Glenn Discusses Presidential Primaries on Al-Jazeera
January 7th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I discussed the presidential primaries on Al-Jazeera's World News on Sunday, January 6. Like many, I think our primary system is very wasteful and inefficient, as well as unfair to those of us who do not live in an early primary state. We don't have a complete video, but below are some of the points I made on the show. When asked about Tuesday's New Hampshire primary being "pivotal," I replied:
"In some ways it is pivotal, but I really don't think it should be pivotal. New Hampshire has 1.3 million people. In our electoral system, between Iowa and New Hampshire, by the time those two states are done voting, you've already lost a good deal of the candidates.
"They say Romney now is in trouble if he doesn't win in New Hampshire. They say Clinton is in trouble if she doesn't win in New Hampshire. We've already lost Biden. We've already lost Dodd. We may lose Richardson after New Hampshire.
"This is a country of 300 million people. Why is it that two states that only have a few million people in them are holding the rest of us hostage and are getting to decide who our next president is going to be?"
I also oppose the way important decisions about candidates' successes or failures are made based on statistical differences which are often so small that they are almost meaningless. On the show I said:
"[Part of the problem with the primary system] is that it leaves us to obsess over tiny differences. For example, watching the American news shows all weekend, I'm hearing that McCain looks like he's going to get 32 percent in New Hampshire and Romney is going to get 27 percent and that this will be a crushing thing for Romney.
"But a difference of 5% in a state like New Hampshire is probably only a few thousand votes. It really doesn't mean very much. But everybody is obsessing over these percentages in the polls amongst just a small handful of voters. I think that we lose candidates, sometimes good candidates, because they don't do well there when it's really not reflective of the country as a whole."
Some other thoughts:
During the Democratic presidential debate on Saturday evening, candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama, and to a lesser degree Hillary Clinton, kept hammering on the need for "change." There has also been an emphasis on the alleged importance of being an outsider.
I have always found this idea to be problematic. The mantra of "change, change, change" got so bad that at one point candidate Bill Richardson said, "There is nothing wrong with having experience," and went on to defend the simple virtue of having a long record of public service.
Despite my own disaffection with most politicians and the current political process, I feel that the "throw the bums out" mentality can be very damaging. Similarly, I oppose term limits.
Yes, I understand the need to do something about entrenched interests in politics. But in what other profession do we say, "We don't want somebody with 20 years experience, we want somebody with no experience"? It makes no sense. Is any engineer better for having less experience? Is a psychologist, or a physicist, or an electrician better off having no experience?
Being a legislator is not an easy job. It is very complex, and there are many, many issues which need to be understood. It makes no sense to take experienced, trained people and toss them overboard simply because they are experienced and trained.
Another problem is that when we listen to electoral coverage on TV, whether it is a conservative network or a liberal network, we spend the vast majority of our time listening to analysis of who can win in what states, who can appeal to what type of voter, who is likable, who is electable, etc., etc. What we should instead be talking about is whether their ideas on how to solve problems such as healthcare, the war in Iraq, climate change, immigration, etc, will actually work.
Another problem is that the elections go on way, way too long, cost far too much money, and grind up far too much time. There is no need for our elections to go on for two years, or even for one year. There is nothing that the candidates need to say that they cannot say within a few months, as in many European countries.
These elections are also a terrible waste of manpower. Think of it--during most of the primaries until this point, 5% of the United States Senate has in effect been AWOL for the past year because they have been campaigning for president. Several governors have also been AWOL. No, this does not create a governmental crisis, but it does unnecessarily weaken both the federal government and state governments.
I also find it ridiculous that these important, highly trained people who have grave responsibilities are instead spending endless months wooing a handful of voters by hanging out at diners in Iowa or eating clam chowder--pardon me, "clam chowda"--with voters in New Hampshire.
I also found John Edwards' relentless attacks on business during the debate to be rather shortsighted. I've little doubt that some of these corporations do commit some of the abuses which Edwards alleges. However, one reality of the capitalist economic system is that big business essentially holds the country and the political system hostage, because they are the main force to create jobs. (Yes, I know many small businesses create jobs, too, and if you want to work for minimum wage, have at it.)
When I hear Edwards' attacks on big business, I keep wondering where he thinks living-wage jobs are going to come from. And no matter what government social welfare programs you have or how many of them you create, the best social program of all is a good job. I think Democrats too often forget this.
"));
19 queries. 0.452 seconds.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
"This is a country of 300 million people. Why is it that two states that only have a few million people in them are holding the rest of us hostage and are getting to decide who our next president is going to be?"
The structure of primaries is a decision made by the political parties, is it not?
January 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
The crime-aries are proof that we have a communist government. This is the point where the elite eliminate the undesirables. Our political process is not just an insult. It's criminal. The people elect the candidate that the elite choose for us. Fairness went out the window decades ago. The whole process is unfair but I don't see it changing soon.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Glenn, you a guy with considerable insight on a number of topics, but I am reminded of your own written story of how you came from one set of views on certain topics while you were in univestity, to some very different views. I would suggest to you that with respect to some of the points you make about DC based politicians and politics in this country generally, you will in time be radically changing some of your views. For example:
Equating time as a legislator with relevant "experience".
A legislator's job is a very specialized job, creates a rather rare point of view and perspective for anyone holding it, and does not, REPEAT, NOT, give one executive experience whatsoever.
This is analogous in some ways to how "experience" as a corporate attorney does not equip one to be a CEO. Have you ever noticed, despite the high-grade-IQ points going through Yale/Harvard/Stanford/Georgetown/et al. lawschools and emerging cum laude and suma cum laude as they move to white shoe law firms and then live their entire careers in direct proximity to corporate CEOs and boardrooms, virtually none of these highly "experienced" people ever achieve the corporate oval office by being chosen as CEOs? This is because their highly specialized, high-level "staff" type of experience is of a totally different type than that needed to run anything. The same is true human resource executives, and heads of corporate advertising (except in pure consumer marketing driven firms like P&G, Coke et al.)
