John McCain Looks Tired

The end of the year is always the slowest time for political news and maneuvers. However, this year we are on the eve of the presidential primary season, so let us focus on that.

Sadly, as I'm sure most people have heard, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto died yesterday during a suicide bombing at one of her campaign rallies in Pakistan -- a terrible tragedy and I send my condolences. And while the official cause of death and the world impact of this event is being debated, the 2008 presidential candidates are all commenting on the situation. The 10-second sound bite that most caught my attention was that of Senator John McCain, R-AZ.

Over the past year, Senator McCain has been touting his foreign policy experience as one of his best qualifications to be president. In the sound clip that I saw today, he stated the unfortunate death of Benazir Bhutto may in fact help to "enhance" these qualities and benefit his campaign. In an age where image trumps truth, we'll see if that happens.

But what this clip really got me thinking about was: John McCain looks tired. Whether it is during a debate or out at public functions with voters, he seems worn down. And while he is the oldest candidate on the campaign trail at 71, I don't think its his age that has him ready for a nap. I personally think that he is fed up with the nonsense around him, and the political process in general. He should have been the 2000 Republican presidential candidate, but lost his momentum after despicable campaign tactics that may or may not have come from the campaign of President George W. Bush. After that, I personally would have been too disillusioned with everything to ever run again. And now, he has to share the stage with the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee -- not only share the stage, but be pushed out of the spotlight and be considered a second-tier candidate.

John McCain is a heavyweight. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and Huckabee are lightweights (and I say this even though I think that Huckabee is an authentic and conscientious person). And what's more, I think that John McCain knows that these people are not in his league, never will be, and yet still get more support than he does. He doesn't understand it, and neither do I.

If the Republicans are smart, John McCain will be their nominee in 2008. But like I said before: In this age where image trumps truth, we'll see if that happens.

One Week

The presidential primaries begin 1 week from today with the Iowa caucuses.

Just a warning.

The Open House

So, Christmas has come and gone, and New Year's Eve is just days away. Soon 2007 will be behind us, and we will all be on to (hopefully) bigger and better things. As per usual, many of us will be making our regular new year's resolutions: exercise, lose weight, spend less money, get a better job, give money to charity, break up with significant other, buy a copy of Steve Schultz's debut album, 'A Thin Line.' These are all noble causes.

Many New Yorkers feel that Gov. Eliot Spitzer needs to make some serious new year's resolutions for 2008 -- mainly small changes, such as actually listening to the citizens of the state or not allowing his staff to spy on the Senate Majority Leader. It is true that Gov. Spitzer has had a tumultuous first year in office, but maybe he will be opening his doors wider to the people's opinions in 2008. Well, maybe that's a bit too optimistic. But, he at least will be opening his doors on New Year's Day.

On January 1, 2008, from 9:30AM - 11AM, Gov. Spitzer and his wife will be hosting a traditional open house at the Executive Mansion in Albany. Any New Yorker interested in attending this event can click here to register by noon on Friday, December 28 -- you will be notified if you have been selected for tickets shortly after the deadline. Every person selected to attend is allowed to bring a guest.

I will not be registering for tickets, because 9:30AM on New Year's Day is way too early. But if I were to go, I would invite Lou Dobbs and make sure to bring my video camera.

4.5 Percent? For 4 years?

I understand both arguments: On the one hand are those who say that in order to keep the most qualified candidates interested in public office, the pay must be competitive. On the other hand, however, are those that feel that the current pay rates are adequate. Both are reasonable positions. I remember a while back reading an article about salary increases for judges. Citing the growing number of adjudicators who were leaving the bench in order to pursue opportunities in the private sector, the author of this piece was advocating giving judges more of an incentive to continue in public life. The same problems are prevalent in multiple situations.

The Dutchess County Legislature recently voted down a measure that would have increased the annual salaries of the county executive, county clerk, and county sheriff by 4.5% each year for the next 4 years. For example, right now Dutchess County Executive William Steinhaus' salary is just shy of $140,000 a year. Had this measure passed, come the year 2011 he would have been making just shy of $167,000 a year. The total raise would have been equal to what some families are forced to live on annually.

It is a good thing that this measure was defeated. Aside from the fact that it was a last-ditch effort by the lame duck legislature to pass salary increases before the Democrats take control in 2008, I personally think that $139,869 a year is competitive enough -- as is $106,023 for the county clerk, and $125,664 for the county sheriff. The money saved from not implementing the raises may not be much in the grand scheme of things, but it can be used for more worthy causes.

