Why We Didn’t See Trump Coming

Why We Didn’t See Trump Coming

Opinion

Prepared by PoliticalGuard Staff

The possible analysis of the rise of soon-to-be Republican nominee for the United States’ presidency Donald J. Trump could take volumes explain. What might take equally as much time is how no one could see it coming. Political pundits pride themselves on making accurate predictions and many get their predictions generally right. However most people saw Mr. Trump as a vanity candidate that would either find little support and/or get bored and drop out of the race. Now he is the presumptive Republican nominee. Experts, pundits, and many others ask themselves “how did we not see this coming?” We did not see it coming because of hidden racism, ignorance, and an opportunistic media. 
Before one can talk about reasons for the lack of future sight when considering Mr. Trump’s inexplicable rise to power. We have to talk about what fuels his campaign. The Donald Trump campaign is fueled, at least in part, by racism. Whether you like it or not. Yes you want to vote Republican. You believe in Republican values and you hate Hillary. I get it. But if you are voting for Mr. Trump, you are supporting his campaign which has been based on racism and prejudice (and also misogyny, but that’s for another time). Cornerstones of the Trump campaign are the “Wall” and being tough on Muslims. The wall keeps the drug-dealing rapist Mexicans out of the United States. Being tough on Muslims includes Mr. Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the country even if they are U.S. citizens. The Trump campaign has also shown, in more subtle ways, its disdain for other groups, such as black people. Black people, both protesters and non-protesters, have been kicked out of Trump rallies. Those in the non-protesters group were expelled for seemingly no reason. All of these measures are based on treating people based on erroneous assumptions of people’s skin color  and/or religion and the erroneous assumptions that come with it.

Assumptions of a Post-Racial Society

Many news-literate or at least halfway educated person knows that racism is systemic in the United States. It creeps its way into the thinking of Americans. Its taint strongly lingers in our schools, courts, and laws. Despite this fact many Americans believe that we, as a collective, are just more civilized than in previous decades. American society is too civilized to subscribe to such archaic thinking as racism. Even those of us that know that racism exists in the United States, somewhere deep down think that it does not. Either due to denial or optimist. This belief of post-racial society is not completely unwarned. Mostly racist events are localized, downplayed in the media, and are fleeting for most people. Americans do not live in a post-racial society, we just live in a racist-shadow society. Racism just tries to hide. At least before Mr. Trump began running for president. (There is the exception to be made, of course, for rampant racism on the internet. But one must remember is it not all from the U.S., some of it comes from trolls, and you would not find many news stories on it).

How Could Racism Hide?

Racism can certainly hide. I personally learned this yesterday. I have two examples of well hidden racism. Two examples does not amount to much in terms of general patterns, but at least it proves the overall concept. Racism can hide. Take for example of friend of mine’s mother. One of the nicest women you’ll ever meet. Inviting and generous. Except that she thinks that every Muslim is a terrorist, and laments the communist Democrats that ‘protect them.’ These otherwise pleasant lady becomes incredibly unpleasant when you mention Muslims (or Democrats). She claims that if you are not voting for Trump, you should not vote at all.  Another example, a coworker of mine. He is helpful, nice, agreeable, and has an okay sense of humor. Today he mentioned how he respects another coworker, who is an immigrant, but he wishes that everyone would stay in their own country. He questioned why people moved from country to country, though it suspicious. Then he mentioned how Mr. Trump is going to build a wall and that he was disgusted at seeing women dressed in hijab in his neighborhood.

What I am trying to illustrate with the above is that racism hides, in otherwise kind-hearted people. People that you might never expect to hold in their hearts such disgusts, disrespect, and hatred for groups of people they just do not understand. I would venture to guess that there are dozens of people that are like this and support Mr. Trump.

Underestimating Mr. Trump’s Ability to Draw a Crowd

Before this election cycle the American populace was largely condemned, by other countries and the media, for being ill informed. While not totally meritless, emerging research was showing that among registered voters were not as ill informed as once previously thought. This fact likely lead some predictors to believe that the current electorate would never vote for a man like Mr. Trump. However, Mr. Trump's platform and antics attracted a great deal of a new people into the process as voters, volunteers, and donors. I do not have the information to show that these people are intellectually unmotivated or lacking the physical resources or mental skills to inform themselves. However, I would predict that they enjoy the lower end of the spectrum.