Similarly, "experience in congress" gives one much experience and behavioral reinforcement in various off-point types of skills, professional goals, and day-to-day task priorities, resulting in a cumulative "perspective" which many sensible people will regard as ranging from non-ideal to completely warped.
My own experience and direct personal exposure to and contact with U.S. federal legislators began when I was in my teens, and I consider myself to be an observer who recalls exact and high-granularity details quite well. What I can tell you from now decades of observation, is that the legislating part of that job is quite trivial, and it is not what takes up the most time, energy and attention of those who dwell there. The standard of relevant-factual awareness which many long-seated legislators exhibit can be quite embarrassing to say the least.
You seem to be giving far, far too much credit to legislators who have simply been in situ for having the type of knowledge, awareness and priorities which perhaps you yourself would have (or at least seek to not jettison) if you were a Federal legislator. But if you spent much time with these people I think you would understand what makes them tick. And what makes most of them tick is very different from what makes you tick.
Sorry to be the bearer of that truth. But those who survive and thrive in the U.S. Congress appear to my eyes to bear a greater likeness to those who survive and thrive in diplomatic service. Congress doesn't train one in executive skills -- in fact, it trains one in, and rewards one for, extremely non-executive behaviors.
Now there are some true-blue members of Congress who hold their visions firm and refuse to buckle under the pressures which operate there. But that STILL is not relevant experience. It is simply an indication that some with integrity can actually survive there over time. But that does not a CEO make.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
As a politically active guy from Des Moines I disagree with Glenn's view here because I see the wisdom in letting small states drive the early selection. I don't necessarily believe it has to be Iowa and New Hampshire and we could go to a lottery to pick the early selection states but we absolutely need the small states upfront. If we let the big states lead the small states would never get a chance nor would second and third tier candidates have any chance at all since they could not compete in expensive media markets. In the case of Iowa and New Hampshire the candidates spend up to a year meeting the population and for varied reasons it is representative of the country after all since Iowa is intense with the most active of the active picking and New Hampshire with even Independents getting in the act. Both states seem immune to slick media campaigns and missteps by candidates magnify in such a prism. If not for Iowa this year we'd already be in a set race with Hillary for the Dems and Rudy for the Reps as both had the finances and backing of their respective establishments.
The real misstep we made as a Equal Parenting Movement was to ignore Tancredo (who misfired himself) and then Huckabee who expressed an interest in our cause. I saw both as potential breakout candidates when they were polling 1% and it is sad we couldn't find a way to get on their wagon when it mattered to them most as each sought difference making constituencies capable of getting them to that magic 5% that gets any candidate noticed in the very beginning.
In the end the early caucus and primary system is far superior to Left Coast California or even liberal New York as such places always vote Democratic for the President (except 1984) which is hardly representative of the country. In Iowa's case we've gone to both the Democratic and Republican party.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
To my astonishment, CNN in their coverage seems like they're one one step away from writing off Edwards! I'd rather see Obama win anyway, but CNN's spent 95% of the time talking about things like it is just a race between Clinton and Obama. Some correspondent on there last night even said, "Edwards hasn't dropped out..."
Have the other networks been doing this? It sounds like CNN has an agenda to steer people away from electing a white male.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Errrrm Stephen, you talk about 'the elite' eliminating candidates as proof of a communist government...
Do you even know what communism is? Or what a primary is?
I fail to see how where you live defines whether you are in the 'elite' (statewise at least)
I could talk for days about the faults of the US democratic system, or the UK system.
I'll get it short, both countries need a proportional elecotral system.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Friends,
No matter what any of you thing about Ron Paul, he is the solution (as far as presidential politics go) to our problem and I just don't understand why there is not more support for him in the community. Marriage should not be under the aegis of the state because the state has become parasitic on an antecedent relationship rooted in natural inclination. Obama and even the rest of the Republicans have no problem adding bueracracy upon bueracracy. Glenn even had an article about Obama and Fred Thompson and their solution to our particular issue is to enforce more, mandate more etc. Well who does this? By what agent are these actions undertaken? The state. I don't know if it has been said here before (and I say this not for mere curiosity or historical rememberance) but our 'family law' system bears an uncanny similarity to Bolshevik Russia's handling of the family unit from between 1917-1932. Some may want to call this Stalinistic Communism while we are in the midst of Gramscian Communism but whatever the case may be, people need to wake up and realize that the state needs to get the hell out of our lives. Just remember, that Bolshevistic regime was the first one in Western Civilization to annul the rights of spouses over each other in the marital contract as well as annul the rights of parents over children, compulsory state education, no-fault/ unilateral divorce, abortion on demand and a child support system that bank-rupted the country because women were divorcing, remarrying and having 5 to 6 children and insisting that various men who had no relation to them where to own up to their paternal responsibilities. Stephan is right on mark, this is a communist country and the problem is that Americans have lulled themselves asleep with consumerism, license construed as liberty, societal and moral permissiveness and the like. Either we act up or the state will finish its end run and totally subsume the family and remold it according to its image, ideals and perogatives and as we all know, they will do this by the end of gun or the threat of the gulag-cell.
Ron Paul 2008.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Here in the UK many see the primaries system as being the epitome of democracy, with voters choosing the candidates, unlike here where you vote for a party and the party chooses the leader. However, since only registered Republicans and Democrats can vote in the respective primaries, is that so very different from party members electing their leader?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
The Constitution is under attack from the congress and senate by “both parties” and no one even seems to notice.
I think we have a lot bigger fish to fry than whether a pig farmer, or lobsta fisherman, gets the first crack at a prospective puppet of “special interest groups”.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
GS: "However, one reality of the capitalist economic system is that big business essentially holds the country and the political system hostage, because they are the only real force to create jobs. (Yes, I know many small businesses create jobs, too, and if you want to work for minimum wage, have at it.)"