...And We'll All Be Blind

This week New Jersey, our neighbor to the south, took on a very weighty issue and abolished the death penalty -- making it the first state to do so since capital punishment was deemed permissible in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a landmark move, and one that should be followed by all states who currently have capital punishment, for the following reasons:

First of all (and most importantly), the criminal justice system in the U.S. is not fool-proof. Every year we hear about criminals being exonerated and released after so many years due to new evidence, new witnesses, or new technology. However, once a prisoner is executed, there is no going back -- there is no pardon, there is no appeal, there is no new evidence that can help them. The possibility of executing an innocent person is far too great.

Second, the death penalty does not act a deterrent, and there is an enormous amount of data to support this point.

Third, common sense might tell you that simply killing someone for their crime would be cheaper than keeping them in a prison until they die, but actually the opposite is true: abolishing the death penalty saves money. Over the long term, incarcerating a prisoner for the remainder of their natural life costs taxpayers a fraction of what it would cost to execute the same inmate.

Fourth, in this country we generally punish people so that they can learn what they should not be doing. But putting someone to death does not teach them anything -- it kills them. The object of putting someone to death is to protect the general population from the harm that this person may cause, however this is also accomplished by putting them in prison for the rest of their life (and at a much lower cost to the taxpayer).

In the second presidential debate of 1988, former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was asked a question about whether he would favor the death penalty in the event his wife were raped and murdered. His response was that he had always been against the death penalty, and he backed up his statement with facts and figures showing that the death penalty was not a deterrent. What a dumb thing to do. I'm not married, but if I were, and my wife were raped and murdered, I wouldn't want her attacker put to death by the state -- I'd probably want to do it myself. However, this is precisely why we make these laws and decisions when we are calm and clear-headed.

No one has the moral authority to decide who lives or dies -- if they think they do, then their mental status is no more advanced than those they want killed.

And for those who think New York State has capital punishment, it does not. The statute that was signed into law in 1995 was ruled unconstitutional in 2004, and that ruling was upheld about 2 months ago.

Before You Begin...

I would like to take this short entry to welcome all the readers of PoughkeepsieJournal.com who have decided to venture into my blog, "...Those Who Show Up." Feel free to comment on any entry that I write, and I will make appropriate responses at the appropriate time. Before you go any further, however, there is one thing that I would like to point out:

I am not a Democrat. In fact, I do not affiliate myself with any political party. It is true that I am left-of-center, and that my point of view often aligns itself with that of the Democratic Party, but I chose not to officially label myself as a Democrat, for four reasons:

First, I think that having only two major political parties in a country of over 300 million people is asinine. You can't tell me that in the entire U.S. population, all people fall neatly into two categories: Republican or Democrat. You can stop tryin', because I ain't buyin'.

Second, too often the highest and most prominent officials in the two major political parties take their members for granted, and simply expect their support. I choose to not be taken for granted.

Third, too often I see those who are deeply invested in their political party (including many current presidential candidates) putting party over country. No political party is more important than your country. Period.

Finally, to paraphrase Henry Rollins: When you assume a title, you assume everything associated with that title. To be perfectly honest, at this point in my life, I do not want all of the baggage that comes with calling myself a Democrat (and it comes with a lot of baggage).

So, I guess I would call myself an independent, free-thinking rationalist, who values common sense over affiliation. Go figure. And I'm going to try to use this blog to foster some honest debate, not petty name-calling that others jump to so quickly. Again, go figure. I hope you enjoy.

The Mitt & The Romney

Please watch this 2 minute, 34 second clip of Mitt Romney on Meet the Press yesterday, December 16, 2007. The event that I would like you to focus on occurs at 1:41.

To be fair, I didn't have much respect for Mitt Romney before I watched his Meet the Press appearance yesterday. He has always seemed to me to be a very contrived, disingenuous, and calculating person, who will do and say anything to win the presidency. Or, to put it bluntly, I wouldn't trust him with my lunch money, let alone the country. But his response above to Tim Russert's question about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' past racial discretions solidified it -- this man disgusts me, and he is trying to play me for a fool.