Blinders on the New Republican Electorate

The new Republican electorate has both newer wild card members and regulars. Seemingly the majority of these group support Mr. Trump. However, now that Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich have dropped out of the race, it is unclear how many individuals are voting for Mr. Trump because he is there only choice. No one would argue that Mr. Trump does not have wide support.

However, it is unfortunately clear that these individuals, that support Mr. Trump,  have not informed themselves. The Republican front-runner is called “authentic” but has pandered heavily to the electorates baser beliefs. Mr. Trump calls out “Lying Ted” and people say that he “tells it like it is.”  But he has frequently lies about his own business ventures, holding a press conference in which every Trump product he touted had been discontinued or owned by unaffiliated another company. Ask him about the pyramid scheme that he pawned off that was a complete failure. Mr. Trump claims that he is “so good at business. You all are going to be so rich.” Which is utter nonsense. Not everyone is going to be rich. Especially if they believe a statement like that.  Afterwards, Mr. Trump was fine, but not all the people he roped into it were.

People say that he is “not controlled by big money or the Republican establishment.” This idea might be true. But Mr. Trump is not ‘one of us.’ Despite his flaws, he is a wealthy man. His uncut demeanor does not separate him from the fact that he enjoys the upper crust of society. I’m not saying that some can not be rich and represent the people. But do not be mistaken about his background or temperament. He is a spoiled brat that likely saw a bid for presidency as a way to stroke his ego, then kept the gravy train of self-aggrandizing going when he realized people were more than happy to oblige.

Mr. Trump has even managed to attract people that he clearly does not serve the interests. For instance, black women. Mr. Trump and the bulk of his supporters show that they have a disdain for dark-skinned individuals. Through words and actions. Some of these actions include kidding black people out of Trump rallies. Furthermore, Mr. Donald Trump has shown a total lack of respect for women. This disrespect goes to his wife, ex-wives, daughter, reporters, television personalities, and others. Despite all of the above you can still find black men and women supporting Mr. Trump. Not a majority, but enough. Clearly these voters either hate themselves are incredibly uninformed.

Underestimated the Opportunistic Media

Mr. Trump has enjoyed a vast amount of media coverage. Everytime he says anything crazy (which is often) the media is all over it. This amount of media attention pushed his message to a larger audience and as a consequence touched more people. The media did Mr. Trump's campaigning for him. Predictors likely saw political celebrity as distinctly separate from entertainment celebrity. However, media outlets will use anything to increase their ratings. Mr. Trump is good at entertaining people. The media noticing this took full advantage of it by maintaining a robust coverage of Donald Trump. There was underestimation of the media’s willingness to use the Republican front-runner to boost ratings.

Conclusion

To summarize, predictors did not see Donald Trump’s rise to the Republican nomination because of a collective belief of a post-racial society, the ignorance of the new and old Republican electorate, and the belief of a less opportunistic media. Predictors saw a post-racial society because many people hide their racism, sometimes in the form of a nice, normal person. Predictors thought that the electorate was getting smarter, but discounted the fact that more less sophisticated individuals would join the voting pool. Predictors were use to the media ignoring vanity candidates or individuals that seemed hopeless. However, they did not anticipate Mr. Trump’s ability to entertain a crowd and the media’s willingness to provide them that entertainment.  

How Superdelegates are Killing Democratic Nomination Legitimacy

By Political Guard Staff
How Superdelegates are Killing Democratic Nomination Legitimacy

Introduction: Presidential Primaries

Before the United States presidential election each political party nominates a candidate. The two major parties in the United States nominate their candidates for the presidency at large national conventions. These conventions have individuals called delegates that vote for the nominate. Each party has a specific minimum number of delegate votes that will award the nomination to a candidate outright.

Superdelegates

The Democratic and Republican parties both have superdelegates. For the sake of this article, only Democratic superdelegates and primaries will be discussed. Even though rules for both are similar across parties.

In each state primary candidates are awarded delegates based on the percentage of the popular vote they received in that state. These delegates are pledged delegates. Those delegates are committed to voting for the candidate they are assigned when the nomination voting begins in the Democratic National Convention.

However, a superdelegate us not bound to one particular candidate although they can state their support for a particular candidate. However, regardless of a superdelegates' personal or projected support they can change allegiances at anytime. This change could happen even at the convention. To put it simply, superdelegates can vote for whoever they wish at the Democratic National Convention. The previous fact is the idea to focus on here. These are powerful individuals not bound by the vote or will of the people.


Who are the Superdelegates?

Democratic superdelegates are party insiders which include former or current Democratic politicians including presidents, senators, representatives, and Democratic party leaders.

