Santorum is out

Rick Santorum, the Mitt Romney opposition has dropped out of the GOP Primary race.  In my opinion, it would have devastated his campaign if he had continued and lost his home state of Pennsylvania.  In his concession, he will continue his fight:

All news outlets have given the benefit of the doubt to Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate for the upcoming General Election.  Although it is sad to say, my choice (and underdog candidate) Ron Paul will unlikely gain the insurmountable amount of delegates needed to win.  Its also safe to say Gingrich is done, like, permanently. The key now would be to pick up Santorum's supporters.  With a little luck, either runner up might sill have a chance.

Now it will be interesting to see how Romney's campaign speech will transform.  Will he focus on the big picture, or stamp out any remaining resistance and pick up Santorum's supporters for himself?  We'll have to wait and see. 

Libertarianism Explained

I came across Penn Jillette's reasoning behind why he chose Libertarianism as an ideology for the past 25 or so years.  Here is his video. It was an insightful look into the basic foundations of what libertarianism stands upon.  What caught my attention the most was his take on politics and coercion.  It is in no one's right to coerce their view upon anyone else.

However, the state of affairs in politics in our nation currently subscribes to this method.  Much like being a shopper at a grocery store, we are only faced with limited choices when it comes to political affiliation.  We are given the "Coke or Pepsi" choice, Democrat or Republican, night or day, black or white choices that are drawn up by someone else in power.  Third parties gain very little foothold in this nation, which is telling of our mentality as a society.  These forced choices give us little room, as a society, to make our own political choices.

 America has become so accustomed to this political dichotomy, that when new ideas are introduced, the party system instantly goes on the offensive.  Naturally, new ideas that counter party doctrine comprises their authority over the body politic.  Libertarianism is attacked constantly for being the "lazy man's conservatism" or being too socially liberal, whatever that means. The bottom line is, it is a state of mind and it transcends petty party politics.

Brass Tacks Redux

It has been a long time since I have posted on this blog.  I pretty much gave up on it, like many bloggers do.  I suppose I lost touch with many things I was passionate about, one of them being politics.  However, my life has gone through many transformations since then, and I feel I am a different person.  I have shed many of my old beliefs for new ones, as well as hold on to ideologies and ideas that I have always felt passionate about.

I digress.  This blog was made during a time when I was passionately right wing.  Furthermore, it was during an election season when political fervor seems to run high.  Although I still consider myself conservative, I no longer feel obligated to follow party lines.  Basically, I had had enough of "group think."

Since then, I have become a teacher (social sciences) and have rekindled my curiosity of all things political.  Maybe it took me another election cycle to figure this out, who knows.  The bottom line is, I am happy that I became aware of my transformation and I really can't wait to start writing and blogging again.  Hopefully, you all will enjoy my new and reformed views.

That being said, and with education on my mind, I would like to share a little statistic I found while reading upon the state of affairs in California:  California spends $50,000 for every inmate as opposed to $8,000 per student. Something is amiss here. I venture to guess that a good majority as these inmates are incarcerated for drug related charges. Even Pat Robinson, a major religious right figure has stated "The drug war just hasn't succeeded." More detailed stats can be found here. 


Further information on California's prison dilemmas can be found in this short clip that aired on Zakaria 360 a week ago: Zakaria: Incarceration nation.

The link speaks for itself, but the statistics compared to other Western nations is staggering and sobering.  In addition to strong corrections unions that have the ear of our state's politicians,  I firmly believe that with our declining state of education, we will see an increase in our prison population.  It might be cliche, but I hold it true that a lack of education leads to a life of crime because, without education, there are very few alternatives for individuals to make a living.  Lack of skills learned in school leads to these dire roads.  On the other hand, you have our tax dollars being funneled into our correctional system.  A system that is ever increasing.  Shouldn't we see a decrease in a prison population if so much is appropriated to it?  Its a vicious cycle that must be reformed. 

