The move is angering many Republicans for several different reasons. According to the NY Times link, some Republicans are saying this move underlines just how erratic she is. Some of her supporters, no doubt hail the move as preparation to run for president in 2012. Alaskans paid good tax dollars to conduct an election to determine their governor through 2010. They may feel cheated now as the Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, steps into the executive office.

Soon to be ex-governor Palin, said in a twitter yesterday afternoon: "“We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election ... This is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy ... It is good, stay tuned.” Earlier she reported that her family took a vote on the resignation, "“Four yeses and one ‘Hell, yeah!’ ” she said.

It is hard to imagine however, how after resigning from the governorship because the heat in the kitchen was too much, she could ever overcome this resignation in pursuit of the presidency of the United States in 2012. If the presidency is in her sights, it seriously calls into question her capacity for sound judgment. If she thought the scrutiny and pressures of being governor and losing a bid for V.P. was too tough to permit staying out her term in office, why would she set her sights on the presidency? Yet, that is what some are speculating she may be doing.

One form of political calculus by Palin for President supporters goes like this: In 2012, the nation's debt will be larger than ever before, the economy will be back on its feet, but taxes will be going ever higher as far into the future as the eye can see, and folks will have had quite enough of Pres. Obama's moderate left compromised half measures which solved little and cost taxpayers a fortune for the rest of their lives. This, her supporters no doubt believe, will be fertile ground for a Presidential Sarah Palin campaign. She would bring with her the social and religious right, some of the fiscally conservative independent and Republican voters, and possibly even some blue dog Democrats, to create a narrow margin of victory over Pres. Obama, the reasoning may go.

It is a very odd and interesting turn of events her resignation as governor of Alaska. But, then, the GOP has seen a great many odd and interesting turns since losing so much ground in the 2008 elections. Even Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota announced last month that he would not seek re-election when his term expired in 2010, as he considers a race for president. It seems the GOP is always on the lookout for presidential candidates who have experience with considerable negative press, as has been the case with Pawlenty and Palin.

Some in the GOP however, have some choice words about quitters. This comment yesterday about Palin's announcement is an example. “Good point guards don’t quit and walk off the floor if the going gets tough... Today’s move falls further into the weirdness category; people don’t like a quitter,” said John Weaver, a former senior strategist for Mr. McCain.

I still hold out hope for her, her family's, and the American people's benefit, that Sarah Palin came face to face with her aspirations out distancing her abilities, and she decided to not pretend and hide her dissatisfaction with her own performance, and to seek instead, other aspirations in which she has a greater potential to excel. There is little doubt that Sarah Palin could become a well paid spokesperson and lobbyist on behalf of children, anti-abortion causes, and modern conservative family values. Perhaps that is in her thinking, and if so; she is to be applauded for her courage, internal honesty, and responsibility toward her family and Alaskans.

If, on the other hand, she has decided free herself for loftier political ambitions, she shall reap the just desserts of her Peter Principled aspirations. Sarah Palin shares many attributes with former Pres. George W. Bush, and there is no doubt her opponents will waste little time drawing the parallels for all to ponder, should her current move be revealed as her setting her sights on the White House in 2012.

Mainly, that the violence towards homosexuals in America is cultural and endemic to the West, not humanity. Can we clearly link this dangerous fear based reaction to a specific part of western history or culture? Can we find this linkage by looking at the differences between western and Eastern culture? The answer seems simple at first, violence itself. The way that these different cultures react to violence and how they hold it dear to their manhood isn’t exactly the same, but both cultures are extremely violent, right? Well, let’s take a look at that closely. In China, violence successfully brought about unity and conformity, but in Japan there was no conclusive victory to end hostilities as in China. A lack of conclusive victory by any European nation brought about the intense competition that made Europe the most bloodthirsty, greediest group of tribes to ever walk the earth. Japan continued the intra-tribal violence for centuries past Chinese unification, but this didn’t continue as long and as viciously as in Europe.

While fighting amongst each other over the centuries the Japanese developed a unique warrior ethic not seen anywhere else. This Bushido code shows another difference between western and eastern culture worth pointing out. The banning of firearms in Japan to maintain the Samurai warrior class highlights a certain respect and honor not as prominent in European society. Put simply, the Europeans practiced all kinds of behavior necessary within a warrior ethic (i.e. honor, chivalry, dueling, etc), but I don’t believe any European nation ever seriously considered banning firearms, not with neighbors like theirs. In fact, the development of cross-bow bolts and the training of uneducated and unchivalrous soldiers to shoot them helped end the age of knighthood. We can clearly see what the Samurai were avoiding by preventing firearms proliferation and smartly so. We can also see a clear example of a greater respect and honor towards violence in China within the phenomenon of Martial Arts. China is unparalleled in the development of unarmed combat techniques and this alone speaks volumes about the nations culture. So, what point can we take away? Generally, the evidence points to a greater warrior ethic and a higher value of honor in Asian cultures. Most of us don’t need to be told such a thing, but the evidence is above and please refute if you can.

In Europe, we have no holds barred, literally. Greater armies and greater weapons competing against each other in a bubbling cauldron of nations fighting for dominance made for some very nasty people. Well, nasty to everyone not on their side that is. These people spread around the earth and subjugated millions, but does the West’s ultra-violence account for such off the charts hatred of homosexuality? Not by itself, no. So, what else could it be?

At this point we are easily confused because of myriad examples of homosexual behavior existing in ancient texts regarding the Greeks, Romans and all kinds of folks in the middle ages. China’s historians have come to admit the same examples exist in their history as well. So, were stuck. Why do white guys feel the need to beat up on gays, while Chinese guys don’t? Can we blame religion on this? Wait, yes, we can blame religion? Thank God!

Just kidding, but seriously, let’s take a look at this. Do western religions bring the fire and brimstone necessary to justify this kind psychotic behavior against harmless people that mean no harm and are just trying to be allowed to be themselves? Yes, it does. When we look at Christianity and Islam, we find that the majority of all violence against homosexuals, and against everyone else in the name of God for that matter, comes from these two religions.

In fact, look around the world and you’ll see a majority of our problems being caused by followers of Muhammad and Christ (sorry if that offends anyone, but please refute and I will discuss). So, if you want a shortcut to finding all the evil being done against homosexuals or anybody else for that matter, just limit your search to Christianity and Islam and you’ll not have a hard time finding the data you want.

