Should Ford Have Pardoned Nixon?

Before I write about this topic, I would like to express my high regard for the 38th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford. He was a principled man. He did what he thought was best for the nation regardless of the political repercussions and despite attacks from both the left and the right. Succeeding two of the most deceptive presidents in our history, he was remarkably sincere. I hope presidents like him do not become less common as the years pass.

"Well, when the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." - Richard Nixon

Should Ford have pardoned Nixon? Ford’s rationale was to end the “national nightmare” of the Watergate scandal. Indeed there is a good argument to be made that it was in the best interests of the country to put that awful ordeal behind us. However, in light of the current administration's transgressions, I find myself questioning the late president’s decision.

It’s essential to our republic that the President not be above the law. Subsequently, in order to ensure this, we need to hold presidents accountable when they violate the law. If we fail to hold any particular president accountable, we not only excuse his individual violation(s), but we set a precedent for future presidents to follow. We send the message to future presidents that they are, in fact, above the law.

Nixon was forced out of office. Though he wasn’t impeached, it seems certain that he would have been had he not resigned. So then it is true that he was held accountable, but the questions is was he held accountable enough? Was the punishment exacted on Nixon enough to cancel out the potential precedent?

Well, at the time I probably would have answered yes. But now considering Bush’s obviously illegal warrantless wiretapping, detaining American citizens without charges and of course his tendency to add defiant statements to bills he signs into law, my answer is no; I believe Ford should not have pardoned Nixon. Perhaps if Nixon were convicted or even jailed, Bush would think twice about breaking the law. It’s hard to say, really. But the chance of it having that effect would have been worth extending the “nightmare”.

Voting Should Be an Irrevocable Right

Florida State Senator Gary Siplin sponsored a bill that would restore voting rights to convicts. According to the bill, a convict would regain the right to vote one year after he completed his sentence. Unfortunately, Siplin is a convicted criminal himself, which could make other lawmakers reluctant to get on board and support the bill.


In some states, felons get their right to vote taken away. I understand the need to punish criminals, but this goes too far. By giving the government the authority to revoke citizens' right to vote, you give it the power to manipulate the electorate to their advantage. This may be a farfetched scenario (though it wasn't at one time), but contrast that with the positives of revocation of voting rights. What good does it do? Is the long-term concern of electoral engineering enough to qualify voting as an inalienable, irrevocable right?

Perhaps you don’t like how criminals vote. Maybe you think that criminals are likely to vote for similarly corrupt candidates. Well, felons constitute a small portion of the population and if it happens that a significant percentage of the population are criminals, then that would suggest a disconnect between the state and society. If criminals are denied the right to vote, then it would be harder to correct this disconnect.

Perhaps you think it is proper punishment for people who break the law. Well, do you really think the threat of losing the right to vote will deter criminals from committing crimes? I suspect most of them aren’t very civic-minded.

In the Declaration of Independence, it is written that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If you think about it, none are more “governed” than convicted criminals. They are the ones that feel the full effect of government and its legislation. Voting is just as essential as other rights, for both moral and practical reasons.

RETRACTION

Sorry guys, it turns out the law only applies to public institutions and is thus a sound law. I wrongly thought one of the affected colleges was a private school. Here's the link to the actual text of the proposition. scroll down to page 5 to read the law in full.

Michigan Law Banning Affirmative Action is Wrong

On November 7th, michigan voters approved an amendment to their constitution banning colleges from using affirmative action.


Affirmative action is bad for minorities and it is bad for America. By giving special treatment to minorities, it promotes a sense of racial identity rather than a sense of individual identity. Under affirmative action, minorities owe their successes to the fact that they are a certain race or gender, rather than to their own talents and efforts. Additionally, it makes accomplished members of minority groups suspect. People will think that they don’t truly deserve their success, thus making it harder for them to prove themselves.


HOWEVER,

the Michigan law banning colleges from using affirmative action is wrong. The law is unwarranted government interference into the activities of private organizations. Private organizations have the right to freely employ, educate, form contracts with or otherwise associate with whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they choose. It is wrong for the government to either prohibit or mandate use of affirmative action for private organizations.