Mymy...you really need to do some research on this one. In early 2007 small businesses were responsible for 64 percent of new jobs. See below (p 49):
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/03/art3full.pdf
As discussed in the link above, it is not an easy problem and the answer really depends upon your point of view. But the blanket statement "I know many small businesses create jobs too" added as an afterthought is incorrect. Conventional wisdom suggests that small businesses are as important as big businesses to the robustness of our economy. In fact, one could make a very convincing argument that SB's are more so because (a) SBs become BBs, (b) SB are responsible for a significant amount of R&D, and (c) they build new ideas for tomorrow. Since back in the 1990's, SB's hired more scientists and engineers then BB:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf99322/text.htm
And yes, I'm a small business owner, and no we do not pay our people minimum wage...if anything, in my experience, small companies pay BETTER then large companies because we need to provide extra incentives to bring people in. Often these incentives include both better salary and more stock options. Where small companies do have a disadvantage is in benefits...but even that is changing with SIMPLE 401Ks, etc.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
callum, I happen to be very well educated. My point is that we don't get to vote for the candidates we really want. A real vote is when you put all the candidates on the ticket and the masses vote for who they want. I remember an a recent story about the presidential candidates. It listed the two front runners and then rounded up the rest as minor candidates. It actually used the word minor. So the primaries eliminate candidates and then the national conventions eliminate candidates and we basically get a president that the media and the government chooses. It only looks like a democracy.
We happen to live in a communist (socialist) country now. The state takes all the wealth and gives it to the rich, feminists and women.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
"When I hear Edwards' attacks on big business, I keep wondering where he thinks living-wage jobs are going to come from. And no matter what government social welfare programs you have or how many of them you create, the best social program of all is a good job."
That's because most politicians are more interested in getting elected then making sound economic policy. Politicians aren't economically ignorant. Almost every senator in Washington has at least one competent economist on their staff. But the politicians know that the majority of the populace doesn't know better. This is especially true for the more populace politicians both on the left and the right.
I actually watched an interview of Edwards even though I don't plan on voting for him, and his idea's were so far left it was shocking. I don't think he actually believes half of the things he is saying. He's just getting more and more desperate and is willing to promise anything in order to pander to his base.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
err I meant to say:
'This is especially true for the more populist politicians both on the left and the right.'
That's 'populist' not "populace".
January 7th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
The high-tech startup small business to which Lance seems to be referring is a slim minority. The reality is that most small businesses fall into two categories: mom-'n-pop entrepreneurs, and service fields.
The former, the mom-'n-pops, usually employ ONLY mom 'n pop, or perhaps one of their kids working for little or nothing when the parents need help. If business is good enough, mom 'n pop might hire someone part-time at minimum wage.
The latter, the service fields, include such things as restaurants, light repair and maintenance operations, and small retail stores. The rank-and-file people working there do indeed make at or near minimum wage. (Studies have shown that one of the most common businesses people want to start is a restaurant, and related classes are among the most popular at community colleges. But few restaurants make money, and most go out of business within two years of startup.)
A family member by marriage to a relative operates a highly successful HVAC business. He makes money hand over fist, as a look around his house and his garage shows, but he complains that he just can't find good, reliable help for the $6 an hour and no benefits he offers. Gee, go figure. And I suspect he's more typical of such small business operators than anyone realizes. By the way, just because the plumber or independent auto shop bills $100 an hour doesn't mean that the person who did the work for you is making more than a small fraction of that. Many auto techs (mechanics) in such shops make less than $25,000 a year in my area, even with appropriate, up-to-date certifications and years of experience.
Figures from the US Department of Labor broadly confirm all this, as Paul Craig Roberts has tirelessly pointed out repeatedly in his column. All the job growth in the US has been in low-paid service fields. The high-paid high-tech and engineering jobs are going to foreigners either offshore or brought in on special visas to displace higher-paid Americans. That doesn't leave much room for startups in those lucrative fields, as Roberts notes.
The upshot: Glenn is generally on target with his comment about small business. We need to pull the wool from over our eyes. However, that doesn't mean that big business is deserving of praise for job creation. It's the big businesses that are outsourcing, offshoring, and importing foreigners in the first place. I'm not going too far out on a limb by saying that most corporate CEOs would sell their own mothers into slavery or give them the Terry Schiavo treatment if it would give their companies' stock values a boost. And that's what Edwards is criticizing.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I'm hearing that McCain looks likes he's going to get 32 percent in New Hampshire and Romney is going to get 27 percent and that this will be a crushing thing for Romney.
"But a difference of 5% in a state like New Hampshire is probably only a few thousand votes.
= = =
And as low as 2.5% if there were only 2 candidates or if people that voted for McCain voted for Romney. Most people fail to understand that dynamic of voting.
Put simply and in manageable numbers when there are 2 candidates and one has 10 votes and the other has 20 truly it seems like a slaughter 1/3 to 2/3, 33.3% to 66.6% or double the number of votes, 10 more votes, when in reality it is only 5 more votes. If 5 from the leading candidate voted the other way it would have been a 50-50 tie.
b
January 7th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
My 2 cents on term limits. To me the real problem is not term limits per sey but why politicians can stay in so long without their own party wanting them out. To me it is the power (in particular in the Senate) which comes with senority and choice subcomittie seats.
People in the political parties know that someone who has been in for several terms weilds a lot of power for his/her state and can get things for that state. Any new blood candidate no matter their drive or brains has to realize they will weild little power compared to the old hand one. The system is inherently resistant to any kind of change or reform.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Without getting into the specifics of the political points you made, Glenn, I find that he most significant thing about your appearance on Al-Jazeera to be your appearance on Al-Jazeera! To appear on their program is to lend credibility and respectability to a terrorist media outlet, one which has aired the bestial beheading of helpless humans! I don't care if this is the sanitized American affiliate, they are associated with monsters. This does not mean that my support for you and our cause is diminished, just that you made a mistake, Glenn. Maybe I am over-reacting, but I can't help but recall the hatred I felt for Jane Fonda when I listened to her on Radio Hanoi one night in 1972. You are not making traitorous statements like she did, but you are appearing on an enemy media outlet.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Ed: "The upshot: Glenn is generally on target with his comment about small business"
I couldn't disagree more... Small business (defined as a business with 1-499 people) is the dynamo that generates real economic prosperity...BB often end up (a) floundering or (b) buying small businesses. Just think of all of the BB today that were SBs...or that bought SBs. You count SB out at your peril. SBs are far more then just "mom and pops" and the like. SBs include companies in all sorts of sectors, and often SBs in manufacturing for instance stay here instead of go overseas (my father is a controller for a very successful foundry SB for example - with all American jobs).