Killing Democratic Party Legitimacy

What is a legitimate election? An election that is decided by those that vote in that election. What makes an election illegitimate? The false appearance of voter relevancy and/or powerful individuals attempting to have a disportionate amount of control over an election. In terms of campaign finance the second point is already a major issue for American elections.

However, superdelegates contribute to this lack of legitimacy in the Democratic party. Ask the Bernie Sanders campaign. Since the beginning of primary season the Sanders' presidential campaign has been trailing behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Secretary Clinton, her staff, and he supports deserve a great deal of credit for the campaign they have run and the amount of support they have mustered. In terms of dollars and votes.

That being said there is something to be said about the influence of superdelegates. When you look at the numbers of just pledged delegates Senator Sanders is behind Secretary Clinton. But not by that much. However when you look at all delegates-including superdelegates-Senator Sanders is a great deal behind Secretary Clinton. This fact has been true pretty much throughout the race.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the DNC, has insisted that the party’s nomination will not be decided by superdelegates. What she means is that by the end of the race, the nominee will have won because they had enough pledged delegates, making superdelegates irrelevant.

However, this superdelegate irrelevancy should not be believed entirely. Even if` what Representative Schultz claims is true. Think about it. Secretary Clinton’s delegate supremacy hinges greatly on the amount of superdelegates she has accumulated. The current delegate count-as of 4/22/2016-has the pledged delegate deficit between Sanders and Clinton at around 275 delegates. Sizable, but manageable. However in terms of totals the delegate deficit jumps to 739 delegates. Now it looks like Sanders has no chance of beating Clinton.

What does this all mean? It means that when people look up the delegate count they see Sanders trailing significantly behind. They see a person that cannot win. This weak appearance costs him support in terms of volunteers, donors, and votes. Therefore in the end, Sanders might not lose the nomination by the vote of a superdelegate but he would likely lose the nomination by the vote of a pledged delegate that could've been his otherwise.

Questions, comments, concerns, and corrections can be sent to politicalguard@gmail.com

We encourage you to send your feedback. Negative or positive. All responses will be read, but not all responses will receive a reply.

Trump Comment that Could Not be Ignored

Donald Trump recently state publicly state that Americans make too much money. Specifically American wages are too high. Yes. Someone has dared to argue that hard-working Americans get paid too much, despite the fact that their net purchasing power has remained stagnant or even decrease over the years. Mr. Trump apparently wants to be the only one on the wrong side of the income gap question. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, Mr. Trump thinks because should be making less in wages.
 

In terms of policy it's just bad. Mr. Trump claims that he reasoning for this is that our economy is “noncompetitive.” I tremble to think his idea of a “competitive” environment is one where people get paid dirt nothing for their work. People deserve an honest, living wage. End of story. Besides true threats to competition in the United States are not high wages but companies that are too big and too powerful. Furthermore, competition for talent is based on having higher wages and benefits.

In terms of politics. This was an incredibly dumb move. Most Americans work for wages. Most voters work for wages. The general consensus is that the economy sucks and people do not make enough. Why the heck would he dare come after the meager livelihood that many people carved out for themselves? Even people that make enough money do not feel like they make enough money. Saying that Americans get paid too much in wages is a great way to alienate low-income and mid-income voters.

Overall, a very poor move by Mr. Trump. In terms of policy it is something that should of never been seriously considered. In terms of politics these were things that should of never been said. It may be wish for Mr. Trump to respect people's time. He recognize that regardless of competition, power, or the corporate button line it is important to consider people. We should do right by each other. That means respecting each others time enough to pay a decent premium for it. Especially if at the end of the day your much better off than they are.

Ben Carson and Abortion

 

 

Republican presidential nomination candidate Ben Carson recently made a public proclamation that abortion should be banned in all circumstances. I think it is important that he voices his opinion on the matter because, as a presidential candidate, this issue will be brought up again and again.

However there is something that is important to keep in mind. Just because Ben Carson was a doctor and neurosurgeon that, by itself, does not make him qualified to speak about abortions authoritatively. Carson may have the expertise to explain how a abortion may be safely performed. He may be able to describe the steps of the procedure and any dangers that may be present.

He not authoritatively qualified to talk about the philosophy of abortion or its level of moral uprightness. Abortion as an issue is complex issue and everyone deserves their opinion on the matter. There is danger however in assuming that since Carson was a doctor that he can arbitrate on the issue.

