for her or for her party. Snowe has been willing to work with members from either party, and vote against her own when she disagreed with them. She has rarely/never engaged in name-calling as far as I know, and overall she seems like a nice person. While I do not agree with all of her political positions, I have not had a reason to dislike her.
Snowe's departure will also mean another "true" moderate leaving the Senate, and will most likely lead to an increase in the polarization and negativity she wants to get away from. While it would not be her fault per se for any such increase, the loss of another senator both willing to listen to/work with the two parties and not wanting to push through an agenda, as well as not being a negative individual, will only lead to further gridlock.
Ultimately, it was Snowe's decision to step down. I suspect there are people who wished she had said so earlier, but I am sure she has good reasons for making her decision and announcement now. I will be curious to see if she pursues another role somewhere in politics or decides to retire completely.
Finally, I was not expecting to write two politics-related posts in such a short space of time, and I even find myself surprised to be writing this particular piece.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Gabrielle Giffords (follow-up)
On the one year anniversary of the Tuscon shooting, I wrote a post about Gabrielle Giffords (Rep. D-AZ). Among what I wrote was the following:
"Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did."
Giffords announced yesterday that she would be resigning this week to concentrate on her recovery. As I said before, personally I thought it would be great for to remain as a representative, but I knew it would likely impede her health if she had to face the stress of another election so soon. However, despite her stating that she is going to step down, Giffords has also said that she does want to return to public service one day.
Here is her recent video:
After watching the video, I am still truly amazed at how well Giffords has improved...and I am again glad that she has not lost her brilliant smile. I hope she will return to Congress one day, but for now, it seems that the best course of action for her is to rest and recover.
"Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did."
Giffords announced yesterday that she would be resigning this week to concentrate on her recovery. As I said before, personally I thought it would be great for to remain as a representative, but I knew it would likely impede her health if she had to face the stress of another election so soon. However, despite her stating that she is going to step down, Giffords has also said that she does want to return to public service one day.
Here is her recent video:
After watching the video, I am still truly amazed at how well Giffords has improved...and I am again glad that she has not lost her brilliant smile. I hope she will return to Congress one day, but for now, it seems that the best course of action for her is to rest and recover.
Monday, 9 January 2012
Gabrielle Giffords
Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the Tuscon shooting in Arizona, where an assassination attempt was made on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (Rep. D-AZ) at a public event while she met with her constituents. Six other people were killed in the shooting, and Giffords herself was seriously wounded when she suffered a gunshot wound to the head. Fortunately, the shooter was prevented by the crowd from killing or injuring any more people.
It was the morning of the 9th of January when I found out, and I clearly remember the moment when I first heard about what had happened. We had just spent a night in a new house, and I was tuning my radio: I caught some news on one of the stations to hear that Giffords had been shot in her head, and was not likely to survive her wounds. I was shocked, as Giffords was not someone whom I had expected to have such a tragedy happen to them. I originally learnt about her in 2009, and ultimately came to have respect for her; she was among the politicians I hoped would be re-elected in 2010, and I was delighted to hear that she had been.
She had overcome a difficult re-election...only to be shot in the head two months later. The prognosis was bleak at first: direct gunshots to the head are rarely survivable (from what I have read the chances of survival are about 5%), and less so when fired at point-blank range as what happened to Giffords. However, she was incredibly lucky with where the bullet hit her: from what I understand, if the bullet had been even just slightly away from its angle of entry into her head, she would have been paralyzed or killed.
Even though Giffords survived the shot and was treated for it in time, she did receive brain damage: her vision, speech, movement, and reading/writing abilities have all been seriously affected; still, her recovery has been astounding, and has exceeded expectations. Her comprehension is still intact, and she has not lost her personality nor the bright, unique smile that she is known for. In some videos I watched about her recovery during the time of her first interview since the shooting, it was said that she was aware of and could understand everything going on around her; she also knew what she wanted to say to people, but had trouble saying it. I did find it upsetting to see the juxtaposition of her giving speeches to crowds with her having trouble speaking, but at the same time it was encouraging to see her improving from her injury.
My respect for Giffords has increased since the shooting, and her strength and courage throughout the whole ordeal have both been extraordinary. However, I have also been impressed with her husband, Mark Kelly, for his support of her through it all and being by her side most of the time. I thought it was remarkable that he was willing to forgo commanding one of the final space shuttle missions to stay with her until she convinced him to complete the mission.
Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did. Regardless of what she ultimately chooses to do, I am glad that her recovery has been phenomenal and that she is still steadily improving: I wish her and her family the best.
It was the morning of the 9th of January when I found out, and I clearly remember the moment when I first heard about what had happened. We had just spent a night in a new house, and I was tuning my radio: I caught some news on one of the stations to hear that Giffords had been shot in her head, and was not likely to survive her wounds. I was shocked, as Giffords was not someone whom I had expected to have such a tragedy happen to them. I originally learnt about her in 2009, and ultimately came to have respect for her; she was among the politicians I hoped would be re-elected in 2010, and I was delighted to hear that she had been.
She had overcome a difficult re-election...only to be shot in the head two months later. The prognosis was bleak at first: direct gunshots to the head are rarely survivable (from what I have read the chances of survival are about 5%), and less so when fired at point-blank range as what happened to Giffords. However, she was incredibly lucky with where the bullet hit her: from what I understand, if the bullet had been even just slightly away from its angle of entry into her head, she would have been paralyzed or killed.
Even though Giffords survived the shot and was treated for it in time, she did receive brain damage: her vision, speech, movement, and reading/writing abilities have all been seriously affected; still, her recovery has been astounding, and has exceeded expectations. Her comprehension is still intact, and she has not lost her personality nor the bright, unique smile that she is known for. In some videos I watched about her recovery during the time of her first interview since the shooting, it was said that she was aware of and could understand everything going on around her; she also knew what she wanted to say to people, but had trouble saying it. I did find it upsetting to see the juxtaposition of her giving speeches to crowds with her having trouble speaking, but at the same time it was encouraging to see her improving from her injury.
My respect for Giffords has increased since the shooting, and her strength and courage throughout the whole ordeal have both been extraordinary. However, I have also been impressed with her husband, Mark Kelly, for his support of her through it all and being by her side most of the time. I thought it was remarkable that he was willing to forgo commanding one of the final space shuttle missions to stay with her until she convinced him to complete the mission.
Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did. Regardless of what she ultimately chooses to do, I am glad that her recovery has been phenomenal and that she is still steadily improving: I wish her and her family the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)