From http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/03/art3full.pdf (p. 49)
* Small firms, those with 1 to 499 employees, create about 64 percent of new jobs.
* The share of growth of small firms is larger than their base share of employment. This growth, however, causes small firms to become large, increasing the employment share of large firms over time.
* Firms of different size classes behave differently throughout the phases of the business cycle. The contribution of large firms to the net job gains during the current economic recovery appears to have come from a fall in the level of gross job losses, rather than increased job creation. The share of gross job gains for this group has not yet reached its pre-recession levels.
* The bulk of net job losses in the 1991 recession occurred in small firms, while large firms have generated the majority of job losses during the economic slowdown of 2001.
Ed: "All the job growth in the US has been in low-paid service fields. The high-paid high-tech and engineering jobs are going to foreigners either offshore or brought in on special visas to displace higher-paid Americans. "
As someone in a high-tech field I can tell you that this just doesn't jive with reality. What we have found is exactly the opposite...I would love to hire Americans but I received 1 CV from an American and the rest - a STACK - are from people from elsewhere, people with greencards, and people that will need H1B visas. The problem isn't that jobs are going overseas it is that our schools aren't pumping out enough well trained scientists/engineers. The problem is also that we Americans have become lazy...science/engineering is hard and it is easier to go into business. Bill Gates was right!
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/07/bill_gates_pushes_for_better_schools/
And in terms of chemistry (both scientists and engineers) the job outlook is approaching that of 2001 which was considered a major high-point historically according to the American Chemical Society.
Ultimately, it seems that inertia is the biggest problem with the American worker. While people at the high end will continue to train and expand to make themselves more valuable, I've found that people at the low end just want to stay in the same job doing the same thing from the beginning to the end of their working lives. The world just won't stand still for those people anymore. Nowadays, if you are in any sort of job you better always be keeping your eyes open for the opportunity to improve yourself. Considering all of the federal money available to help (though their could probably be more), there isn't much of an excuse.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Ken: "To appear on their program is to lend credibility and respectability to a terrorist media outlet, one which has aired the bestial beheading of helpless humans! I don't care if this is the sanitized American affiliate, they are associated with monsters. This does not mean that my support for you and our cause is diminished, just that you made a mistake, Glenn. Maybe I am over-reacting"
I gotta disagree with this one. Al Jazeera is based in Qatar which is one of the more moderate states in the middle east. In fact, if you have anyone in your family that is stationed in the middle east, they probably spent time in Qatar. I would love for a major cable/dish company to pick up Al Jazeera on their main plan just so I have something other then the Propaganda Trio (MSN, CNN, and FN). I don't trust much of the American media anymore...I'm not saying that I would trust Al Jazeera any more as much as it would be nice to see another perspective....and it may help to keep the Propaganda Trio honest.
Besides, even if you do think that all people in the middle east are our enemies, there is another reason to watch Al Jazeera: "Know your enemy" - Sun Tzu's The Art of War
As far as the beheadings go, I agree that it was in bad taste to show them...but then it is probably equally in bad taste to show us blowing up buildings full of people and shooting up cars driving through checkpoints (or torturing prisoners), but CNN et al do it all the time. You may hate the terrorists (lord knows I do) but we shouldn't dehumanize them. They are just as human as we are..they are fighting a war the only way they know how and it is time for us to start treating them like a real enemy (instead of a pack of dogs). Otherwise, we won't win this war.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:01 am
We need to get moving in a national way and stop looking for political parties, politicians, and the media to make our case for us. I wanted our movement to get on board with a viable politician for purposes of the media exposure that would come when that politician took off in a positive direction. If we got a Presidential candidate to move enough in the polls it would cause a shock to the media and they would comment about our movement and more people would come to our movement. Unfortunately we didn't do that nor do people have anywhere to go if they did want to come? Where are the offices, meeting places, or activism for our movement for the come to? We complain and point out problems but when it comes to solutions we want others to do them for us.
Minister Smith is taking us in the right direction and doesn't play the intellectual game as to how to do what needs to be done. He organizes meetings and gets lots of people there followed by inspiration speaking demanding action. We need to be political and to go after the real tormentors ------ THE JUDGES. We need to run negative campaigns against them with auto dialers, door knocking, billboards, yard signs, and radio ads. Why are we worried about errant pizza joints when the real power lies at the courthouse? Throw a few judges out and now we're making real headlines. We need more CRISPE, F4J, Minister Ron Smith, Batman, and activism on top of websites like this one to be effective.
The Presidential opportunities have passed for our group as we missed the bandwagon six months ago. At this point we can all like who we like and it really doesn't matter as our issue is not relevant to the candidates because they never saw our numbers or our money. Pointing out the Dems are in general bad for fathers is a no brainer but some dems are really bad vs. just a little bad. Republicans are neutral to sometimes good but not enough to get excited about after the fact.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Lance, I agree that one should know his enemy, but to lend himcredibility by participating in his propoganda outlet is a different question.( You'll notice, I did listen to Hanoi Hannah's programming for multiple reasons, to include her targeting information, as well as rock music!) I also agree that these monsters should be treated as real enemies;i.e., napalm, no targeting confirmation (permission to shoot), no quarter for no uniform, etc. In other words, they are almost as low as the divorce shysters!
