RIP

After a long run, I am finally putting this blog to rest. I'll still be blogging (probably about as frequently), but not at this address. My new blog can be found at lukecmiller.wordpress.com. Please update your links and bookmarks and feed (the feed address is: http://lukecmiller.wordpress.com/feed/) .

Blood on the Tree of Liberty

I've been really bad about blogging lately, but something is on my mind that I'd like to process here. I've been reading a lot of stuff recently about conservative reactions to the Obama Presidency. There seems to be a rising tide of resentment, culminating in public questions of the current government's legitimacy, and in some places, calls for (or speculation of) revolution.

In our 200+ years as a nation, we have held over 50 presidential elections. In the last one, Barack Obama beat John McCain by just under 10 Million votes, and by 192 electoral votes. His victory was decisive. The American people chose their leader in the same way that we have done every four years since our constitution was ratified. In addition, the American people voted decisively for large majorities in both houses of Congress.

You may be disappointed with the results. You may be discouraged by your fellow citizens' electoral choices. But, I'm sorry, that's how our system works. We are a nation that chooses its leaders and its laws according to the will of the majority. That means that sometimes, when we find ourselves in the minority, we don't get our way. And during the preceding 28 years, the Democrats did not get their way for twenty.

I realize that this kind of change can be unsettling. But there's something you can do about it. You can exercise your First Amendment rights to free speech and you can get out there and make your case known. You can tell as many people as you can how your philosophy and policies are better. And in two years, when we hold another set of elections, you can advocate for candidates who represent you and your ideas. And again they'll face the entirety of the American electorate and we'll decide if they have better ideas for our nation.

I fail to see how one can advocate that the government has become tyrannical against the will of the people, when the government was elected as a result of the will of the people. Maybe not of YOUR will, but the will of your neighbors and fellow citizens. If we decide in two or four or six years that those we elected are failing us, we can send them home. Until the government somehow usurps our basic rights to remove them from office, I don't see how we can allege that they are being tyrannical. And until they become tyrannical, I don't see how we can advocate some kind of non-electoral over-throw.

That would be a minority imposing their will on the majority, and THAT would be tyranny.

/rant

This is what I read that got me riled up if you're interested.

Presidents in the Schools

At age 7 and 10 I heard Presidents Reagan and Bush (41) give similar addresses to American school children. I voted for Barack Obama. It seems to me that conservatives would want their kids to hear President Obama so they'll grow up and vote conservative.

From the economist:

"...if conservatives are worried that Obama will beam his mind-rays through the television screens and turn their children into...pro-business moderate liberals, or something, they should chill out: the mind-rays don't work. In 1988, Ronald Reagan addressed the nation's schoolchildren via television, and in 1991, George H.W. Bush did the same. And in 2008, those kids, now aged roughly 24 to 38, voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. If, on the other hand, conservatives make the president's speech seem like something forbidden and cool, that they're not allowed to watch...that just might ensure those kids vote Democratic when they get the chance."

Ted Kennedy (1932-2009)

This is my attempt to write a little something to mark the passing of Senator Kennedy.

Last night, shortly after I went to sleep, news agencies began reporting that Senator Kennedy had lost his battle with brain cancer. I didn't get the news until this morning. I was saddened.

Before I go any further, it should be noted that I do not think that Kennedy was a perfect man. His behavior at many points in his life were much less than honorable to say the least. On this day of his passing, however, I think it right to think of the family, friends and constituents who loved him and mourn his passing, and to save our judgments for another day.

History and politics are two of my deepest loves. And as a student of both, I cannot help but recognize the importance of the entire Kennedy clan, and specifically Ted. His passing is an important mark on American history and politics. "Teddy" was the youngest of four brothers, and the only one to die of natural causes. His oldest brother, Joe Jr., was killed in World War II while flying a mission over the English Channel. Jack Kennedy was gunned down while parading in Downtown Dallas. Bobby also fell victim to gun violence five years later while campaigning for the presidency.

This left Ted as the only surviving Kennedy son, and he was forced to pick up the family standard. He did this with failure and success. From 1962 to the present, Kennedy made an indelible mark on American politics. An unashamed advocate for progressive causes, he had his hand in every major legislative battle from civil rights to the current debate over healthcare.

Some downplay it, but I think one of his biggest contributions, at least in the last five years, was his endorsement of Barack Obama in last year's Democratic Primary. Toward the end of January, it became clear that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were going to be the two candidates standing, and that it was going to be really close. For many democratic voters, I think Kennedy's endorsement provided just the right amount of push they needed to commit to Obama. I know it went a long way for me, not because I respected Kennedy's opinion as much as what it represented: establishment democrats could work with Obama.

Kennedy certainly has his detractors. Many have been unwilling to forgive his behavior at Chappaquiddick in 1969, when he drove his car into a pond and abandoned Mary Jo Kopechne who died an hour or so later. Kennedy's memoirs will be released next month, and it will be interesting to see how he treats this incident. Leaving her and failing to report the accident for hours was clearly a failure on his part, but people make mistakes, sometimes grave. And it is not those failures that should define us, but how we deal with them. Detractors will argue that he got away with murder. I don't think the situation was quite that simple, and it must be noted that the Chappaquiddick incident did remain as a dark cloud over the rest of his career and prevented him from ever moving beyond the Senate.