Abortion is a complex issue encompassing medicine, theology, ethics, and philosophy. Any policy decision on this issue must be made with all these elements concerned. Given its complexity it is not a policy issue that can be solved with the input of one person. No one person can be considered an authority on it.

Why it a Important for Bernie to Differentiate Himself from Clinton

In United States presidential primary elections you'll find a great deal of agreeing. This agreement happens between candidates fighting for the same party nomination. To gain party favor from both professional party members and voters the candidate has to have a platform that is in step with the parties platform. This means that in a general sense every candidate of a certain party will have the same platform.

However, thoughtful voters need a way to determine which candidate is better suited for the job. This means campaigns often lead to candidates disagreeing about how much they agree. They have arguments about how much more “Democratic” or “Republican” they are than the other candidates. This is not to say that they do not have more meaningful discussions about experience, leadership ability, and policy. But when you are in a primary it is often hard to show voters how the candidates are substantially different. This is because the candidates overall agree with each other. This gives a significant advantage to candidates who have more name recognition or those who have been on the campaign trail for longer.

When one looks the Democratic nomination candidates there a too clean front runners. Those candidates are Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. With Clinton in the lead. Her last name has a great deal of name recognition. With her husband being a previous president and her status as former Secretary of State for President Obama. Mrs. Clinton has also been able to garner a great deal of support, including from the media.

This means if Bernie Sanders wants to beat Hillary for the nomination he will have to show voters how he is different than her. He will have to show that it is worth the risk to put their support behind him despite Hillary's clear power advantage. Sanders can do this without focusing on Hillary's public relations setbacks. These setbacks include her email scandal and Benghazi, but both have not hurt her that much. Emphasis on a consistently Democratic track record and emphasis how their platforms differ will help him immensely. He will have to make it widely know that he supported gay marriage, opposition to the Keystone pipeline, and other Democratic ideals earlier and more consistently than Hillary.

Differentiating Sanders and Hillary will be important for Sander's campaign if he wants to capture voters who are not too heavily into either camp as well as individuals who have lost faith in politics. Hillary's campaign also gives off the appearance of the a same-old-same-old Democratic campaign. Sanders can use this to his advantage especially since his campaign has the appearance of new ideas.

Reincarnation

Several life events crashed on my doorstep all at the same time making me unable to post on this blog. Although not everything as been resolved in my life I have renewed faith and interest in continuing the PoliticalGuard blog and brand after a few old emails I fought in the email associated with this blog. I realize that not many people frequent this blog and not many did even when I was posting somewhat regularly. For those that have I am incredibly grateful. I appreciate your interest and support and I will begin posting regularly in the coming weeks.

Thank you.

Related to Recent News about Attacks on Journalists by Rebel Groups.

Journalists, with scruples, have a very important place in the world. Given this, no nation or rebel groups should imprison or kill them. There is a subjective nature of what journalism is important and the nature of scruples.

Given this, all journalists, as long as they meet a minimal definition should be protected and their actions should be responsibly facilitated. This especially applies to journalists who are covering stories in foreign lands.

Heinous acts against them, like all people, can not be justified. No matter how you spin it. Don't target the weak and non-combatants.

Thoughts on the Rick Perry Case

This post is based on what I can gather from the news. Rick Perry has been indicted for abusing his power and threating a public servant by threating to use his veto power and actually vetoing the bill that he threaten to.

I never liked Rick Perry, as a person or a politician. However, the veto threat is a valid, long-held, important, and reasonable power of any executive body in the United States. It is essential power of the executive. It is an important tool to keep powers separate. If that is his only crime then the charges should be dropped.

Stand Your Ground

This blog post is about the tragic lose of Jordan Davis and his parents' campaign against the Florida “stand-your-ground” law.

Unfortunately, I cannot call support for the Davis' family campaign. I believe that their efforts would probably be best towards getting justice for their son, they should be preparing and be involved in the re-trial of Michael Dunn. They are wasting effort and time attacking a law that gives people a basic human right, the right to defend their right in a proper manner.

I do not all the facts of the case or know what happen that day. From the news it would seem Michael Dunn and Jordan Davis got in an argument, presumably over music, and Dunn opened fire on the car. The news article I have read leave a lot of necessary detail out, for example how Davis was acting in threatening manner, were their witnesses to his behavior, what was the behavior of the other people involved, was Dunn legally carrying a weapon, etc...