Now, let’s take the two pieces of the puzzle and put them together. A pinch of violent and conquering history mixed with a smidge of violent and conquering religion, bake for two thousand years and you get world class gay bashing by the best in the business. They’re still more biblical about this in Islamic cultures, where they simply topple a wall onto the homosexual and if they live … they live! Christians are more advanced and have taken God’s will out of the equation when it comes to hate crimes. These people are actually positive that God wants retribution and have the confidence to make sure and kill the hated one themselves. God’s will isn’t necessary, it’s assumed here. In the West, you’ll find homosexuals shot, hung ,beaten, dragged by automobile or any other number of horrible ways to die, but usually they are beaten to death because the assailant is having an emotional reaction to feelings they don’t understand. It’s the inherent connection between God and violence in the western mind that brings confused young men to the breaking point where they would rather take a human life that has nothing to do with them then face up to their own demons. I’m not exaggerating here! You know there are many western men out there that would rather commit murder and risk a lifetime of incarceration than allow their peers or family to think they’re gay. We all know they’re out there.

As Islamic culture advances, we will unfortunately see this same backlash against homosexuality and can expect a gay rights movement to come along in the Muslim world only after a more general civil and women's rights movement has been successful.

So this is what they’re lacking in Asia and specifically in China; a strong psychotic connection between an irrational thirst for violence to prove manhood and a desperate need for acceptance from a vengeful and merciless God. I hope it's not too hard to accept the possibility that China may have something to teach America this time.

One should take a step back from this embroiling tapestry of arguments, for a moment, and avoid getting involved in the various positions being taken out there or even to contemplate the insanity of some of those positions (gay doesn’t exist or it’s a mental illness that can be cured with psychiatry or Jesus). Just step back a second and witness the glory of the latest fight for freedom. In essence, the fact that there is a vigorous debate on an issue is good news, although the progress must be in the right direction. Every year, the homosexual community in China will gain more freedom and I believe this because the state run media in China is already trumpeting the Shanghai gay pride non-parade as a demonstration of China’s advancement of freedom. Gay pride is now a reason for Chinese pride and rightly so.

Liberals have been screaming the Big E word, asking what good is money if your kids will die of toxins and pollution, and become bankrupt at the hands of the foreign oil monopolies? Yes, liberals say, it will cost and additional $111 per average family per year over time, but, the greenhouse gases will be curtailed, the air will become more breathable and everyone will breathe easier.

As with all such partisan debates which result in policy, time will tell who was predominantly right and wrong. We may never know on this debate however, as the Senate, deeper in the pockets of the corporate world for their reelection campaign funding than House members, is poised to defeat this bill. Democrats don't appear to have sufficient votes at this moment to pass it in the Senate. Senators in oil, coal, and natural gas producing and refining states, pretty much have the corporate lynching ropes around their necks, regardless of which side of the aisle they vote from.

My retort to those claiming it will cost money is: What higher priorities do you have for spending federal dollars than clean air, energy independence, and finally working with many of the rest of the world's nations on cutting greenhouse emissions from our production and transportation activities? To those who yell there is no proof of global warming I ask: Where's your proof of the God you say you believe in? There is vastly more scientific evidence of global climate change as a result of human activity than there is for the existence of God. A little reason like this however, doesn't stop the naysayers to this bill from screaming the sky is falling.

To the proponents of this bill who say it will be all good, I say: Be careful what you legislate. A measure this sweeping in scope and cost over the decades to come, can all too easily become so compromised in the reconciliation committee between the House and Senate versions, as to keep the costs and water down the benefits, ultimately leading to more negative consequences than if the bill hadn't been passed at all.

If the American people want this bill to both pass and succeed in its objectives, they must, in the millions, lean heavy on their Senator's phones, emails, and local district offices demanding that the bill not be compromised one iota more on in its objectives and time line for achievements; and absolutely no exceptions are to be permitted to the industries lobbying against the House version. If the American people sit back now, and allow the energy lobbyists to work their will on the Senators, the American people will pay the price and receive little if any of the benefits they hope for.

The bill has already been seriously compromised in getting it passed through the House. As NPR writes:

At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel.

Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.

An administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade — money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut — was largely jettisoned due to opposition from energy companies and their allies in the House. The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others.

Conservatives and Liberals alike should be joining to insure that this bill, if it is to pass, is passed in a form as to maximize its objectives. Those include the eventual lowering of energy costs for all Americans. This is an investment bill.

Done right, our children will reap the benefits of a healthier more sustainable global environment, lower energy costs and higher savings, and independence from foreign monopolies and oligopolies like OPEC. Not to mention cutting U.S. dollars funding terrorist organizations from OPEC nations. Americans are have a long tradition in investing and this should be a piece of cake. But, I assure you, many with some corporate profits to lose down the road, will try to turn this into mud pie instead, before all is said and done.

To be done right, voters will have to take back Congress from the corporate lobbyists and jettison their own biases toward supporting the reelection of incumbents who bankrupt the nation in the name of bringing home the bacon to local constituents. Until there is a massive anti-incumbent movement afoot over the course of successive elections, the corporate lobbyists will control the Congress, not the American people. The idea of the House of Representatives being the people's House, disappeared from reality a very long time ago. The people, the voters, must take it back if this nation is to have a future which hasn't been compromised into decline and oblivion.

What profits are at stake? 14.2 million per year, average salaries for the top 7 private health insurer executives to begin with. Some claim health insurance profits have risen nearly a 1000 percent over the last decade. That's probably overstated, but, even a conservative 700% estimate in 10 years, speaks to gouging. Here is a list of health care profit increases since 2005. One fact is known, health insurance premiums have risen 5 times faster than wages since the year 2000. And that has consumers railing. They are literally going broke due to spiraling health insurance premiums.

The National Coalition on Health Care cites:

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Even employer paid health insurance rates are hitting employees in the pocket book, since wage increases which would have been passed on to employee's have been spent instead on the dramatic increases in health insurance premiums paid by employers.

Everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, agree that something has to be done ASAP to halt the rising cost of health insurance. It is bankrupting the government, the States, and 10's of millions of Americans. The debate is over how.