Dear Mr. Romney:

My name is Steve Schultz, and I live in New York State. Please do not insult me by laying on some cockamamie story about you "weeping" on the side of the road in Boston when you were 31 years old and in law school, for I have a brain. And besides, us New Yorkers can spot disingenuous, cockamamie stories 1,000 miles away -- and you can thank your friend, Hillary Clinton, for that.

-Steve

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and “Change”

Shortly before the expiration of her husband’s tenure as President of the United States, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decided that she was going to run for the available New York seat in the United States Senate. She relocated to the average community of Chappaqua, NY, in order to fulfill her residency requirements, and in the 2000 election she defeated Congressman Rick Lazio to succeed Daniel Patrick Moynihan as the United States Senator from New York. Though extremely popular in our state, there were a good number of people who felt at the time of the election that Senator Clinton was merely using New York as a stepping stone towards the presidency. Fast forward seven years.

Senator Clinton is running for president. Go figure. I have no problem with this – Senator Clinton should be allowed to run for the presidency. However, I do have something that I would like to ask; a question that I would like to pose.

If Senator Clinton is elected president, that would mean that between the years 1981 and 2013, there would be a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. That’s thirty-two years, with an option for four more. If she wins, at least 13% of our nation’s history would see the Executive Branch of the federal government (at least partially) controlled by only two families. So, my question is this: in a presidential race where the word “change” is thrown around so frequently, wouldn’t Senator Clinton’s election to the presidency simply be more of the same?

The Airing of Grievances

I do not want to wade hip-deep into the religious display debate that occurs every December; it is such a heated and emotional issue that it often causes the sanest of people to go off on flights of insanity. And, as often is the case with genuine disagreement in our country, the debate turns into a sad show of ignorance and intolerance by those who are most upset by the situation. However, I feel as though I need to make some kind of comment, since this element of Bill O'Reilly's "culture war" has hit very close to home -- Poughkeepsie and Hyde Park. So, going against my better judgement, here I go:

I don't care. I really and truly lack the capacity to give a damn about this issue. In all honesty, the idea of people taking the time to get all uppity over the placement of holiday symbols on "official" grounds baffles my mind. We have some real honest-to-goodness battles to fight in this country, and I don't think that bickering over this is a good use of our time, do you?

For the record, having been raised Catholic, I celebrate Christmas. However, I have close friends and family who celebrate Hanukkah, and I grew up with exposure to this holiday (as well as other Jewish holidays). In my eyes, the "holiday season" that is December isn't just about Christmas. I feel as though this month of the year has become one where people do their best to show their best, no matter what religion they do or do not subscribe to. It's a time of giving and being together and celebrating the good of life, and not forgetting that there are those who are not as fortunate as many of us. It's a time for people -- all people -- to come together, if only for a short time. And lest we forget, religion is about coming together and celebrating -- not arguing over a display, or using that display as a way to put others down.

As for the "church and state" argument that normally gets this whole thing started, the goal of the founders was to guard against a national religion, not to bar all displays of religion. I see very little connection between Hyde Park allowing a nativity scene on town property, and the U.S. Government decreeing that all citizens must be Christians.

But I personally would like to see more public displays of Festivus.

20 More Years?

Indian Point Energy Center is a nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, NY, along the Hudson River, north of New York City. It is owned by Entergy Nuclear. I am sure that most, if not all of you, know of Indian Point, even if you have no first-hand knowledge of the facility. I also have no first-hand knowledge of Indian Point, only what I hear and read.

In 2013, Indian Point needs to be relicensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); the original license was was for 40 years, and the relicense would be for 20. A few days ago, top New York State officials came out against the relicensing of Indian Point, citing numerous "deficiencies - including those related to terrorism, earthquakes, evacuation plans, and the surrounding population density." These seem like justified concerns, but I really don't know much about the technology of nuclear power to speak intelligently on whether or not Indian Point should be relicensed.

I do, however, have common sense, so I can speak intelligently on the fact that Indian Point should not be relicensed for 20 years - no nuclear power plant should be, no matter how safe it may or may not be. Nuclear energy is a very complex and potentially dangerous science, and at the rate that technology is advancing in today's society, 20 years is far too many without having to go through the relicensing process. The NRC needs to keep a much closer eye on the nuclear power plants in this country. At least more than every 20 years. People of every political point-of-view should be able to get behind that proposal.