January 8th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Pay attention at minute two:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1
January 8th, 2008 at 2:10 am
"However, one reality of the capitalist economic system is that big business essentially holds the country and the political system hostage, because they are the main force to create jobs."
This is not true.
Small business drives the economy and is by far the major job creator.
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/sb_econ2007.pdf
"Small businesses continued to drive employment in the first three months
of the year, as firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for most of the
net job increase."
And minimum wage is not restricted to small business as is claimed by Glenn Sacks
"(Yes, I know many small businesses create jobs, too, and if you want to work for minimum wage, have at it.)" - Glenn Sacks
http://www.sba.gov/advo/oer_back00.html
"Nor are small firms the only employers of minimum wage workers. While about 55 percent of minimum wage workers are employed in small firms, the remaining 45 percent work in large hospitality firms, restaurants, hospitals, and other large businesses."
None of which should be taken to imply my support for John Edwards and his bogyman.
JT
January 8th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Late night update..
I don't know which to do louder, laugh out loud or applaud..but either way I love it!! After Hilary's meltdown speech tonight, in which she almost erupted in tears, the members of the liberal media spin machine are frantically stepping all over each other to 1) point out why her loss in Iowa was not her fault; 2) What her failure "says about our society and our perception of women"; 3) "The country is not ready for a woman president"; 4) "It is important for a candidate to have feelings"...etc, etc. They even interviewed a psychologist about it!.. ha ha, that's hilarious!!!
The machine is spinning so fast, the winds from the TV set almost blew me out the window of my hotel room.
I LOVE IT!! SHE'S A DUD!!!! :-))
January 8th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Mens Rights Activists might consider Hillary Clinton's address in 1998 at the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvadore:
The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well.
In case it is necessary or desirable to adduce an academic citation in support of the claim that non-combatant battle-age males are overwhelmingly the target of violence in war (and in peacetime), consider Effacing the Male: Gender, Misrepresentation, and Exclusion in the Kosovo War by Adam Jones, Ph.D. Published in Transitions: The Journal of Men's Perspectives, 21: 1-3 (2001). http://adamjones.freeservers.com/effacing.htm
Here is the abstract:
The Kosovo war of 1999 offered an excellent opportunity to analyze the representation of gender and violent victimization in the mass media. The present article focuses on the motif of "gendercide," or gender-selective mass killing -- in this case, of "battle-age" ethnic-Albanian men. A broad sample of media commentary is presented to demonstrate that "unworthy" male victims tend to be marginalized or ignored entirely in mass-media coverage. A trio of common marginalization strategies is discussed, and a theoretical framework of "first-order," "second-order," and "third-order" gendering is proposed to clarify the deficit in coverage. This deficit is then contrasted with the attention given to the victimization experiences of "worthy" victims, such as women, children, and the elderly. Finally, the small handful of responsible and insightful media reports on gender-selective atrocities against Kosovar men is evaluated for the alternative it may offer to "effacing the male" from coverage of war and violence.
For the sake of those men who lost their lives, I hope that HRC does not get the nomination.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Malcolm (4.27pm) -
Sorry to quibble, but Independents (ie voters not registered as Rep's or Dem's) can also vote in Republican or Democratic caucuses / primaries.
That's why their vote is often chased by the candidates, sometimes to the detriment of those that are known to be 'in the bag' (ie registered members of the party in question).
Non-registered / uncommitted voters are generally the key in any democratic system.
The Labour party could put a monkey in a suit up as a candidate in parts of South Wales (and often do!) and still win, which is why they generally don't bother looking for extra votes in those areas - they go for the marginals instead. That's why your vote is effectively worth less (but def not worthless) in seats with strong majorities.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Without having read the previous responses, I want to comment on the article first. Glenn you make perfect sense. However, here is the ONE thing that is bothering me the most. Let's just take the talk of change: THE ONE thing I have not heard a single candidate talk about is CHANGE FOR FAMILIES. As many who are farmilliar with you Glenn, know that part of your platform is advocating for fathers, children and the crazy federal child support crap. I am troubled by the fact that a Mike Huckabee for example, who touts himself to be an evangelical Christian (Baptist pastor) which I am sure he is.....has nothng to say about the state of families. As we well know, the state of families has become more about gay rights than it has about ANY CHILDRENS rights......is there not something wrong with this picture and should we not be asking more from our candidates? I have not heard a SINGLE candidate even mutter a sentence about stengthening familues and what he/she ( LOL) intends to do about it.....is anyone else troubled by this or will we get stuck settling for a president who will waffle under pressure to continue to focus on giving in to policies that breakdown the family system rather than bring it back to where it should be. That just simply scares me as we look ahead. Is all of my advocacy for children going to be a waste of time only to be drowned out by new laws and policies that go against what children so rightfully deserve?
January 8th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Ok...all you guys are way too smart for me! Forgive me for being an idiot and commenting before I read the dialogue previous! I clearly need to do more homework! I am somewhere between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee......all that matters to me is the kids....who will fight for them?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I can tell those interested in our cause that Mike Huckabee has twice personally met, and sought the support of, Bryan Iehl of www.iowafathers.com and the only reason we failed to endorse him (our mistake) was he refused to make a publice statement in favor of Equal Parenting as an absolute etc. He did sympathize with us and I am sure his Baptist ministerial background is far more inline with a father's right to be a father than even Ron Paul's Libertarianism as the latter is almost the equivalent of a "Kiss Off " in today's environment. Too bad we wasted time with Mark Klein as he really distracted a lot of our Iowa members when it mattered most.
McCain doesn't want to even touch this issue as it is in his words, "a tar baby." Romney can be trusted to take every position in the debate depending on his feeling at the moment and how it is likely to affect votes otherwise he will be sympathetic as long as it doesn't require any effort on his part. Rudy is pretty self-involved and not likely to care too much for the plight of fathers denied their children despite his three divorces as his money insulates him from caring too much for these matters. He does care about his own children and may be a victim of parental alienation himself but knowing a bit about Rudy you never can tell why his children remain angry at him into adulthood. Fred Thompson is on Political life support so his chances to be President are slim and none and slim just left the building but his views are fantastic as are those of Duncan Hunter.