The single most effective cut in health care insurance premiums would be to cut insurer's profits out of the loop. No other step could would result in greater cost savings in as short a time, as this one step. This is why the Obama administration is pushing for government sponsored health insurance with no profits being skimmed off the top of every health care transaction.

Doctors, nurses, hospitals and clinics would not see any change in their occupational incomes, but everyone's health insurance premiums would stop rising as fast as they have been these last 5 years. Consumers groups hail the measure. Investor's and insurers are scared to death of it.

The reason investors fear government sponsored health insurance is not primarily the loss of profits by health insurance companies. In the short term, those would not change dramatically, but would likely drop in the longer term. What they fear most is the model. Non-profit health insurance could be so successful in reducing the inflation of health care premiums, that they are certain such success would lead to a slippery slope whereon, the next step would be non-profit health care delivery, (hospitals, clinics, private practices, and limited liability partnerships).

In fact, a national slide toward a predominantly not-for-profit health care industry, in which the boards of directors of non-profit hospitals and clinics are not paid at all, or at most, a 10th of what for-profit boards are paid, and where there are no shareholders and investors skimming profits, is a scary prospect for investors. Executives would see compensation packages pressured downward as competition between non-profit health care deliverers promoted the most and best health care delivery per dollar, as part of their advertising and reputation promotion.

Incumbents however, are going to make out like bandits on this issue. Republican incumbents are raking in money for their reelection campaigns from the for-profit corporate special interests of all kinds, not just health insurers, who fear this proposed non-profit model. Liberal Democrat incumbents of course, are benefiting from consumer advocate lobbyists promising potentially unprecedented get out the vote campaigns in favor of Democrats. Some conservative Democrats are benefiting from both sides of this issue, consumer advocate lobbyist's favor, and corporate lobbyists seeking to sway their vote on the reform bill.

Regardless of which side of this issue a voter stands on, the battle is being fought by lobbyists on Capital Hill, and Congressional incumbents seeking reelection are the monkey's in the middle. Usually, in circumstances like these, the American people wind up with something so compromised as to be of less benefit in the long run than doing nothing at all. When a problem goes unaddressed, the pressure builds to take dramatic action. Time will tell if the pressure on the health care cost issue has built up sufficiently to generate a real beneficial change for the nation and its health care industry future.

Conservatives are right in saying there is a slippery slope here, as organizations like the Alliance for Advancing Non-Profit Health Care already exist and are lobbying Congress. Liberals are also right in saying that the shortest most effective route to lower health care costs is non-profit health care where shareholder, director, and executive administration profits and fees are removed from the entire cost cycle of health care.

However, folks at Vote Out Incumbents Democracy are also right in saying there may be enough Congressional incumbents putting their gerrymandered reelection priorities far out ahead of consumers and patients, as a whole, to jeopardize any reform effort put forth.

The people have given the federal government a mandate: create affordable, sustainable, and accessible health care in America for all who want it. In fact, a recent poll says 72% of Americans want a government sponsored health care insurance option. Republicans are opposed to it (apparently, trying to keep their 25% approval rating intact). Though the number has been dropping, about 9 conservative democrats, (Blue Dogs), are threatening to block the bill's passage on a simple majority vote. As I wrote here at WB both before, and after, Obama's election, this President's biggest hurdle will be Congressional Democrats, not Republicans. It is true now of the Health Care reform.

Will the American people and the Obama administration be able to twist the arms of those 9 or so, conservative D's, and force them to act on the bidding of nearly 3/4 of all Americans? At this moment in time, that is impossible to answer. It really could go either way at this point.

When incumbents put their gerrymandered constituents agenda ahead of the good of the nation and the majority will of the American people on so fundamental an issue as affordable health care, and feel secure in doing so, it is obvious that our political system is as broken as our health care system. Voting out such incumbents however, shall prove to be an even greater challenge than health care reform.

I’ve a heard a few arguments that this election could be legitimate, but they are flimsy, few and far between. Check STRATFOR, “Western Misconceptions Meet Iranian Reality”, for the best of these attempts at explaining a whale of a statistical anomaly. This article warrants a thumbs down in my book, but it raises a good point that I want to explore further. Coming back down to reality, however, and comparing provincial results between Iranian elections in 2005 and 2009 highlights the impossibility of such a tectonic demographic and political shift in the 2009 results. In the Iranian province of Lorestan for example, all conservative candidates combined received only 20 % of the vote in 2005, while Ahmadinejad got 71 % of the vote all by himself in 2009 (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/iran_numbers/) .

This would be equivalent to three quarters of the liberals in America voting for George W. Bush in the 2004 elections, not likely by even a long shot. I’m not saying that Ahmadinejad couldn’t have won, I’m saying that he couldn’t have won by this margin.

It’s becoming more and more clear that Ahmadinejad and his ruling government have behaved like children changing their grades at school. If they had changed their Ds to Cs it would’ve been believable, but these children changed their Ds to As. Now when we look at all the other past report cards these kids brought home before, we realize that no conservative candidate ever got straight As like this before, especially not during such a hotly contested election.

Putting aside the legitimacy of the elections for now, we need to examine what similarities can be found between our experiences and Iran's. What am I talking about? Red vs blue states in America and red vs blue provinces in Iran. In the past and especially in 2000, 2004 and 2008, America witnessed a political tug of war between the rural heartland red states and the urbanized developed coastal states. People in the blue states are generalized as big city liberals and people in the red states are even more dismissively labeled the fly-over (a reference to the middle states that those big city liberals “fly-over” when going from coast to coast). Currently, the large population centers on America’s coasts combined with swing states to bring victory to the liberal progressive side of the U.S. electorate. What does this teach us about Iran?

Well, Iran contains a progressive urban population with better access to education, non-agrarian employment opportunities and communications with the outside world that is surrounded by a rural population with less education, agrarian employment opportunities and very little communication outside of their village. The urbanites are not atheistic, but they are definitely not considered as pious as those in the countryside. Sound familiar? We basically have the same dynamic at work here, but the back and forth has been going on just a little bit longer in the US and the long term trend hands the urban population centers the advantage in this country. Is that the case in Iran?