The new is actually very unhelpful in several ways. First they continue to compare the Zimmerman trial to this one and making mentions to the “stand your ground” law, however Zimmerman did not use that law as defense in his trial and we know that Dunn used a self-defense claim but we do not know if him or his lawyers cited the “stand your ground” defense. Further more, the “stand your ground” law commonly being cited as unreasonable because it has provision that someone can use deadly force when presented with something they reasonably believe to be a threat. However, that, by itself, is the definition of self-defense. The “stand your ground” law stipulates that in the event someone feels they need to defend themselves, they have no duty to retreat first. [Click Here for My Thoughts on Retreating ]

Mr. Dunn was convicted of three attempted murder charges but not convicted of the murder of Jordan Davis. Presumably because of the “stand your ground” law. I find this confusing because if he was guilty of attempted murder than the jury believed he acted unreasonably and therefore should of convicted him on the murder charge. He either acted reasonably given his situation or he did not.

Sources:

http://news.msn.com/us/parents-of-dead-teen-vow-to-fight-floridas-self-defense-law
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/justice/florida-loud-music-case/index.html
http://fcir.org/2014/02/21/dunn-case-puts-stand-your-ground-on-trial-again-zimmerman-gun-murder-florida/

My Thoughts On Karma

(Notes: This is an attempt at a comprehensive talk on karma, however is not intended to be an end all be all explanation/critique of karma; I realize there will be more to discuss).

Karma is a philosophical concept that stipulates that if an individual acts good than they will receive good in kind. Conversely if someone acts in a bad manner they will receive bad.

Simply put and perhaps the best way to put it: “What goes around, comes around.”

I won't start with trying to define what is “good” or what is “bad.” That will take much longer and is not really within the scope of my up-coming argument. For my purposes, “good” is just what you would generally define as “good” and “bad” is the same.

What I will start with it something that I find is frustrating but important. When every you want to make the argument that something causes something else, you always have to think of other possible causes.

If you believe if, X₁ → Y than you'd have to show that other reasonable values of X are not responsible for Y.

If you believe in Karma, than your good actions (X₁) causes good things to happen to you (Y). However, you have to look at other possibilities, what else could cause Y? Lets looked at this specifically. Your good actions, helping an old lady across the street for example, caused the cashier at the grocery store to be really pleasant to you. However, what if the cashier was just pleasant to you (Y) because he/she was having a good day (X2).

If this is true than X₂ → Y, and X₁ did not cause Y.

You can get around this, of course, by saying that X₁ and X₂ cause Y. But that raises many more questions. Which is more important X1 or X2? Are both necessary? In the first case, you would have to change you definition of karma. In the second case, it decreases the relevance of karma: Random happenings + Your actions are necessary for an outcome.

If your willing to change the definition of karma that good/bad actions increase the possibility (but does not cause) of good/bad rewards than it is hard to argue against it.

To argue against it one would need a more philosophical and anecdotal argument than a pseudo-scientific approach. (You could theoretically try to measure the possible effects of karma in a scientific experiment but the methodology would be difficult to workout, and it would be difficult or impossible to find a natural mechanism for it).

The inherit problem with karma is that, somewhat mentioned above, is that you cannot find a natural mechanism for it. What could possibly cause good/bad rewards because of good/bad actions? What particle or force can be reasonable for it? How does it judge what actions are good or bad? There would have to be universal “goods” and “bads” and they would have to applicable to every possible situation.

Furthermore, there is defiantly plenty of anecdotal evidence for karma but there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence against it. There are plenty of people who “got what they deserved” but there are also plenty of examples of people who didn't get punished at all, or who got less than what they deserved.

Overall, I personally do not believe in karma. Too much uncertainty, too many other possible factors. This does not mean however, I have less respect for those who believe in karma.

Special Thanks to melodykia who discussed the topic with me and helped me better understand the pro-karma standpoint.

Her blog can be found here:

http://melodrama731.blogspot.com/

Why I Agree With the Warning Given to Kim Jong-un

                   U.N. Warns Kim Jong-un he may have be charged with crimes against humanity

Although there is some creditability to the idea that such a warning might have no teeth: It is unlikely
Mr. Jong-un will willingly submit to any summons by the U.N.; then comes the daunting task as to who will go get him and if anyone should/will in the first place. There is also talk that the only end this warning has will to further hurt nuclear program talks.

Despite the above, I agree with the decision to issue such a warning. In my opinion, it all has to do with accountability. In countries like North Korea, their officials have no accountability (at least none to their people, which is arguable the only important kind of accountability, with regards to a public official).