The Dems??? Hillary and Edwards are the worst for our cause no doubt about that and Obama may not care much for us as we run counter to liberal societal ideals but he will not be a sworn enemy either. He will just be bad which is better than ambulance chasing Edwards and feminazi Hillary. In any event our time to be noticed this Presidential election cycle passed a long time ago when we failed to be a force before the Iowa Straw Poll last Aug 13th.
We need to get on the stick and run ouster campaigns against bad judges and doing F4J tactics while building our own state organizations as well as a united national organization or we'll continue to be on the outside looking in.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
James: "Sorry to quibble, but Independents (ie voters not registered as Rep's or Dem's) can also vote in Republican or Democratic caucuses / primaries."
That depends on the state. In many (most?) states, the primaries only involve voters registered in a particular party (democrats choose their democrat representative, republicans choose theirs). In my state of know of someone who switches back and forth from independent to party X every election specifically to help choose the candidate.
Tracy: "all that matters to me is the kids....who will fight for them?"
You just (inadvertently?) underscored one of the most important values of a democracy. Personally, I couldn't care less about the children. My wife and I don't have any and when we do, raising them will be our responsibility - not governments' or society's. As far as I am concerned, government should stay far away from my family as it can since government only tends to screw things up.
In terms of the primary system in general, I'm with The Economist...It is broken and there are no good fixes. If we have one big SuperSuperSuper Tuesday with all 50 states, the small states will have no say...if we continue down the path we are now, the primaries will continue to be a laughable representation of the national view. Part of the problem is we only have two major parties. If we had more then two, the primaries would probably means less since people would feel that they have more choice when it comes to the presidential election...as it stands, being from a late state, I feel that my vote for president is usually about trying to figure out who is the lesser of two evils....
January 8th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Uh Glenn maybe you didnt realize it but this news network is the one who recieved and distributed the videos of Osama Bin Laden and showed the beheading of the American journalist a couple of years ago. They have been identified with if not supporting terrorism at least not taking a very hard stance against it.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Lance,
I agree....Gov't should stay as far away from your life as poosible.....however for the majority of people who invite the gov't in when they get divorced or seperate and must involve the courts......LAWS MUST BE CHANGED. In order for laws to be changed, we as voters must hold our lawmakers accountable for the laws they make. The current set of laws that are in place regarding child support and child custody are antiquated and terribly hutful to the lives of the children they affect. So.......as members of a community are only going to stand by and shake our heads and do nothing....well then.......shamefully.......children will suffer and we will have no one to blame but ourselves. I personally think our children deserve far better than what our family court system deals to them. I also think it is shameful to have a Presidential candidate who is willing to ignore this issue. I am sorry that you could care less about the children. I'm afraid too many others feel this way as well.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Lance:
You're correct, it does vary from State to State - I was a bit sweeping in my earlier comment.
30 of the primaries and caucuses are 'open' or 'modified' (meaning independents can vote as well as registered party members) and 26 are 'closed.'
I agree with your view that Government should remember that it serves the people, not the other way around, when it comes to how it interacts with private citizens. Government should be a safety net, and not the nannying organisation that it's become in the US and Europe.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
James: "Government should be a safety net, and not the nannying organisation that it's become in the US and Europe."
Agreed. I often say that under the Democrats, the US becomes a NannyState and under the (modern) Republicans, the US becomes a DaddyState. How about they just get out of our business? The government should be there to make sure we have traffic lights, provide for the common defense, and make sure we don't kill the environment...but that's about it. Get out of my bedroom, my family, and my life beyond that.
And neither party seems to understand how federal money should be spent. IMO, federal programs should be limited specifically to invest in (a) sciences/technologies and associated businesses that have longer-term value that are difficult to support in the private sector, (b) rigorous education accountable to market forces such as school choice, (c) standards development for business/technology, and (d) welfare ONLY in the form of support for reeducation/training. An accounting of every federal dollar and pork project (along with names/addresses of officials) must be available to the American people at all times.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Good point about Al Jazeera showing videos of American beheadings and that point alone means even Glenn should avoid that network out of respect for America and human rights.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I agree with Glenn that the primary system favors the east coast. I remember reading that occurred as a compromise to allow the western provinces representation at all. Lo and behold, the Americans given the chance wished to enforce taxation without representation on its citizens just as the Brits had done.
I have long felt that there would be no improvement from within. Criticism from Al Jazeera is welcomed from me, especially as it tends to be accurate.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Norman L, great post about Hitlery. I want her to lose so bad I can taste it. It's not that she's a woman, It's because she's a lousy candidate. I believe more people are going to see what a monster she is without any help from us or anyone else. It's a hoot to watch the media sycophants explain her losses. They just can't handle it.
January 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Tracey, family issues are perceived to be too closely aligned with the religious right, And if you have the slightest "taint" of religion you're doomed. Remember the family values propaganda in the past. Well they see family as a losing proposition so they go with what's popular like economic reform, the war on terror or women's issues.
I too wish that family issues were a part of the landscape but I guess you can say that family values just aren't sexy enough. As far elections go, this one is the most devoid of real issues. What's the point? What are the candidates and the masses fighting for. There is such a lack of substance and direction in this nation. I believe the decline in the family caused all this aimless wandering.
January 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Stephen: "I too wish that family issues were a part of the landscape but I guess you can say that family values just aren't sexy enough....There is such a lack of substance and direction in this nation.."
Hence part of the reason why we must switch from a dual-party system to a multi-party system. As long as you have candidates that try to be all things to all people all we will continue to have aimless wandering.
Another fix: smaller government. The bigger the government the more people expect the government to do which leads to bigger government ... which leads to greater expectations .....round and round and round.
Another: stronger state governments and weaker federal government so that we are less dependent upon the federal government for anything but very specific things (the common defense, standards, and so on). Then we will care less about federal-level officials and care more for state-level officials.