Eventually, one would think this dynamic would trend the same way everywhere including Iran, but look at how this has worked out in the United States. Such a contrasting demographic split along ideological lines in America has provided us with a severely limiting two party system that often swings the nation back and forth like a pendulum instead of forward. This one step forward two steps back cycle could evolve in Iranian politics as well, which would be a damn shame in this 3rdpartyblogger’s opinion.

Today in Iran you see two competing groups rallying in the streets of Tehran. One side gathers green clad supporters from the city itself and the other buses in supporters of the incumbent from the countryside. This leaves the persistent question above. Could a new revolution in Iran survive and establish itself successfully? And if they did this, would they be stifling the anger and resentment of millions of poor religious Iranians in the countryside?

For more information on this, I would ask the conservative thinkers of this nation for insight. After all, the rulers of Iran and their rural conservative base fall into roughly (and I mean roughly) the same ideological category as America’s conservatives, so they should be capable of understanding the chances a “LIBERAL” urban elite and their “PROGRESSIVE” ideas have in Iran.

It must be admitted, when all is said and done in Iran, that the forces of liberal democratic reason must overcome the forces of conservative religiosity.

A conservative fear of change and the impending loss of religious and family values allows the incumbents to remain in power, that and a fraudulent election. If we could just get some notes from Karl Rove and W. on where the Iranian government is coming from then we could really gain some valuable insight.

P.S. Post. Recent information from Ken Ballen at Terror Free Tomorrow on CNN: His organization took a poll in Iran three weeks before the election which showed Ahmadinejad holding a significant lead. Obviously, polls cannot be used to support the lofty numbers seen in the actual election, but another significant find of Mr. Ballen’s came up as well. His poll also found that a significant percentage of Ahmadinejad’s supporters expressed a desire for more individual freedom and government reform. In this case, we must conclude that Ahmadinejad’s recent actions in the suppression of the Iranian protesters could be damaging his base. If he keeps this up, hopefully his followers will begin to defect and the opposition in Iran will grow.

The vision of a heterogeneous polity rising up and telling the local federalis to go screw themselves—along with the horses they rode into town on—is just too intoxicating, regardless of your political predilections.

Stage left, Vermont is one of the country’s most liberal states and boasts one of the most vituperative secessionist movements, its denizens especially pissed off about Washington’s hawkish foreign policies. Can’t say I blame them.

Stage right, there’s considerable secessionist sentiment in Texas: the only state once its own country, and they don’t call themselves “The Lone Star State” because they want to play nice with Nancy Pelosi.

Meanwhile, on the West Coast, local politicos from San Diego County, Imperial County, and Northern Baja, Mexico are daydreaming about a new republic called “Cali Baja.” How cute is that?

More ominously, there’s a religious group calling themselves Christian Exodus who are hell-bent to transform South Carolina into a Christian State. What that means, I don’t know, but you might want to dump the timeshare at Myrtle Beach.

On the East Coast there’s something called Middlebury Institute, which advocates re-purposing New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia into something called “Novacadia” with Denmark as its role model. (Go figure.)

Meanwhile, in the Upper Midwest, there’s a group called North Star Republic whose mission is to establish “a socialist republic” in what today consists of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. (I wonder what country would be their role model?)

Actually, I think the secessionists have the right idea, but reversed. Instead of seceding from the country, they should instead advocate building a wall around DC. And a moat. Make that two moats… with alligators.

Better yet, send Congress to Gitmo accompanied by the Executive Branch. That would add a new sense of urgency to the whole waterboarding debate, no?

There is however, an apparent and enormous difference between Iran and the U.S. voting problem. In Iran, outright voting fraud, bribery, and blackmail are touted as the reason for Ahmadinejad's reelection. In America, incumbents routinely win reelection in a more sophisticated, systemic, and largely legal manner. America has institutionalized incumbency, regardless of public sentiment toward Congress, in some very clever ways.

First and foremost is known as "bringing home the bacon". If a U.S. representative can lay claim to bringing federal tax dollars back to their district, American voters are impressed by this and will tend to reelect them. This, despite the American voter's disgust with pork barrel spending, and earmarks in legislation with no relevant connection to the bill being passed. Republican and Democrat incumbents alike make this theme central to their reelection campaigns, because American voters respond positively to it. Doesn't speak well of American voters.

Equal in importance to bringing home the bacon, is financial advantage. Wikipedia cites:

One of the main reasons incumbents seem to have such a complete advantage over challengers is because of their significantly better financed campaigns. In the 1990s the typical incumbent in a contested election had somewhere between 83 to 93 percent of what was spent by all the candidates in the district, and these incumbents typically captured about 64 to 67 percent of the vote." (Henderson, Harry. 2004. Campaign and Election Reform. New York, NY.: Facts on File.)

Then there is the time honored American tradition of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering occurs when the Congress and states divide up their congressional voting districts into highly contorted geometric shapes on a map, for the clear purpose of insuring the incumbent's voting district shape encompasses a clear majority of voters who vote historically for the incumbent's Party, and even the incumbent them self. Effective and warranted reforms in the gerrymandering system have so far, been like getting CEO's to voluntarily take compensation package cuts.

In typical American fashion, several differing approaches have been touted to remedy the situation that prevents voters from perceiving more choice on election day. These differing approaches serve to divide the electorate on the issue, and prevent them from mandating true reform. Is it any wonder, these approaches are all commended by some elected representatives in accordance with their reelection needs.

Term Limits. Never to be approved by a majority of Congress of their own volition, term limits requires a majority of Congress to pass such legislation. Holding out for the day that a majority of Congress will vote for their own term limits is like holding one's breath for a mega-lottery win. It's possible, but, so unlikely as to insure death as the nearly guaranteed outcome.

The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act. This humorous piece of nonsense had one design, to make the public think the Congress was seeking reform, while actually reforming nothing at the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is money as speech. And virtually no incumbent in Congress is going to earnestly sanction a Constitutional amendment outlawing money as freedom of speech.

The very core of the democratic election process is one person one vote. That core principle is entirely nullified and voided when money is given free speech entitlement and permitted the power to sway votes and legislation in Congress. He/She who has the most bucks controls the most votes. This is all too often demonstrated in American elections and in the relationship between K-Street (lobbyists) and The Hill (Congress persons).

Lastly, on the list of divide and conquer faux reforms to address incumbency advantage over public approval is what is known as the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. This item doesn't come up very often, but is often bandied about by some State representatives and reform minded groups. This was one of the first amendments to be proposed to our Constitution but failed ratification by 3 votes, and continues to fail State ratification to this day.