By issuing a warning, be it lacking, be it weak, you show that leaders with no accountability are still accountable. It shows that the world is watching and it at least puts some fear in those leaders hearts that something might be done about them.

Thank you for reading. Discussion is encouraged.

Source:
http://news.msn.com/world/north-koreas-kim-warned-he-may-face-charges-over-atrocities

Just a Picture

       Doesn't the guy on the left (King Abdullah of Jordan) look really uncomfortable?...and short.

One of the Scariest Moments In My Life

So recently I was on a plane for the very first time to visit family. It was a bus ride to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a plane ride to a small unassuming airport and finally a short car ride to my mother's house.

When I got to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport I was nervous. I've never been on a plane before, I've always took a bus or a train. I am partial to long train rides but the tickets for this particular plane were slightly cheaper and the travel time was cut, lets say significantly. I couldn't let that opportunity pass.

That being said I wasn't just nervous about the plane ride, I was always nervous about the TSA regulations. I had not quite made myself as familiar as I should. Luckily I was accompanied by a pleasant individual who was very familiar with the layout and procedures of that particular airport (which is very large by the way and, despite that it did not take long at all to get through security).

My lack of knowledge and experience that wrecked my mind before getting on the plane all left me when I landed in my destination, and was not one of the scariest moments in my life.

The scariest moment in my life came going through security of that small unassuming airport I mentioned earlier. My companion and I were going through security when all the sudden a TSA pulls my bag off the conveyer belt, looks at me and asks “Is this your bag?” I looked terrified, any confidence I gained from my experience at Detroit Metro died. “Yes that's is mine.”

(Note: I always travel light, so I only had a carry on and backpack)

She pulls my bag and me off to the side and informs me that it set off the machine and that she was going to have to manually inspect it. I'm scared but assure myself I've done nothing wrong and what was in that bag went through Detroit Metro, with the exception of a pair of slippers my mother bought me, and everything was okay. So she looks through the bag and fines nothing, but she still has to run it through the machine again. She runs it through, and it goes off again.

She asks me if there is anything metal in a specific region of my suitcase, I say no. Because there is none, as far as I know. She begins to look through the bag again, very carefully and respectfully. At this point I just wanna get on the plane home so I tell her, “you can rip it apart if you want.” (Not literally rip my bag apart but you know, look more aggressively). She does and then she realizes something. She takes most of my clothes out of my bag and unzips a little compartment in the back of my bag. You know what she finds?..... A small, winter-camo folding knife I lost 6 months ago. I'm stunned.

“Ya, you can't bring this on the plane.” She says.

What flies through my mind:

Oh my god, I'm going to jail,

I didn't even know that was in there,

Oh crap, it looks like I tried to hide it.

Calmly she explained the protocol to me and that it was fine it, happens more then you think. She explains that I can't bring it on the plane and I have to do one of three things. Have the bag checked, take the knife and put in my car, or surrender it. I surrendered it, luckily without soiling myself.

The Real Function(s) of Government

There are many, competing views on what government is suppose to do. From the minimum of contract enforcement and private property protection to social welfare and heavy regulation. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, etc... Everyone has some idea as to what they believe a government should do.

In my opinion, most of those views are unnecessarily complicated. Government is not suppose to protect property, it is not suppose to provide social welfare. But it can to both of those things. In my opinion there is inherit job for government. There is no supreme authority that specifically defines the functions of government (that I am aware of anyway). There is no specific function of government.

Government has a very specific function that solely relates to why people came together to form that government in the first place. This of course does not apply to governments formed by a small group or a single individual claiming to have legitimacy where none ever existed (ex. Absolute monarchs claiming to have divine rights). A government like that is not really a government at all, just a farce. (Though technically that government could gain legitimacy if that the lack of legitimacy is not challenged).

The kind of government I want to talk about it one with true legitimacy however, one that is of the people, but the people (at least at in its' inception). A government were individual came together because they knew that they had common interests and they wanted to go about achieving those common interests. This concept lies the true function of government. Problem Solving. Groups of people come together to reach common goals and then trying to reach those goals, whatever they may be.

Thoughts Provoked by a News Article

I recently read an article on MSN News about the legal troubles of a woman who is called “Jihad Jane” (Colleen LaRose). The article describes her failed terrorist attack and how, after, she cooperated with the authorities. A link is posted below if you want more specifics on that. What I want to focus on in the post is the part of the article that describes how her history of abuse may have lead her to the path of jihad. I do not have any other specific articles or studies to corroborate what the author of that article seemed to allude to, but it is fair to find that a traumatic life, with unresolved pain, can leave one more malleable. (In the “Jihad Jane” story it is obvious that past trauma is unresolved because she described herself as lost at the same time she followed the orders of her “brothers” that she “loved”).

