Reference: this article
Summary of article: Republicans, some high ranking officials, have e-mail addresses with the Republican National Committee and the contents of those accounts have been deleted.
On this surface this isn't a big deal. Technically speaking, the RNC is a private organization. The members of our government are also private individuals.
The problem arises that is it possible to be a servant of the government at high levels and continue to have private communications that are completely separate from their private lives especially in regard to political party communications. Communications of public officials need to be saved and recorded and available for review in the case that they use private communications for official communications.
The deletion of these e-mails and e-mail accounts raises the possibility of unethical, illegal or problematic communications having occurred in this medium. As an official, they should have known that such activity would raise concerns - and once again on an international stage questions are raised about just how 'good' our government is.
So, the web site and Chinese news outlet Xinhua writes an article that really just has the implication that our government is infiltrated with corruption. Certainly, there isn't any question of the appearance of impropriety. The question is, was there illegal activity?
A question that might be extremely difficult to answer given the deletion of the e-mail accounts and e-mails.
But then again, as a member of the programming population of the world, I understand that few things are completely deleted.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Republicans, in general disbelieve evolution
This was a great blog entry. Although I have to say that the results do not really surprise me.
As the author indicates in a comment of his own - it is odd that most people agree with the science they need on a daily basis and accept it such as physics, computing and biology, but when it conflicts with their political or religious agenda, they find all the reason in the world to disbelieve it.
Many people have litmus tests for their vote. Well in no uncertain terms, I will never vote for a person so ignorant as to dispute evolution, unless that person both rejects medical care (the result of biological research) and physics such as the size of the universe, its age and the speed of light - and also does not use computers (which relies heavily on physical science, the speed of light and other physics principles.
Foolishness. We live in an era in which science is central to our existence. Being anti-science, in most ways that it is expressed - is being anti the future of humanity. It is being anti the present of humanity, because there are few people in the world that get by even a single day without using science, the products of science, or don't depend on sciences capabilities to provide the basics of life.
All in all, I'm not surprised about 68% of Republicans not believing in evolution. I'm surprised it wasn't a higher percentage.
As the author indicates in a comment of his own - it is odd that most people agree with the science they need on a daily basis and accept it such as physics, computing and biology, but when it conflicts with their political or religious agenda, they find all the reason in the world to disbelieve it.
Many people have litmus tests for their vote. Well in no uncertain terms, I will never vote for a person so ignorant as to dispute evolution, unless that person both rejects medical care (the result of biological research) and physics such as the size of the universe, its age and the speed of light - and also does not use computers (which relies heavily on physical science, the speed of light and other physics principles.
Foolishness. We live in an era in which science is central to our existence. Being anti-science, in most ways that it is expressed - is being anti the future of humanity. It is being anti the present of humanity, because there are few people in the world that get by even a single day without using science, the products of science, or don't depend on sciences capabilities to provide the basics of life.
All in all, I'm not surprised about 68% of Republicans not believing in evolution. I'm surprised it wasn't a higher percentage.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Politics of the Presidential Candidacy: Democrats
I'll start this blog entry with a brief disclaimer. I am technically not a democrat; although when I first registered as a voter ages ago I may have put down democrat. Really, I have no idea how they think when you register to vote at age 18 that you have any idea if you are going to be a Republican or a Democrat. Even if you do have a good idea, how do you know that is what you'll be for the rest of your life?
I tend to vote democrat for only one good reason. The Republicans are closely bound to religion and the Democrats are not. This isn't to say that this years presidential candidate run hasn't been filled with Democrats blabbing about how god changed their lives, does their dishes or otherwise is a great guy. No, what it simply means is that I, as an atheist, my wife as an agnostic (she's an atheist, but I think she avoids the term for the derogatory associations people apply to it) and my children are to be raised at the very least with an open mind about the topic and certainly explicitly told of the horrible things that religion is capable of doing as well as the things that are immoral and presented as god's doing in the bible - are not directly threatened with illegality by the Democratic party.
Republican presidents are littered with comments that appeal to the religious majority and in reality are very threatening to those of us that are not 'godly' or 'religious' - whatever those terms really mean.
I'd wrap up the disclaimer that I think that there have been two evangelical presidents that have server the USA: President Carter and the current President Bush. Of the two, I don't remember President Carter as being the worst possible president that the USA has possibly earned. The other point is that stem cell research has a direct impact on the future of my self and my children. I want to live as long as possible in as healthy a state as possible, and I hope for the same for my children and any grandchildren or onward that I might actually survive to see or live beyond my life. It is pretty clear that it isn't just Bush that is against stem cell research. There are limits to the power one man has, and I'm pretty sure Bush, in his present state cannot do anything on his own.
So, finally, to the subject.
It appears based on recent articles that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the front runners for the Democrats. If either of them win the candidacy I will vote for them. Why? After 200+ years aren't you tired of the actual and de facto racism that declares that only old, white, protestant, men are qualified to be president of the USA? We have one exception, where JFK was in fact moderately young and Catholic, but I have my doubts in the political atmosphere of the present that a Catholic could run and win at this point in time.
That is what the major problem is with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In essence the American voters cannot be legislated to do what we do in the arena of regular employment - to be equal opportunity electors.
In the end, you might consider ideas that there should be as many congressmen in the house and senate to match or closely match the percentage of the black people in the US. I'm not talking about quotas, I'm just talking that if people vote with the color of their skin even part of the time, then there should be more black people involved in politics.
