Essay: "Roger Clemens and Congress"

Essay: "Roger Clemens and Congress"

Right now I wouldn't want to be in former major league pitcher Roger Clemens cleats. In case you don't follow the news or professional sports, ex-Red Sox hurler Clemons is currently on trial (as of late August to early September 2010) for allegedly "lying under oath, perjury" and being untruthful to Congress in regards to the use of steroids and other banned substances to improve his game as a major leaguer. I have no idea whether Clemens stretched or broke the truth or not, but in these tough economic times and amid an exorbitant unnecessary wartime (both in Iraq and Afghanistan); you'd think our elected so-called leaders of either party or none would concentrate on matters to end or alleviate our myriad crises. As a matter of fact, (though I know it will never happen in a million years) it's a shame that politicians in general and the U.S. Congress in particular cannot be charged with perjury or even treason for lies and exaggerations of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" for not leveling with or being sincere with their constituents and the American people; especially when their votes make our lives more difficult or unpleasant.

Essay: "If It Doesn't Make Money Does It Make Sense?"

Essay: "If It Doesn't Make Money Does It Make Sense?"

In the corporate world, especially in this country, if it doesn't make money it doesn't make sense. Many conservative politicians have the same attitude about governing this country. Corporations exist to turn a profit, not to make the world a better place. However, a lot of worthwhile activities make little or no money, but are still very much worthwhile and worth pursuing. Many of these activities enrich the lives, add to the culture, and perhaps make the world a much better and interesting place than it would be without them. A good example of this are art, music, poetry and literature. Another example is humanitarianism, philanthropy, and ecological concern and action. In the case of ecology of the natural environment, the best interest of everyone is often at odds with the business goal of making money and turning a profit. In my view, especially when it comes to dirty and potentially dangerous fossil fuels and toxic chemicals; it is better for industry to lose money than for future BP-like disasters to occur or for citizens and others to get sick or die due to corporate malfeasance whether intentional or not. In another instance, in the case of health insurance and health care, an individual or family should never have to suffer, go broke, end up on the streets, or die due to a lack of or inadequate insurance; or so a hospital or insurance company can turn a profit or enrich their senior management to an exorbitant extent. If right-wing politicians and judges had their way, have-nots aka the poor would be at the mercy of ruthless corporate so-called "market" whims. Admittedly, some liberal and moderate pols endorse this attitude because they think it will help them get reelected. (tbc?)

Essay: "National Popular Vote Initiative"

Essay: "The National Popular Vote Initiative"

The Massachusetts legislature, along with twenty or so other states, voted to implement the National Popular Vote Initiative to bypass the Electoral College in the next and future Presidential elections. Up to now, instead of being elected by popular vote, Presidents are chosen by Electoral College delegates state by state. I don't understand how it is determined how each state gets how many delegates, but the Presidential candidates concentrate on the states which they feel they need to win in order to become President. States deemed less important naturally feel left out, but it usually works out for the best. However, in the 2000 election Al Gore received a majority of the Popular Vote, but managed to lose the Presidency to the disaster of George W. Bush[ two exorbitant and unnecessary endless wars, a catastrophic economy, spying on citizens, etc.] . Assuming no alleged chicanery by the GOP or a biased Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts and other states wanted to avoid a future George W. situation. Unfortunately, the National Popular Vote Initiative may end up resulting in the opposite of the intended effect in the next or in subsequent elections.

According to this law, the winner of the Popular Vote in the next and future Presidential elections will receive all of the Electoral College delegates in Massachusetts and the other twenty some-odd states even if some or all of them do not support the eventual winner of future elections. The combined delegates of twenty states can and likely will have a big impact on who becomes President. For instance, at least in the Blue State of Massachusetts, this law was intended to avoid the pernicious policies and insidious agenda of the extreme right-wing of the Republican party from being unjustly implemented along with more radical conservative judges and Supreme Court justices being appointed, but if a Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or the like manages to win the National Popular Vote but loses in Massachusetts, our delegates will go to such a candidate anyway. The more I know about the Popular Vote Initiative the less I like about it. Perhaps the Electoral College isn't such a bad idea after all.