The real thing I would like to focus on is this question: How can you believe you cause is just, if you attract or purposely recruit broken individuals? Broken individuals will do anything to be loved. Your cause or argument holds no real sway, has no real relevance if the person would listen to almost anything you say if you worded it the right way. You can not call you cause just if most of the people who believe it are broken.

Okay. To clarify, so this argument does not necessarily negate the possibility that ones cause is just even if followed by the broken, however, if the cause is only followed by the broken then there is no proof that it is just.

Your argument holds no real value if it can't be applied to people who are thinking rationally. An arguments real relevance can only be seen if it is accepted by those who are ration. Winning over one rational thinker does not make one's argument valid or just. Though, winning over many rational thinkers does not make one's argument valid of just either.

The concept, I am struggling to get at here is that an argument should carter to rational human beings. An argument that carters to rational human beings can be just and valid (though not necessarily so). An argument that carters to irrational human beings (arguments that either attract or hunt for irrational human beings) can not be considered valid.

I guess overall, rational arguments are the only ones that can be valid or just.

References:

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/jihad-jane-despite-cooperation-us-seeks-decades-in-prison

Revisited Comments on the NSA

In my previous posts I, at least slightly, alluded to the fact that I could accept NSA snooping because I was confident that it would not affect those who did not need to fear it and I believe in the fact that governments need to keep a least some secrecy to protect against possible foreign and even domestic enemies.

I still believe that governments should be allowed to keep secrets for their own safety (secrets that pertain specifically to national security from domestic or international threats). Furthermore, when it comes to Edward Snowden, I commend him for believing he was doing the right thing. There needs to be more people who are willing to risk everything to do good. However I can not defend, specifically, what he did. When he took the job that he did he gave his word that he would abide by certain rules, rules that are tenuous, but legal (at least for now).

Also, if he was against the nature of the work and was aware of it he should of never taken the job. If you were put in charge of money that your knew or even found out later went to a group with views/operations that you disagree with, you are not justified in taking that money or giving that money to others. This is the same with knowledge. Granted the scenarios are different, I believe the principal is still important.

Furthermore, if he thought something inappropriate was happening he should of brought to the attention of government officials not the public.

When it comes to the NSA, the current situation can not stand. The purpose of the operation was to snoop out threats. It is clear that some NSA employees, higher-ups, and over-seers are not up to the task. The reports I have heard about the NSA abusing their power to, more or less, stalk/black mail members of Congress, old girlfriends, or potential girlfriends is indescribably, unacceptable.

Better screen processes for hiring employees, the quick firing of any employee found to abuse their power, and termination for higher-ups and over-seers who do nothing about the abuse of power. If the only way for the situation to heal is limiting the scope of the NSA information collection, then so be it, but that does not mean that those who have abused the system can stay in the positions that they are in.

The NSA information can be a powerful tool for the country to keep it self safe, but there must be rules and boundaries. It is a dangerous territory that the NSA plays in; both when it comes to the physical and when it comes to values. Given with such a task only the best-of-the-best can/should be apart of it. Not just the best with technical skills but also the best in ethics. These people need to realize their purpose and their power with their boundaries.


Thank you for reading. Comments/suggestions are always welcome and encouraged.


Sincerely,

PoliticalGuard

A Shameful Display

The Black Friday shopping spree was marked, yet again, by ignorant, self-centered idiots. Shoplifters were shot, thieves ran rampant, a store was evacuated, and one woman had the nerve to spit on another woman's child...over baby clothes?

There are so many things wrong with this scenario that it is making my head hurt.

Why try to steal from people/store with all those witnesses? Yes the employees are distracted but there is (presumably) heighten security because of that (at least in a mall setting). But lets say there is no increase in security, why take the chance that the three hundred people in the store won't say anything? Why is Black Friday your preferred day to shoplift and rob people on their way home or to their cars? What is wrong with the other days of the year? People buy TV's every day. Better yet, why can't you just not steal and work for what you want, so you can deserve it?

How did American society get to the point were people think it is okay to call in bomb threats? Or (which is truly pathetic) spit on a child, because of a disagreement about clothes...clothes? You traumatized that kid for absolutely no good reason. Grow up people.