In essence, it would require significantly more Representatives in the House per number of persons represented. Anywhere from 600 to 6000 Representatives would be called for in the House, if this Amendment were ratified, depending on how the math algorithm were adjusted and interpreted. From the Wikipedia link above:

According to the Supreme Court's 1939 ruling in Coleman v. Miller, because there is no deadline for its ratification, Article the First is technically still pending before state lawmakers. Today, with 50 states in the Union, the legislatures of 27 more states, for a total of 38, would have to ratify the Amendment in order for it to become part of the federal Constitution. Based on the current U.S. population and the traditions governing the size of the House of Representatives, it is unlikely, however, that the legislatures of any additional states will approve it.

These are the reform measures politicians put forth to the public to appear reform minded. There is however, a reform measure founded by a group of citizens which has vastly more potential than any of the above. It is called Vote Out Incumbents Democracy or VOID, for short. The idea came from Jack Gargin's 1980's campaign called THRO, (Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out) which bankrupted not long after its second election involvement.

The idea is simple, and rests entirely with the American voters, NOT with the Congress. VOID advocates that voters consider voting for a challenger from their own party, or another, if they are not happy with the performance of Congress at large. VOID postulates that even if voters like their own representative, the fact that the same voters disapprove of Congress' performance, means their own representative is, at least, ineffective in bringing about the changes the voter hopes for.

And therefore, if that voter joins millions of other voters who choose to vote for a Congress whose performance they can approve of, instead of 7 or 9% of incumbents losing reelection in an election year, 30, 40, or even 50% of incumbents could lose their seats. It is only logical and rational to conclude that if 1/3 to 1/2 of incumbents in Congress lost reelection, the remaining incumbents and the new freshman coming in, would have no choice but to commit to producing the results from Congress the people expect or, face their own failed reelection bid in the very next election.

So, reforming Congress comes down to proposals that require Congress to act against incumbent's own interests or, one which the voters themselves control and enact of their own accord. The former has virtually a snowball's chance in hell. The latter, at least, is in the control of the voters. And that means voters are not helpless in the matter, unless they choose to be.

The answers are, Yes and No, respectively. Here's why.

What constitutes a wise vote? Voting for campaign promises, or voting for government results? Many things influence how voters vote, but the incumbency advantage (PDF) for reelection cannot be overlooked, nor the fact that the cost of campaigns have risen dramatically over the last several decades in advertising frenzies. Has voting based on campaign promises and rhetoric produced government, whose results are approved of by a majority of the public? Polling says, clearly not.

A wise vote then, would appear to be one in which the voter votes based on results of tenure in office, all other things being equal. If voters, for example, disapprove of the way Congress is handling national government, why are 90% and more of incumbents seeking reelection, voted back into office? The answer is, voters are not voting wisely.

Consider this: If the people did not have the vote, wouldn't most politicians in government remain in office indefinitely or, at least, for very long tenures in government? History demonstrates that power to govern is highly prized by those in power. They will insure they remain in power if the issue is left up to them.

This was precisely the thinking of the Founding Fathers in America, who, having witnessed the corruption and overreach of power by a King in England, whose term as King was for life, decided to create a government in which voting for those to be in power would become the standard. What voters today seem to fail to understand is, the power to vote for those in government, is in actuality, the power to remove those in power from office, by voting for a challenger instead.

Therein lies the power of the vote, and the power of the people, if they were to ever wisely choose to exercise it as a majority. The power to remove politicians from office is the real power of the vote. The politicians in America have invented all manner of law and regulations from gerrymandering to ballot qualification regulations designed for one express purpose, to help insure as far as possible, their reelection. This is as true of the two parties in control of government as individual Congress persons.

They tirelessly attempt to insure they remain in power, regardless of whether the majority of voters approve of Congress' efforts, or not. They work to appease large vocal special interest groups capable of supporting their reelection. And they have been remarkably successful at this. In the last election, the public's approval rating of Congress was at its lowest in history. An 11% approval rating, and 95% of those seeking reelection in Congress, were reelected.

If the American people want Congress to act differently, they must vote to remove a majority of those in Congress who are responsible for the way Congress has been acting. Voting for the same people in Congress is not going to change the direction of Congress' actions. If American voters suddenly voted as a majority wisely, to replace half or more of Congress' incumbents, the new politicians being voted in could not avoid the understanding that they too will not be reelected if the results of Congress do not change during their term in office. That is the wise lesson a wise voting public could impart to their representatives in Washington D.C.

So, to the question: "In a democracy, Is there such a thing as wise voting?", the answer is Yes, even when much of the voting public is ignorant of the nation's current events (PDF).

To the question: "And if there were, wouldn't a majority of voters vote accordingly?", the answer is no, not necessarily. It depends on whether voters believe their representative's campaign promises and rhetoric, fabricated for ONLY one purpose, to get reelected, or not.

If on the other hand, the majority of voters looked at the results of government and disapproved, and chose on that basis alone to vote for a challenger instead of their incumbent running for reelection, then, and only then, would a majority of voters be empowered to vote wisely, for a better government than the one they disapprove of in the polls.

I for one, do not approve of the results of Congress. I for one, will not vote for my representatives seeking reelection, regardless of party. Even if they were well intended, they were ineffective in altering the course of Congress. Instead I will vote for a challenger in the primary from my own party instead. I for one, cannot make a difference in the outcome of national elections. I, as one amongst many, choosing to vote wisely in this way, can change Congress' approval rating to something more acceptable than 11%, 20% or 30%.

I for one, am encouraging all my friends and family to consider voting wisely from now on. How about you?

To the extent that there are differing bases of knowledge and understanding, disagreements and debates arise, creating expensive and contentious inefficiencies in the social and organizational life of a nation. Conversely, to the degree that everyone holds the same knowledge and understanding, creativity and innovation can be stifled, and 'group think' in our organizations can result in seemingly incomprehensible and inappropriate decisions being made.

From the dawn of the human species, education served survival and provided the means to taking a position within the group for safety and security. That's the evolutionary perspective. From the creation of man and woman, education has served both the clan and the gods end of providing humans with a sense of god's purpose and human's place in the universe. That's the religious perspective.