It is also worth noting that the government does have the right to mandate or prohibit affirmative action on itself or other public organizations. It may also choose not fund organizations which do or do not practice affirmative action as a way of influencing those organizations’ policies.

Iran Vows to Continue Enrichment, Despite Sanctions

From their perspective, no amount of sanctions would justify not pursuing nuclear weapons. It's a matter of survival. Can we blame them?

Since Bush made his pivotal “Axis of Evil” speech almost five years ago, the world is less safe. By attacking Iraq, the US has emboldened its enemies to create or maintain nuclear weaponry. It’s common sense, really. If you make a list of three countries, call them evil and then attack one of them without provocation, the remaining two are likely to take preventative action against such an attack. In this case, since the military might of the US is so strong, the only effective prevention is building a nuclear arsenal.

Of course Iran was interested in nuclear weapons before the invasion of Iraq, but now they HAVE TO acquire such weapons.

Va Congressman Stands by Koran Criticism

Virginia congressman Virgil Goode stands by his statements criticizing Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's intentions to use the koran at the swearing in ceremony. In a letter to his constituents, he suggested that the US limit immigration from countries with muslim majorities or else "many more Muslims will be elected" and use the koran on which to be sworn in.


Something I found that I think is relevant to this story...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

Article VI, US Constitution

Also consider that congressmen don't actually get sworn in during the ceremony. It is purely for show. They're actually sworn in earlier, where they swear an oath to the constitution absent any religious text.

Bush supports minimum wage increase

While the US economy continues to grow, the median income has remained stagnant these past five or so years. This is certainly troubling, but raising the minimum wage is an artificial solution. It doesn’t address the underlying causes. The question then becomes: what is/are the cause(s) of the disparity?

In my view, there are two primary reasons why wages are increasingly out of step with economic growth. One is that the influx of immigrants willing to work for so little depresses wages, mostly in the service sector; the other reason is that many once high paying jobs are being outsourced to developing countries, mostly from the manufacturing sector.

So now that we know the causes of stagnant wage growth, what do we do?

Well, for service sector jobs, we ought to crack down on illegal immigration. More than that, we should significantly curtail the amount of immigrants we let in legal or not, as the current level of immigration is not currently in our economic interests. No doubt that this would hurt businesses, but the degree to which it would help lower and middle class individuals would justify doing it.

As for the manufacturing sector, we ought to educate members of our society to enable them to do more lucrative jobs. I don’t believe we can stop globalization. The jobs are being outsourced because it is more profitable for businesses to employ laborers who are willing to work for lower wages (obviously). We need to adapt to this new reality by enabling our workers to do higher paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. Examples of such jobs are research & development, investment/banking services, medical research etc.

This idea doesn’t work if most Americans aren’t capable of learning how to do these jobs. This may or may not be true (thought I tend to be optimistic), but it is better than the alternative, i.e. doing nothing or imposing tariffs which would only delay the inevitable.

Study: 9 of 10 Americans have had premarital sex

...yet we shouldn't try to prepare our youth by informing them of contraceptive methods. That would be ungodly! Nevermind that it is a FACT OF HUMAN NATURE.

The Chrisitian Right remind us of the flaws of democracy. A small, determined voting bloc is capable of wielding disproportionate power at the polls.

In 1968 presidential election, there was a lot of talk of the "silent majority". I believe this phrase is still relevent today, but in a different way. While a large percentage of those who are politically and socially active spend a good part of their time telling us how evil sex is, the vast majority of americans aren't hesitant to enjoy it. Well good for them!

Bush Psychology

"Absolutely, we're winning."- President Bush Oct. 25, when asked if the US is winning in Iraq.





“Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win.”- President Bush Dec 20, when asked to reconcile above quote with recent statement that the US is in fact NOT winning in Iraq.



I’ve always known that Bush was out of touch with reality, but this offers an interesting insight into his delusional thinking. We have a president who substitutes his desires for truth. He believes what he wants to be true rather than what is true. It’s no wonder he’s so religious.