It's just a sale, if you didn't get what you wanted big deal. Again, become an adult. Just wait a few days and it will be back on the shelves again. Maybe not as cheap, but deal with it. You've still got plenty of days till Christmas.

If you're making a big deal about clothes or a TV then you've forgotten about the meaning of Christmas (and the forsaken Thanksgiving) allegedly has.

It hurts my head thinking about how people can be belligerent and thoughtless over material things that don't even matter.


References:

11/29/2013

http://news.msn.com/us/fights-store-evacuation-mar-black-friday-shopping

Recommendation to the Mexican Government

In some regions of Mexico, the public safety situation is so bad that citizen groups have joined together and armed themselves. This groups are attempting to physically keep the several gangs that extort their towns out.

Under Mexican law the actions they are taking to protect themselves are illegal. So far, it would appear that Mexican law enforcement and the military have largely ignored them. Not surprising. If they did not have the will or manpower to stop the gangs then they wouldn't stop the citizen groups.

In my opinion, if the Mexican government ever gets the means/will to bring law back to these lawless lands then they should do a few things:

1. Create a commission for every town or region that is being rehabilitated to oversee the transition and review the actions taken by the citizen groups.
   
2. Help the citizen groups transition back into their normal lives.
   
3. Grant amnesty to all citizen groups members (assuming they haven't committed any crime that was wasn't necessary to protect their families and property).
   

The reason being is that every living thing has the right to protect themselves and their families and if the police force in any country is non-existent or so dysfunctional then citizens should be allowed to become their own police force till property order can be restored.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If anyone has an information/articles related to this topic then please comment in the comment section below. Comments (of any kind) are welcome. Also, if you are feeling brave, subscribe.

References:

http://news.msn.com/world/mexicans-form-self-defense-groups-to-fight-lawlessness

Transition

I'm currently moving my blog posts from a previous blog site, so if some things look out of date/weird that is why.

Also the blog did have pictures initially but no longer.

Thank you.

But aren’t we friends?

 

Posted on November 19, 2013        

The developing story about the National Security Agency’s surveillance, specifically of the United States allies, seems to fly in the face of any constructivist thought that there is no security tension between the United States and the Western European world. The idea that increased interdependence through trade, involvement in IGO’s, and general agreement for global economic policies lead to a never-before-seen level of trust between these countries. One would expect that the United States would focus just on Middle East countries (where the terrorist threat is much greater) or China (which is increasing in military strength and sports the second-greatest military budget).

It is weird to think that some focus was placed on those countries who are suppose to be United States allies.

Other reports indicate, however, that did not only the United States spy on Europe but so did Europe spy on the United States.

Why would either side spy on each other though?

Fear of domestic terrorists attack the allies of their home countries? This would seem more likely in Europe but then why would the NSA be compelled to tape the German chancellors cell phone? Did the United States think the leader of Germany would directly exchange words with terrorists?

Perhaps either side was worried about the development of economic policy that could effect either side in a negative why? I see that as a possibility but can’t help think that is not the case because that type of information (very unlike military/intelligence information) is much more readily available.
In theory, the scope would have to include, not only European leaders, but also European financial institutions and business leaders (as far as I know it does not; I’m not sure).

In the end there is no clean understanding as to the scope of the surveillance or its’ purpose. Which is not surprising given that all the relevant parties take credit for some things, deny some things, and all the reports have not been made available.

To conclude, there is some wiggle room to be given, to both the United States government and the European government, when it comes to spying on each other. For two reasons.
First if they both do it, then there is hardly room to complain on either side. (At least when it comes to the government in aggregate).

Second, trust between people is easier because the damage that comes from a break in that trust is limited. Whereas when in comes to trust between governments, a break in the trust could affect millions of people. (i.e. A surprise military attack could cost thousands of live).

As always, feel free to comment, subscribe, fact-check, spell-check, call me stupid (but give a reason), give me cookie, etc…

Thank you for your time.

References:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-topol/friends-spying-on-friends_b_4212534.html
http://www.newser.com/story/176709/nsa-we-didnt-spy-on-europeans-europe-did.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57609833/nsa-chief-we-didnt-spy-on-european-citizens/
http://www.infoworld.com/t/hacking/uk-spy-agency-uses-nsa-attack-hack-slashdot-linkedin-users-230591
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-US-Doesn-t-Agree-to-a-quot-No-Spy-quot-Pact-with-Germany-399648.shtml