They have in common, the view that education is to prepare children for their productive and inclusive role in society. To the extent that parents or schools fail to prepare children in this way, the society suffers the consequences of mal-adapted individuals who become sexual predators, thieves or extortionists, and murderers exacting inordinate costs and anxiety upon society.

In what is commonly and erroneously viewed as the traditional view of education in America, schools were to provide vocational oriented education, and parents, church, mosque, temple, or synagogue were to provide social values education. But, America's educational system has never been that clearly segregated, nor purist in reality. Government run schools for the children of American Indians were very much about teaching social values and conditioning. Vocational education for minorities were virtually non-existent in most parts of early colonial America. And American rural communities placed a far higher value in 'on the job' education on family farms than in rural schools.

America's educational system is in transition from the system that existed for an agrarian America to one arguably better suited to an information and technological America. And as with all systems in transition, marked failures and advances are evident. At the root of all education however, is the relationship between teacher and student, based on mutual respect, patience, and positive feedback.

Cruelty can modify behavior, but, it never achieves its intended objectives or lessons learned. Cruelty, negative reinforcement, and punishment teach the student only of the necessity and means to escape the cruelty, negative reinforcement, and punishment. This has been demonstrated time and again in laboratory experiments on learning. Positive reinforcement and respect motivate students to achieve the objectives of the teacher far better than negative reinforcement.

Herein lies the heart of the debate over American education. If children fail to receive adequate positive reinforcement and develop respect for role models and parents at home, they are very likely to have difficulties establishing that mutual respect relationship between student and teacher in our schools. Schools which attempt to address such needs in students with behavioral or trust issues, are often viewed, and rebuked, as usurping the relationship between parent and child at home.

Both parents and society at large have a vested, self-interested stake in the education of their children. Many parents view their children as an extension of themselves, with the potential of becoming more, and better than the parents with guidance around the pitfalls which the parents experienced. The pride of other parents is heavily invested in the reflection their child will direct back upon the parents in social settings, requiring their child reflect the image of the parent.

Schools and educators have their own security issues, financing and pay issues, and esteem issues vested in the education of their students, in addition to the overt objective of developing student's potentials for higher education or vocational roles in adulthood. Too often in America, parental and school objectives and investments in the student conflict, becoming a source of mistrust and non-interaction.

Wisdom dictates that parents and schools should be partners, working cooperatively with each other in a very open and active communication environment in which the best interests of the student are paramount. Despite parent - teacher associations (PTA's) in existence in virtually every school system in America, only a small percentage of parents are active members in PTA's, and schools, ever pressured to find funding for student development activities, rely ever more upon pressuring PTA's to cough up more money for extra-curricular activities. This in turn, alienates many parents with lesser income means from participating.

There are no easy answers to America's lackluster educational performance compared to other industrialized nations, 24th. A wise parent knows their involvement with their child's education is important, and making the time and energy available to take an active interest in their child's daily school activities and learning and applaud their child's efforts and learning will benefit their child.

The wise school district will focus like a laser on eliminating the obstacles they can that exist between student's parents and the administrators and teachers within the school, establishing open door policies, and providing incentives for parental involvement in communication with their child's teachers and school administrators.

Old habits however, die hard, the saying goes. And America's educational system is transitioning. If government and quasi-governmental agencies are to be prevented from having complete control of student's education quality and performance, then parents must resolve to get involved. And wise voters will pay particular attention to their school board elections, and vote for those whose objectives and agenda reflect first and foremost, the needs of students to fully develop their learning potential and expand their repertoire of personal and vocational skills and talents.

Below are some quotes from some historical figures who had something to say about education in their time.

Albert Einstein:
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.

Alvin Toffler:
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

Anatole France:
Nine tenths of education is encouragement.

Ariel and Will Durant:
Education is the transmission of civilization.

Aristotle:
All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.

Carl Rogers:
If we value independence, if we are disturbed by the growing conformity of knowledge, of values, of attitudes, which our present system induces, then we may wish to set up conditions of learning which make for uniqueness, for self-direction, and for self-initiated learning.

George Santayana:
A child educated only at school is an uneducated child.

George Santayana:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Mark Twain:
First, God created idiots. That was just for practice. Then He created school boards.
...
Many public-school children seem to know only two dates--1492 and 4th of July; and as a rule they don't know what happened on either occasion.

From a non-partisan perspective, this has all the appearances of kicking the dog. Republican and conservative mouthpieces like Jim Quinn and Neil Boortz have resorted to calling Pelosi a "hag" and "bitch". An RNC video refers to the most powerful woman in the world as "Pussy Galore", referencing a James Bond Goldfinger movie in which the female star gets what she wants by giving men what they want.

But, it is not Nancy Pelosi who poses the threat to the GOP's future. That would be Pres. Barack Obama. They should know, and likely do know, that if the economy is on the rebound in Nov. of 2010, and if 2 out of 3 of Obama's major initiatives to provide universal health care coverage, create American energy independence, and dramatically lower the deficits, are showing definite progress by 2012, the Republican Party is not going to regain the White House. After all, it was the Republican Party that said in the 2004 campaign, that it wasn't wise to change horses in mid-stream.

Getting fired and going home to beat up the wife, slap the kids, or kick the dog, is the sign of a very weak person, absent self-control, ruled by their emotions, and dependent entirely upon the magnanimity of others for their feeling of well-being. This is a very sad state for the Republican Party to be in. The sadder because America needs more competitive political parties, not fewer.

Pres. Obama is a one of a kind president, rivaling FDR, JFK, or Ronald Reagan. His unique compliment of talents, skills, and preparation to rise to the presidency at this time of enormous national need for clarity, knowledge, and and vision for our future, is a fortunate, and even serendipitous convergence of events. I point this out to highlight the fact that Pres. Obama's abilities are not so readily found in the Congress of Democrats. Congressional Democrats, are by and large, still intent on spending federal dollars on an infinite list of items having no priority whatsoever, even in these times of monumental growth in federal debt and deficits.

This is precisely why America needs a strong and appealing Republican and Independent Party, to rein in the undisciplined spread of federal dollars as tokens of love by the Democratic Congress seeking reelection in just 17 months. America, however, has no viable Republican Party capable of commanding public respect and ear to their rhetorical and hypocritical demands for fiscal responsibility. And America has no centralized, moderate, and centrist Independent Party to emulate and reinforce the strengths of Pres. Obama's presidency and reinforce his vision of a more responsible, accountable, and transparent government going forward.