Pelosi v. CIA

Panetta fires back.

Good Riddance

Arlen Spector, senior Senator from Pennsylvania, is now batting for the other side. For 30 years, he has been a moderate thorn in the Republican Party's side, and now, when the chips are down, he snakes over the to other side in order to preserve his political career.

Specter has stated "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans". This has come a month after Specter has stated he would never switch parties for ideological reasons. I am pretty sure he is going to get a comfortable chairmanship in exchange for giving the Democrats safe from any opposition from the Republicans.

Frankly, I am happy for the Republican Party. This is exactly what doctor is proscribing. Let the party purge itself and embrace a new generation of true conservative politicians. This will revamp the party staffed with members who have not been tainted by Washington politics. As Joe Scarborough says "sitting in that town [DC] changes you."

China's growing recession.

China's PM addresses The National People's Congress

The US is not the only country hit hard in these tough economic times. Recently the NPC, the National People's Congress (a congregation of the one-party rule of China). PM Wen Jiabao has stated that the centrally controlled government will increase spending, although they claim their debt of 950 billion Yuan is only 3% of their GDP and have projected 8% economic growth. China plans on increasing spending on social programs, healthcare and a projected 15% increase in spending on military programs.

The PRC is able to immidiately initiate new policy due to democratic centralism that is a linchpin in one-party, authoritarian rule. However, many leaders within the party, including Jiabao, have no clear plan on how to utilize the new spending. Nonetheless, it seems the party predicts a dreary future and are preparing for it as quickly as possible.

A question that comes to mind: how will this effect US-Sino relations? More importantly, will China's new policies drastically effect the amount of US debt they buy up?

A step closer to the fairness doctrine?

Obama picks new head of FCC.

It pays off to go to Havard Law School. Julius Genachowski, a former classmate of Mr. Obama's at Harvard, has been named Julius Genachowski as the new head of the FCC. Previous to this move, he was a part of various venture capital groups and corporations around DC, most became an insider within those eight years. He had also previously worked for the FCC as well.

Ok, so he seems like a self-started, business oriented professional. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But as you read the article further, he was a campaign worker who openly expressed support for "net-neutrality" protections and media-ownership rules to promote diversity. First of all, I have no idea what net-neutrality could possibly mean. The internet is probably humanity's last bastion of true openness. No matter who you are: liberal, conservative, or pinko-communist, anyone has a free run to express themselves. Even scumbag neo-nazis have paypal accounts to sell copies of the "Turner Diaries".

What scares me more is that second part. "Media-ownership rules to promote diversity". This leads me to believe that Mr. Genachowski is none other than a full fledged supporter of the fairness doctrine, a policy that has floated around the liberal camp since the 1940s. Back then, congress believed that both sides of the political spectrum should have equal air time due to the limited amount of frequency that was available to fledgling radio technology. Now this policy is no longer needed due to the fact that the technology has expanded tenfold. No one company has to fight for airwave space because there is so much open space for everyone.

Now the fairness doctrine is a ploy to silence conservative talk, or at least, force conservative-leaning stations, by government mandate, to allow equal time for the other side their so-called "fair share". First of all, it is known that conservative talk rules the radio waves, with hosts such as Mark Levine and Sean Hannity, and this dominance is a threat to their liberal counter-parts, whose ratings, to say the least, are poor. In the liberal mindset, however, it is completely logical to force private communication companies to insert less popular hosts in their time slots to marginalize the time reserved for the more popular ones that, in essence, make them money through ratings and advertisments. Bottom line, the fairness doctrine eliminates private enterprise in favor of bigger government.

Last, and my other important point, is how this relates to the double-speak that Mr. Obama has used time and time again. In February, he vowed to never touch the subject of the fairness doctrine and if congress pushes any type of legislation pertaining to it, he will reject it. With this appointment, could this be a way to curtail the legislative process and delegate the power to a federal agency? We will have to wait and see.