Another: greater personal responsibility so that people stop expecting officials to put out non-existent fires.
.....
January 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Stephen.......
All I can say is......YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! END OF STORY! I am so saddened by this reality. It simply breaks my heart. And people wonder why our kids act the way they do......our families are broken and our government not only condones broken homes, it provides our states with incentives to keep the family in disarray. All we can do is pray.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
1,314,895 people in New Hampshire
22.6% under 18 = 1,017,728.73
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000
Northwest 67% typically register = 681,878.2491
Northwest 45% registered vote (high side estimate) = 375,033.037005
census.gov
New Hampshire 45% registered voters are independent = 206,268.17035275 people voting
78% of Republican winners in NH go on
57% of Democratic winners go on
CNNHedline news 01/08/2008
OK this would not go with the page addresses so I left partial addresses in hopes it will go and people can check the sites
b
January 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I would like to say something about big government. I believe that when most people in this nation have a major problem and they think of a solution, the government is at the top of the list. Around the year 1900, Galveston Texas was wiped out by a hurricane. The city rebuilt and when the bill was due it seems that the government only provided around 15 percent of the budget to rebuild. It was the same scenario for San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake. Now if someone breaks a nail they expect the government to provide nail clippers and a file.
I realize we need government. If we didn't have police, for instance anarchy would ensue. But our founding fathers were right when they tried to limit the size of government. I believe that one cure for big government is personal responsibility. For instance, the government profits from sexual promiscuity. If more people didn't sleep with every thing that breathes the government would lose money. The people had the power but they gave it to the government. We don't have to wait for them to give the power back to us. We can take it back ourselves by not playing by the rules they've set up for us. The people really have the power. Just ask Hitlery.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Stephen,
I am an independent but usually end up voting for a Democrat (I don't usually vote in the primaries..too lazy). A couple months ago I took a "quiz" at some webiste, where I entered my preferences on various issues such as Iraq and the economy. When I submitted my answers, a web page came back saying I should vote for Obama if a Dem, and I think McCain if a Republican.
That's why in an earlier post I said I may vote for Obama, but I'm not really a liberal (i.e. I am not far left) and I've been hearing lately that he kind of is one. Also I saw a few months ago, on the mensactivism.com website, a link to a speech he made basically chastising black fathers about being irresponsible. It does sound like he buys into the myth of "deadbeat dads". But he's still might be a better choice than Edwards, since I do know that Edwards is big on women's "equity" or whatever.
Then again I may vote for McCain...if he wins the primary. I'm just not sure what his position on veterans is. He does have more overall experience though. If Obama is mainly counting on the youth vote he is making a big mistake, at least as far as the final election. After all, one third of the people in this country are baby boomers (born between 1946-1964). There are also a large number of elderly, needless to say.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Actually that "one-third" number in my post above would no longer be true..I read it in the book "Megatrends" which came out in the 80's, but since then the total population has increased, as well as some bably boomers have died early.
Duh.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
All young people that I have talked to are going to vote for either Clinton or Obama, most do not even realize that they will not be able to choose between them in the presidential election and none of them could tell me why the would vote for them . . . sad truly sad
b
January 8th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
[...] To learn more about my view on the current election, see my blog post Glenn Discusses Presidential Primaries on Al-Jazeera. [...]
January 8th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I looked at the entry in defense of crying. Let's look at some bigger issues than the crying itself, like for example what it could portend for something to do with nuclear destruction or national security:
What if she gets elected, THEN goes under tremendous attack for something, like say for making a certain decision during a "Korean Missile Crisis"??
January 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Norman L, I came from a liberal family and there for I became a liberal. But I rejected liberalism 3 years ago because I believe they are out of touch with reality more so than conservatives. Many liberals have no moral standards whatsoever. I also don't like the fact that liberals are pacifists. They smugly think that pacifism is a virtue but IMHO it's not. I have a problem with Iraq and Afghanistan because we're not fighting a war but playing politics like we did in Vietnam. But still, I believe a country should defend itself.
When I say that liberals are out of touch with reality, I'm referring to all the appeasement going on concerning terrorists. Conservatives play the same game but not to the extent that liberals do. It's unrealistic to think that you can negotiate with terrorists. There are only 3 candidates that I would consider voting for and they are Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. But I know they don't stand a chance.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Tracey when you say,
“All we can do is pray.”
We certainly can pray but that’s not all we should do. We can, for example, do as Ken Richards suggests –
“ . . . get on the stick and run ouster campaigns against bad judges and doing F4J tactics while building our own state organizations as well as a united national organization . . . “
We can also contribute financially to the actions of those such as Marc Angelucci and organizations such as NCFM. We can support sites such as this one and use such sties to share and disseminate information for educational and action purposes.
We can vigorously attack the injustice in the “system” by doing such things as inundating politicians, local authorities, public servants, newspaper editors, reporters, business leaders, shock jocks, social commentators and just about anyone else for that matter with emails, letters, voicemails and phone calls in order to raise awareness of the problems in the “system”. We can also bring this stuff up in casual conversations with just about anyone who will listen. In short – we can ACT UP (to borrow a phrase from an earlier politically active group who were ultimately very successful in getting action).
We can also load up law schools (and simultaneously, where possible, courts) with reasonable and fair-minded individuals – who will not listen to and ultimately reject the patently fallacious arguments of certain agenda-driven social scientists (and their further-out political bed-fellows) intent on foisting their pseudoscientific views of what constitutes a “good” society on us.