I Feel Sick

The healthcare system in the United States of America is broken (as are many systems in this country). Costs are skyrocketing, and the ability of Americans who are considered "middle-class" and below to afford necessary care is dwindling. Nearly fifty million people in the United States are living without health insurance, hoping that a serious, and costly, illness does not befall them. In response to this crisis, many of the current Democratic presidential candidates have advocated, or come out with, plans for national universal healthcare. On the other hand, many of the Republican presidential candidates have rejected ideas for national universal healthcare, despite the fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without it. Thankfully, however, as federal candidates and officials bicker, many states, including New York, are taking action.

On December 4, Gov. Spitzer announced that New York State will be contracting with the Urban Institute in an effort to create a competent universal healthcare system that is specifically designed for our state. I think that this is a good idea, since this is a serious problem that needs addressing. I also think that having states handle the issue instead of the federal governmnet is probably the preferred course of action, for three reasons:

First, in a country as big as the United States, it is not entirely out of the question that the healthcare needs of New Yorkers differ from the healthcare needs of Georgians or Californians. Different states have different problems, and they often cannot be remedied by broad federal legislation, but rather through case-by-case attention.

Second, I am not convinced that a federal law requiring all U.S. citizens to acquire health insurance (such as Sen. Hillary Clinton's plan) is the answer. We live in a "free" society, and we should not be penalizing people for choosing not to participate. Sen. Clinton mentioned an idea where employers would be required to see verification of health insurance prior to hiring an employee, and that, to me, is totally unacceptable.

Third, I believe that fifty individually run universal healthcare systems would be easier to handle than one huge system, especially when you take into account my first point: that different states have distinct and different needs. Fifty may seem like a big number, but each would hopefully be uniquely suited to its population, and much more manageable than a huge federal bureaucracy.

On this issue I would have to defer to the states, but I'm one of the fortunate ones - I have health insurance.

The Gutter

If you want to experience the lowest of the low, I implore you to visit the Opinion page on PoughkeepsieJournal.com. At the bottom of each story, there is an application called StoryChat, where online readers can voice their opinions about posted content. PoughkeepsieJournal.com does not regulate, agree, or condone anything that is posted on these message boards, so what I'm about to say is not a reflection on them, so much as it is a reflection on a notable portion of those who do the actual posting. From here on out, PoughkeepsieJournal.com StoryChat will be referred to as "The Gutter."

I happened to stumble into The Gutter last night -- I lost my balance and fell in while I was reading up on the Letters to the Editor. I was shocked, as I found myself wading waist-deep in vile. The hatred overflowed. The anger was immense. The thought-process was diminished. Ann Coulter would be proud. You see, there are certain posters who choose to pass their time by putting down "liberals" and "liberalism" without any sound reasoning. They simply hate "liberals" because they are different, and they use name-calling, disrespect, and pointless, off-topic arguments to try to achieve their goal of spreading the hate. It is hardly worthy of America.

National debate is very important in this country, and people like this infect it with their prejudice. Many people have different ideas, and they're not strictly red or blue, conservative or liberal, or (most of the time) right or wrong. There are many people in this country who claim to love America, but who clearly cannot stand Americans. If you would like to encounter some of these people, simply visit The Gutter.

But you have been warned.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the Political Roller Coaster

Over the past ten years, Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s political star has been rising. Through his aggressive, yet sometimes controversial, actions as New York’s Attorney General, Mr. Spitzer gained immense popularity with New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers alike. In January of this year, he was elected to the office of New York State Governor with 69% of the vote. CNN.com reports that in mid-January, as much as 75% of New York’s viewed Gov. Spitzer favorably. It certainly seemed to many that he was climbing a political roller coaster that had no drop in its tracks. Then he started governing. And that’s when the bottom fell out.

Not long after being sworn into office, Gov. Spitzer’s administration was caught up in scandal involving the surveillance of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. Then followed (as I’m sure we’re all aware) the controversial policy of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Could this roller coaster drop be bottomless?

I am not here to argue for or against Gov. Spitzer’s positions – that can be for another entry. What I would like to comment on is his tactics. The point that I would like to make is: you cannot govern in a democracy by issuing decrees, and you can’t strong-arm the population into compliance. I have absolutely no problem with Gov. Spitzer lobbying for support to legislate any position he has. But you cannot begin ordering the citizens of New York around with a “because I told you so” attitude. We are not your peasants, nor are we your servants, nor are we your children. I am glad that we have cleared that up. As for now, I am a New Yorker, and I am listening. Do not tell me what to do; try to convince me that I should do it.