Winston Churchill carried his nation to triumph in WWII before being let go with the dawn of a new era in British history decidedly more liberal than Churchill's preferences. FDR carried the weight of America's woes for a decade before succumbing to the weight of them. And the extraordinary time of Pres. Obama will pass too in less than 8 years, leaving America to muddle along with the incorrigible, inefficient, and largely ineffective Congress of status quo incumbents, suckling from the teats of corporate America, wealthy special and individual interests, and borrowing from our children's future to buy the votes of their parents.

America needs the GOP to revolt against the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and find its platform for a strong, affordable future for America that they can, and will, live up to and achieve if elected. America needs a viable Independent Party to keep the other two more honest and accountable to the nation's needs instead of their own personal and political desires. America has many needs these days, but none so dire in the long run as these.

First a note about why groups are so powerful in a democratic society. Those in power to make decisions for the society, culture, and government, seek to retain their positions of power. If power wasn't important to them, they wouldn't be in that position in the first place. Hence, if a group's voice is sufficiently loud enough to threaten the removal of a person from power, that person in power will very likely find a way to yield to that group's interest and agenda.

There is an entire branch of mathematics now created to model groups seeking voice in policy. It is called network modeling. And it is taking the democratic world by storm. If having a voice in this world is important to you, you must develop an interest in network modeling. An example will prove the point.

A woman in a remote Kenyan village has a cousin who needs to get a letter off to a person in London who may help him, gratis, with his case with the Kenyan government. The cousin offers the woman his next new born calf if she can get this letter off to London.

In their village, there is no internet, no phones, no courier service, no FedEx or UPS. The woman spends the next week visiting everyone she knows in and around the village asking if they know someone who is leaving the village to a town or city in the next week or so. They all say no.

The woman returns the letter to her cousin with apologies, saying she can't find anyone who knows how to get this letter out of the village. At that moment, the woman's Aunt who lives in Nairobi, drives up to visit overnight. The Aunt agrees to drop the letter off at the FedEx store in Nairobi when she returns. The day is saved for the woman who gets the calf, the cousin who gets his letter off to the London barrister, and the Aunt who just dropped in to visit and see if there was anything she could do to help her niece. (Inspired by a TV program on networking).

Communication opens doors, creates opportunities, and makes things happen. In politics, communication between groups of people with a common interest, allowing them to organize and speak with one voice, or obstruct the goals and intentions of those in power, can alter the course of social, cultural, and governmental policy.

So, what group should you join? What are your interests for social, cultural, or governmental change? There is likely a group already in place waiting to welcome your voice and support toward effecting that change. As an individual without great wealth, your voice has no volume, and will not be heard over the din of others. Your choice is simple, become a billionaire, join a group, or, resign yourself to having no influence whatsoever over the direction of social, cultural, or governmental affairs.

A note about wealth. Wealthy persons are capable of funding group's outreach programs to recruit volunteers, supporters, voters, and membership rolls. Wealth is an incredibly potent force in the formation of groups and agendas pursued in our society and government. It is impossible to avoid stating the obvious here regarding policy voice; wealthy persons fund candidates to offices of power where the agenda of the wealthy donors will be represented and fostered in social, cultural, and governmental policy making. The non-wealthy can pool contributions to create a competitive influence against the wealthy. The non-wealthy often fail to recognize the importance of their small $5 potential contribution in this way.

Below is a sample list of web sites where one can begin their search for a group to join. Do a little homework: Find and join a group which can amplify your voice making it heard.

Open Secrets.

Wikipedia PACs.

Google's Advocacy Groups

American Citizen

And of course, there is my favorite and highly recommended advocacy group, Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy.

So, what groups have you joined or supported with dollars?

This legislation is a sham. While Congress and the President campaigned on relief for consumers, they apparently failed to mention the relief they intended would NOT be a rescue for millions of consumers already trapped and bitten by usurious rates and fees. Consumers hoping to get their extraordinarily high interest rates of 24 to 34%, reduced, will be disappointed. Those hoping for rebates on late fees unfairly assessed in the recent past, will also be disappointed.

There are no caps on interest rates, no definition or line drawn for what constitutes a fair market rate and Shylock usury rates. Folks desperate for medical care, or whose only vehicle to get to and from work just bit the dust and needs repairs on credit cards, will face whatever rates the credit card companies wish to charge for new purchases. This is not, I suspect, the kind of oversight and regulation that consumers were hoping for.

This probably comes as no surprise to independent voters convinced that the Democrats and Republicans feed from the same lobbyist and wealthy special interest trough, (e.g. credit card companies and banks). Until effective lobbyist and campaign finance reforms become a reality, such compromised legislation will remain the order of the day.

And as growing numbers of independent voters know, the only road to real effective reforms in Congress is the road that leads to massive removal of incumbents seeking reelection. Only when politicians acknowledge that the public will remove them for failing to act on their behalf, will the newly elected challengers begin saying no to the lobbyists and wealthy special interests.

Those wishing to address this issue while there is still time, can lodge their protest at Pres. Obama's web site, before he signs this bill, in the hopes of convincing Pres. Obama to veto this legislation and send Congress back to the drawing board to come up with relief for those already raped by the credit card companies.

In the 1960s, she wrote A Monetary History of the United States (with Milton Friedman) after putting ten years of detective work into it, helping found the monetarist theory of economics. Before this book, most economists believed that the quantity of money circulating in the economy had no influence on prices or on growth. But facts, as we hear, are nagging things indeed. As Guy Sorman writes:

Every time the Federal Reserve (and the central banks before it) created an excess of money, either by keeping interest rates too low or by injecting liquidity into banks, prices inflated. At first, the easy money might seem to boost consumers’ purchasing power. But the increase would be only apparent, since sellers tended to raise the prices of their goods to absorb the extra funds. Investors would then start speculating on short-term bets—whether tulips in the seventeenth century or subprime mortgages more recently—seeking to beat the expected inflation. Eventually, such “manias,” as Schwartz calls them, would begin replacing long-term investment, thus destroying entrepreneurship and harming economic growth.