Perhaps his inability to attain the presidency is not punishment enough for you. That's fair. But remember that he was democratically elected by the people of Massachusetts every six years, and ultimately who they choose to represent them is their call.

From his election to the United States Senate in 1962 to his role in the aftermath of his brothers' assassinations to the Chappaquiddick incident to his failed bid to wrestle the Democratic nomination from Jimmy Carter in 1980 to his nay vote on the Iraq War to his tireless commitment to universal health care, Senator Ted Kennedy was a dominant presence in American politics in the second half of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first. Whether you love or hate the man, may we all mark his passing with reverence as an era ends, and we all look to a new generation of leaders to pick up where he left off.

May peace be with his family, his friends, and with all those who mourn the passing of this "Lion." May hope fill all of our hearts as we recall his words that "our best days are still ahead."

Ted Kennedy and Senate Vacancies (PoliBlog)

Last week Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts sent a letter to his state's governor and legislature asking that rules be changed regarding Senate vacancies... most notably: his impending Senate vacancy. Diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, Kennedy has been absent from the Senate during most of the votes made during this legislative session. His condition does not appear to be improving, and it looks likely that he will have to vacate his Senate seat in the near future.

Kennedy has served in the United States Senate since 1962, and every six years he is more or less rubber-stamped on through to re-election. The people of Massachusetts clearly have a deep love and respect for the youngest (and only surviving) of the Kennedy brothers. I make no comment here on whether or not I agree with the people of Massachusetts.

Current state law requires a waiting period of four-ish months after a Senate seat has been vacated, after which a special election is held to elect a new Senator to fill the vacated seat. In Massachusetts the Governor has no power to appoint someone to fill the seat. This means that, during the months-long waiting period, Massachusetts will only have one Senator, and one vote. This law was created when John Kerry was running for President and Mitt Romney, a Republican, was Governor. Democrats in MA did not want their Republican Governor making an appointment to fill Kerry's seat should he be elected POTUS.

Now Massachusetts has a Democratic Governor and Democrats again feel comfortable letting their Governor make an appointment, and Kennedy, among others, has asked that the rules be changed. Senator Kennedy has long supported universal healthcare, and with important votes on this looming, it's fairly clear that he wants to make sure his sentiments are represented, both for the people of MA and the Democratic Party.

To address the immediate issue... that seems fair. I think it was dumb that the rules were changed in 2004, but I agree that the people of MA, and of all states, should have full representation in Congress.

Which brings me to the real reason for this blog. It's 2009. Should Senators really have to be present in Washington to cast votes on important legislation? It seems to me that extenuating circumstances like Sen. Kennedy's (and Mr. Byrd's) shouldn't prevent American citizens from being represented. Can he not call in a vote? Or can the Senate not create some kind of secure internet connection? If the President is in Wyoming and needs to issue an order to launch nuclear missiles, he can do it from Air Force One (or Marine One). Why do Senators have to be present to do their job?

I do realize the slippery slope. Forcing congressmen and -women to be in DC requires them to be involved in conversation with people who represent other parts of the country and different schools of thought, thus, ideally, aiding them in making better choices for their people. But again, in extreme circumstances, should there not be some kind of backup in place?

AND Should there not be some kind of immediate replacement procedure should someone vacate their seat either in death or resignation? I don't mean something permanent, but something that ensures that the people are continuously represented. Maybe it immediately goes to the Senator's spouse, or to the chief of staff, or to the most senior member of that state's congressional delegation, or maybe some other predetermined appointee. My point is simply that it seems very un-democratic to deny the people representation in congress simply because the person they voted for gets sick or injured or has to resign for some other reason.

Let the states work it out how they like, by special election or gubernatorial appointment or any other way they see fit, but let's create something in the meantime to fill vacancies. What do you say?

Barney Frank at his Town Hall (PoliBlog)

I've said over and over again that I want to see real debate happening between competing political parties and ideologies, but sometimes, you just have to enjoy the show. (Also - I'm beginning to wonder if Rep. Barney Frank is one f the Car Talk brothers.)

Crap! (MotoBlog)

First let me apologize. It's been almost two weeks since my last post. Seems like keeping up with this thing as I'd like is still a challenge for me, but I'm not giving up.

Last week, my brother-in-law was nice enough to loan me his 850cc Suzuki cruiser (that's a motorcycle, btw, a proper motorbike). I'm going to be renting a Triumph Bonneville next week in Reno/Lake Tahoe, so I wanted to get used to getting around town on a bike with 17x the power of my scooter. I really enjoyed riding his bike all week. Many thanks are in order.

Getting back on my scooter last night, though, was REALLY strange. I've been riding that thing for two years, basically everyday. But getting on it last night, it felt foreign. It felt tiny and underpowered. On the other hand, though, it felt really agile and easy compared to Carter's 600lb. cruiser.

I've been planning an upgrade to a bike in a couple of months, and this experience really did two things: it locked in that I really want to get one AND made me think that I'm really going to miss my scooter. I think I'll know more about what I want after this Thursday (Bonneville in Northern Nevada). Will I want a Bonneville like the one I ride... will I want something smaller... will I want an old bike that can supplement the scooter? Only time will tell.

I'll try to do a ride report of some sort when I get back.