http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT7O2RjTNPA&feature=player_embedded#at=678
Representative Weiner being a boss as usual. God I hope he doesn't run again John Liu for NYC mayor in 2013... Both extremely qualified candidates...
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
On the Need for Political Awareness
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/04/01/few_americans_know_boehner.html
The first statistic, which states that only 43% of Americans know that John Boehner is the Speaker of the House, is not surprising, since it confirms that many Americans tend to not to keep up with politics in much detail.
The second statistic, which states that only 38% of Americans are aware that Republicans have a majority in the House, worries me immensely. In fact, it is so ludicrous that I first believed (and still believe to a lesser degree) that the survey must have been flawed. The overwhelming Republican majority in the House saturated the airwaves after the November elections, and I believe that even a 10-year old who accidentally ended up on ABC or Fox while trying to get to Nickelodeon should know this fact.
But if the data is true, it is disturbing for two reasons.
It means that a significant number of Republicans still believe that Democrats are in complete charge of the government. It means that Republican attempts to paint future government failures as Democratic even with their 241-193 majority in the House has been at least successful in part. It means that even after a Red Wave election, they can continue to blame inefficiency in government solely on the Democrats, when in fact they themselves have been its main cause in the last two years.
But it also highlights a problem with the Democrats. It means that many Democratic voters don't feel an appropriately strong need to show up to vote and care about the political proces. A big factor in the "shellacking" of last November was the fact that Republicans/Tea Partiers simply cared a hell of a lot more about voting than Democrats.
The same Democrats who blame Obama for slow progress, do not yet realize that by not caring enough, they themselves contribute greatly to the slow progress under the Obama administration by helping to fill Congress with politicians who were elected on the premise that they oppose Obama in nearly every one of his goals.
The first statistic, which states that only 43% of Americans know that John Boehner is the Speaker of the House, is not surprising, since it confirms that many Americans tend to not to keep up with politics in much detail.
The second statistic, which states that only 38% of Americans are aware that Republicans have a majority in the House, worries me immensely. In fact, it is so ludicrous that I first believed (and still believe to a lesser degree) that the survey must have been flawed. The overwhelming Republican majority in the House saturated the airwaves after the November elections, and I believe that even a 10-year old who accidentally ended up on ABC or Fox while trying to get to Nickelodeon should know this fact.
But if the data is true, it is disturbing for two reasons.
It means that a significant number of Republicans still believe that Democrats are in complete charge of the government. It means that Republican attempts to paint future government failures as Democratic even with their 241-193 majority in the House has been at least successful in part. It means that even after a Red Wave election, they can continue to blame inefficiency in government solely on the Democrats, when in fact they themselves have been its main cause in the last two years.
But it also highlights a problem with the Democrats. It means that many Democratic voters don't feel an appropriately strong need to show up to vote and care about the political proces. A big factor in the "shellacking" of last November was the fact that Republicans/Tea Partiers simply cared a hell of a lot more about voting than Democrats.
The same Democrats who blame Obama for slow progress, do not yet realize that by not caring enough, they themselves contribute greatly to the slow progress under the Obama administration by helping to fill Congress with politicians who were elected on the premise that they oppose Obama in nearly every one of his goals.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
On Unions
After weeks of turmoil, protests, and games of hide-and-seek, Republican governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin has just signed a bill which will take away the collective bargaining rights of government employee unions.
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
After weeks of turmoil, protests, and games of hide-and-seek, Republican governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin has just signed a bill which will take away the collective bargaining rights of government employee unions.
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
source used: http://www.economist.com/node/18229422?story_id=18229422&CFID=158777074&CFTOKEN=81420277
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
After weeks of turmoil, protests, and games of hide-and-seek, Republican governor Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin has just signed a bill which will take away the collective bargaining rights of government employee unions.
I can understand why many people have a less than positive opinion of unions. Unions make it harder to fire incompetent workers (the teacher's union is an excellent example). They also limit employers' abilities to adjust wages depending on their business' fiscal status. Unions also often insist on expansive healthcare packages. In the case of government employee unions, that money comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets.
Governor Walker (and many other governors across the United States, including New York's Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo) explains that he just wants unions to make some sacrifices just like everyone else. However, he is wrong in taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions.
Like the Economist says, "[i]f the public sector is to work more like the private sector, workers should have the same rights." Taking away union members' ability to collectively bargain weakens the power of the individual government employee to an absurd degree. In fact, the ability to bargain collectively, the strength in numbers, is one of the main reasons unions were created and have survived to this day. It is dangerous to expose government employees to such a degree.
However, this Republican act is not just a fiscal move, but an ideological move as well.
Right now, the only effective political body that represents the views of working class Americans is the union. I may not be particularly happy about all the economic effects of unions, but the truth is that they allow for millions of relatively powerless individuals to have a say in society. Unions are just as much about politics as they are about improving the workplace for Americans.
Unions have huge impacts on elections, especially in heavily populated cities. Once a politician gets a union to endorse him, he can expect virtually all the members of that union to vote for him. And because unions know that the more members they encourage to vote, the more politicians have to care about them, they will do their best to maximize their effects on elections. And because unions tend to vote for Democrats, they often have a huge influence in Democratic primaries and general elections.
I may not always be happy with the economic effects of unions, but unions undoubtedly give the weak a strong voice in government. They offer at least some political balance to a system filled with the rich who can influence government via corporation lobbyists or direct donations.
Republicans, who derive their support from this category of Americans, are also attacking the very idea of unions. It is wrong, and Democrats must mobilize in coming elections to show that such attacks will not go unanswered.
source used: http://www.economist.com/node/18229422?story_id=18229422&CFID=158777074&CFTOKEN=81420277
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
It begins.
Starting a blog has been pretty high up on my to-do list for second semester. It's been a couple of weeks since second semester started, but I've finally gotten around to it. No longer will my facebook friends' feeds be filled with my political rants and links! Actually I'll continue to do that, and post extended versions on this blog. I'll most likely be blogging weekly at first, to ease myself into consistency during second semester senior year.
One might assume from the title that this blog will only be about politics. That would be a perfectly reasonable prediction, but I kind of want to talk about soccer and other random stuff. I'll probably try it out and see if I'm okay with it.
One might assume from the title that this blog will only be about politics. That would be a perfectly reasonable prediction, but I kind of want to talk about soccer and other random stuff. I'll probably try it out and see if I'm okay with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)