By contrast, by removing excess liquidity, the central bank can cause the sudden collapse of speculative excess, and it can also hurt healthy recovery or growth by constricting the money supply. There is now a near-consensus among economists that lack of liquidity caused the Great Depression. During the severe downturn of 1930, the Fed did nothing as a first group of banks failed. Other depositors became alarmed that they would lose their money if their banks failed, too, leading to further bank runs, propelling a frightening downward economic spiral.

Unfortunately, in this recent interview, Schwartz says that this lesson of the past seems all but forgotten.

Margaret Thatcher was the first to understand that the monetarists were right, following their rules when she came to power in 1979, taming inflation and reinvigorating the British economy. The U.S. followed during the early 1980s, led by Paul Volcker, a Friedmanite then at the head of the Federal Reserve, who, with Ronald Reagan’s strong support, ended raging inflation, though not without a lot of short-term pain. “It was a strenuous experience,” Schwartz remembers. As Volcker tightened the money supply, making credit harder to come by, unemployment spiked to about 10 percent; many firms failed. But starting in 1983, the inflation beast defeated, a new era of vigorous growth got under way, based on innovation and long-term investment.

Instead of staying the monetarist course, Volcker’s successor as Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, too often preferred to manage the economy—a fatal conceit, a monetarist would say. Greenspan wanted to avoid recessions at all costs. By keeping interest rates at historic lows, however, his easy money fueled manias: first the Internet bubble and then the now-burst mortgage bubble. “A too-easy monetary policy induces people to acquire whatever is the object of desire in a mania period,” Schwartz notes.

Greenspan’s successor, Ben Bernanke, has followed the same path in confronting the current economic crisis, Schwartz charges. Instead of the steady course that the monetarists recommend, the Fed and the Treasury “try to break news on a daily basis and they look for immediate gratification,” she says. “Bernanke is looking for sensations, with new developments every day.”

This is similar to what I pointed out recently that the underlying real cause of our current financial issues can be laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve, especially Alan Greenspan, for trying to micromanage a never contracting, never failing economy. By artificially keeping interest rates down he created cheap credit, increasing the credit boom beyond what anyone could control until it became a credit bust.

But don't we have to do SOMETHING? Don't we have 'systemic risk' to be concerned about? Not according to Schwartz.

“The worst thing for a government to do, though, is to act without principles, to make ad hoc decisions, to do something one day and another thing tomorrow,” she says. The market will respond positively only after the government begins to follow a steady, predictable course. To prove her point, Schwartz points out that nothing the government has done to date has really thawed credit.

And here we get to the actions that FDR took that caused investors and business holders to sit tight on their wealth and ride out the storm. First promising to limit the governmental interventions that the previous administration put into place that spurred on the credit problems of the late 1920s and fueled the monetary problems he was inheriting and then doing a complete about face once in office. Then making change after change to the number of goods that were taxed or tariffed that previously weren't, followed by floating several trial balloons about instituting a 100% tax bracket and other attacks on those with wealth in those times. Are we looking to repeat the mistakes of that era, the actions that helped turn a bad recession into The Great Depression?

As for the worries of deflation?

“The risk of deflation is very much exaggerated,” she answers. Inflation seems to her “unavoidable”: the Federal Reserve is creating money with little restraint, while Treasury expenditures remain far in excess of revenue. The inflation spigot is thus wide open. To beat the coming inflation, a “new Paul Volcker will be needed at the head of the Federal Reserve.”

There is a lot of lessons we could learn from Anna Schwartz, if people want to listen.

Make no mistake. Either in theory or practice is there any basis whatsoever for believing that the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government are coequal. It also defies common sense.

Historical analysis has always shown that the Founders, if anything, intended for Congress to be preeminent, and not the President and the executive branch. For example, only Congress has the constitutional power to remove the President and other high officers of the executive branch as well as the judiciary, but the latter cannot remove any member of Congress. And Congress has control of raising and spending government funds as well as the power to overrule any presidential attempt to veto legislation. That Congress does not always choose to fully exercise its constitutional powers does not remove them.

As to the Supreme Court and the whole judiciary, they function only as long as Congress provides funds, the executive branch provides security, and both choose to obey court decisions. More importantly, the Supreme Court does not act on its own to enforce the Constitution, even when the President and Congress disobey it, but it could.

It is time for Americans to stop and think. In what exact ways are the three branches coequal? According to the dictionary coequal means resembling each other in all respects. But ridding the culture of constitutional myths seems awfully difficult, especially since Garry Wills published his excellent book “A Necessary Evil” a decade ago, which artfully exposed a number of them.

In particular, presidents seem to like talking about the coequal branches of government, including Barack Obama. In January 2008 Obama said this in a speech: “No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.” Do presidents really want coequal branches? I think not. But they want Americans to keep believing in coequality, because it sounds good and adds an aura of respect for government that politicians desperately want.

In reality, presidents with the most political power want others with far less power to feel good. They want to keep the public believing (incorrectly) that the president is very limited in power. If George W. Bush proved anything it was not just that he created the imperial presidency, but that over time the presidency has become a mostly unchecked, pre-eminent and over-powerful government force. They have accumulated far more powers than ever envisioned by the Constitution. By regularly invoking the false coequality of branches argument and its derivative checks and balances thesis, presidents intentionally spread the propaganda to safeguard an all-powerful presidency and executive branch.

Meanwhile, Americans are largely ignorant that Congress has refused to honor and obey an important constitutional option in Article V: a convention of state delegates that could propose constitutional amendments, despite over 750 applications from all 50 states for a convention. It is their way of preserving exclusivity for proposing amendments and presidents say nothing because they fear amendments curbing their power. The Supreme Court does nothing because it likes amending the Constitution through its decisions.

Understand this: Having distinct constitutional responsibilities does not make branches coequal. The myth of coequality protects our delusional democracy and makes a mockery of our constitutional republic. If people really want coequal branches then they should start thinking about a constitutional amendment to make it so. Alternatively, we need Congress and the judiciary to act with far greater strength and conviction to use their constitutional powers and more effectively constrain presidential powers.

If prominent people tell a lie enough times, again, and again, and again, then the public lie becomes accepted fact, a cultural myth. So it is with the three coequal branches of government lie. It will be defended. It serves a purpose: False confidence in constitutional government.