The same condition is true for women. Women, in general, instead of capitalizing on the capacity to vote, appear to faithfully vote the way their husbands vote. So, instead of a congress of a relatively healthy mix of males and females, we have a congress that is dominated by men. There are a few women, of course, but a few women isn't close to a healthy representation of women by percentage of population.
Barack Obama fields even more difficult problems. He is perceived as too 'white' for black people to want to vote for and the conservative members of our society would probably never vote for someone who is even a little black.
I think it is important, just as a general measure that finally, we catch up to those British folks that we like to look down our noses. Margaret Thatcher is now a part of their history and lead their country for many years. Meanwhile, we the 'better' people than them - are decades behind them. E-mails flutter across the web about how horrible Hillary Clinton is - and the sexism in them is either ignored by the people nodding their heads or just acknowledged.
There are many liberal minded people out there, that I suspect want to have a government of the people, by the people, but there are also many conservative elements in our population that are controlled by that same ideal - just not those people - black or female, by the people means to them - the same old WASPs that have been running the show for two centuries. The same ones that allowed slavery and condoned the idea that women were second class citizens.
I wouldn't vote for just any woman as there are certainly self-hating women out there that paradoxically pursue political office in order to ensure that women in general don't have power but women in specific (meaning themselves) do have power.
The 2008 election will be a defining moment for the US if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are on the democratic ticket.
Hell, maybe if they can get elected, an atheist might have hope of being elected as president.
Not likely, though. Not likely at all. I might have great hopes for my children, but if they grow up like me, their mother, their grandfather or grandmother on my side of the family (both agnostics at best - although oddly very conservative folks) - they won't be electable as president of the USA.
I tend to vote democrat for only one good reason. The Republicans are closely bound to religion and the Democrats are not. This isn't to say that this years presidential candidate run hasn't been filled with Democrats blabbing about how god changed their lives, does their dishes or otherwise is a great guy. No, what it simply means is that I, as an atheist, my wife as an agnostic (she's an atheist, but I think she avoids the term for the derogatory associations people apply to it) and my children are to be raised at the very least with an open mind about the topic and certainly explicitly told of the horrible things that religion is capable of doing as well as the things that are immoral and presented as god's doing in the bible - are not directly threatened with illegality by the Democratic party.
Republican presidents are littered with comments that appeal to the religious majority and in reality are very threatening to those of us that are not 'godly' or 'religious' - whatever those terms really mean.
I'd wrap up the disclaimer that I think that there have been two evangelical presidents that have server the USA: President Carter and the current President Bush. Of the two, I don't remember President Carter as being the worst possible president that the USA has possibly earned. The other point is that stem cell research has a direct impact on the future of my self and my children. I want to live as long as possible in as healthy a state as possible, and I hope for the same for my children and any grandchildren or onward that I might actually survive to see or live beyond my life. It is pretty clear that it isn't just Bush that is against stem cell research. There are limits to the power one man has, and I'm pretty sure Bush, in his present state cannot do anything on his own.
So, finally, to the subject.
It appears based on recent articles that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the front runners for the Democrats. If either of them win the candidacy I will vote for them. Why? After 200+ years aren't you tired of the actual and de facto racism that declares that only old, white, protestant, men are qualified to be president of the USA? We have one exception, where JFK was in fact moderately young and Catholic, but I have my doubts in the political atmosphere of the present that a Catholic could run and win at this point in time.
That is what the major problem is with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In essence the American voters cannot be legislated to do what we do in the arena of regular employment - to be equal opportunity electors.
In the end, you might consider ideas that there should be as many congressmen in the house and senate to match or closely match the percentage of the black people in the US. I'm not talking about quotas, I'm just talking that if people vote with the color of their skin even part of the time, then there should be more black people involved in politics.
The same condition is true for women. Women, in general, instead of capitalizing on the capacity to vote, appear to faithfully vote the way their husbands vote. So, instead of a congress of a relatively healthy mix of males and females, we have a congress that is dominated by men. There are a few women, of course, but a few women isn't close to a healthy representation of women by percentage of population.
Barack Obama fields even more difficult problems. He is perceived as too 'white' for black people to want to vote for and the conservative members of our society would probably never vote for someone who is even a little black.
I think it is important, just as a general measure that finally, we catch up to those British folks that we like to look down our noses. Margaret Thatcher is now a part of their history and lead their country for many years. Meanwhile, we the 'better' people than them - are decades behind them. E-mails flutter across the web about how horrible Hillary Clinton is - and the sexism in them is either ignored by the people nodding their heads or just acknowledged.
There are many liberal minded people out there, that I suspect want to have a government of the people, by the people, but there are also many conservative elements in our population that are controlled by that same ideal - just not those people - black or female, by the people means to them - the same old WASPs that have been running the show for two centuries. The same ones that allowed slavery and condoned the idea that women were second class citizens.
I wouldn't vote for just any woman as there are certainly self-hating women out there that paradoxically pursue political office in order to ensure that women in general don't have power but women in specific (meaning themselves) do have power.
The 2008 election will be a defining moment for the US if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are on the democratic ticket.
Hell, maybe if they can get elected, an atheist might have hope of being elected as president.
Not likely, though. Not likely at all. I might have great hopes for my children, but if they grow up like me, their mother, their grandfather or grandmother on my side of the family (both agnostics at best - although oddly very conservative folks) - they won't be electable as president of the USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)