BTW Thomas, I agree Ron Paul is the only real Constitutionalist of the bunch - it is a shame that he cannot muster more support.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Bernie Misiura, it is truly sad. You have to remember that this is the "Johnny can't read" generation. Many of them don't realize that the numbers on a milk carton or other food products are the expiration dates. And don't let one of them get behind a cash register. The problem is the media and the way they "package" the candidates that they choose for us.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Celia,
Thank YOU! You are so right. I am just starting to learn of the crazy insane family court system.....I know it is not just the family court, but our gov't system as a whole is a mess. But my heart is with the children and I am just sick over it all. For whatever reason it seems to take so much more effort to get more people to do the things you describe.....I don't know why, I think some of it has to do with the fact that peopel think that their words will fall on deaf ears...which sometimes is true...but there IS power in numbers as you know. I think that the other piece that some of these fathers are facing is the overwhelming sence of defeat. It has got to be tremendously difficult to deal with this on a daily basis as so many men do. They are worn down and beat up. They don't have any fight left in them. Well.....as some would say...we all must carry the cross of another for a time.....so as the evils of the family court slowly become more visible and loud.....It is my hope and prayer that others will step forward to bear the cross of a beaten down father who just wants to be able to tuck his children into bed at night, watch them sleep, talk to them on the phone, buy them a baseball glove or ballet shoes, or just give them a hug. Or maybe get to spend more than an hour and a half at McDonalds on Wednesday nights......without it all costing them their entire paycheck or their sanity......Children deserve to have the love of thier daddies without the permission of some power hungry judge. Whoever thought that they should have the authority to decide such things should be....well........will not be happy with their eternal resting place......that is for sure......
So thank you Celia for that reminder.....you are indeed correct and have given me new energy!
January 9th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Tracey, you are right when you say,
“there IS power in numbers . . . “
and
“Well.....as some would say...we all must carry the cross of another for a time.....so as the evils of the family court slowly become more visible and loud . . . “
I have been very fortunate in not having been directly affected by the injustice of the “family court” system but I have a professional interest in law and in justice per se. Despite having escaped the insanity (my ex and I have remained friends) I have closely witnessed what these so-called “family” courts hands out to men on a regular basis and much of it is substantially unjust (and quite frankly irrational) – this (absurd behavior) is happening in other areas of the law (torts) as well. This is not what America is supposed to be about. I have two children in their teens who will be forced to wade into this mine field sooner than I would like – this, understandably, adds impetus to my convictions about “fixing” the system. So I agree with you, children and dads are ripped off by the system – and we need to fix this. We cannot allow the magnitude of the problem to intimidate us - it is going to take a lot of direct action to force this industry to roll over but we ALL need to attack it aggressively at EVERY juncture. Like I said, ACT UP.
January 9th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Celia,
You are absolutely right (it is going to take a lot of direct action to force this industry to roll over). What most Americans do not understand is that our republic is an experiment. It is not something permanent, any more than was the Greek experiment in democracy or the Roman Republic. It looks to me like we are going the way of the Romans, only faster, degenerating into an imperial, self indulgent, and completely dissolute society, having no respect for anything or anyone, including even the lives of innocents. We may already be beyond the power of truly good and near tireles warriors like Glenn to reverse our slide into - into what? Unfortunately, Americans believe that the Dark Ages were simply a quirk of history, at least among those literate enough to have even heard of them. Personally, I have decided to take some sage advice and just sit down and shut up! ( At least for most of the time. I can get more done that way.)
January 10th, 2008 at 12:49 am
[...] The story is below, from Michael Levine's E-Newsletter. To learn more about my views of the presidential elections and the primaries, including my annoyance with the asinine primary system which knocks most candidates out of the race before people in populous states have a chance to vote on them, see my recent blog post Glenn Discusses Presidential Primaries on Al-Jazeera. [...]
January 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Re: Politics & Glenn Sacks
First off. I've been critical of the early primary states for years. Iowa gave us "Slipknot" & New Hampshire " the Dean-Scream" That alone should discredit both of them for a long time to come. The Sacramento valley alone has more voters there than Iowa & New Hampshire combined...and that's just the illegal voters who watch Univision...so there !!
As for loseing good candidates early like Biden & Dodd because of a bad Iowa & New Hampshire showing ... Biden & Dodd ?? Give me a break dude !! Fact is we need more candidates to get out of the race...not get in or stay in !!
As for term limits...Glenn makes the case for expirence & why would we want to "term-out" expirenced legislators.
Why would you want to do that ?? I'll give you some irrefuteables...Bill Clinton Ark. Ted Kennedy in Mass. Pete Stark, Don Perata , Fabian Nunuez in California ( I might add that digraced & recalled fromer Democrat Ca.Gov. Gray Davis never had a real job either & he had LOTZ of experience !! ) Check the record...public service is the only long term job they've EVER had. I must admit that all my examples are Liberal Democrats...but that's just a coincidence.
Feel free to dicuss it amongst yourselves.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Ken Brewer said,
“It looks to me like we are going the way of the Romans, only faster, degenerating into an imperial, self indulgent, and completely dissolute society, having no respect for anything or anyone . . .”
I hate to say so but I kind of agree with that Ken. I am, however, trying to be somewhat more optimistic. I think that the one qualifier that you left out is irrationality – when our justice system (and a measurable proportion of our citizens) readily embrace irrationality in law and government we are surely headed for trouble. I just hope that my increasingly challenged thin veil of optimism is not misplaced.
You also said,
“Personally, I have decided to take some sage advice and just sit down and shut up!”
I can understand that (and don’t blame you) but I can’t do it. I agree that sometimes working behind the scenes is very effective but I suspect that we need a combination of intelligently applied “in your face” opposition and persistent efforts working below the radar. I personally am too angry at injustice and – after being told all of my juvenile and most of my adult life that America is all about justice – I am not prepared to sit back and passively watch it going down. I tend to get in peoples faces when I have the facts backing me up - not always aggressively but always in a determined manner – I usually get the point across, hopefully this is usually in a constructive manner.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
[...] on the presidential race and the flaws in our primary system in several blog posts. These include: Glenn Discusses Presidential Primaries on Al-Jazeera (1/7/08); In Defense of Hillary Clinton's Crying (1/8/08); Of Course Richardson Needs to Bow [...]
January 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com " Blog Archive " Glenn Discusses Presidential Primaries … [...]
January 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com " Blog Archive " Glenn Discusses Presidential Primaries … [...]