Friday, June 24, 2005
Look out, here comes the Wal-Mart Monster!
This week a really strange Supreme Court decision came out. It said that private corporations can seize your house and property to make room for a shopping center, a hotel, a parking garage or other business. To me this is an extension of boarding soldiers in your house, which is forbidden by the Constitution. However, it is law in many states that the state can seize land for such things as a highway. They usually offer you a good sum for this land, but still, they infringe upon property rights and your feeling of being in a place you can call your own.
What's new now is that the Supreme Court has said that private businesses can seize your land. This is really going to cause some rebellion in some places. Many people disapprove of Wal-Mart because of its using cheap labor overseas, the crowdedness of its stores, its disregard for communities' sense of connectedness and its small businesses, many of which fold upon the arrival of a Wal-Mart, and its tearing down wilderness, a home to wild animals of all sorts, to construct its Supercenters. Now the Supreme Court says it can take your land for a Wal-Mart. If you are dead set against the store, you will be really angry about this. If this mood prevails over a huge community of such people, a rebellion could result.
I don't know what the Supremes were thinking on this one. They need to protect the individual property owner's sense of security in his home.
What's new now is that the Supreme Court has said that private businesses can seize your land. This is really going to cause some rebellion in some places. Many people disapprove of Wal-Mart because of its using cheap labor overseas, the crowdedness of its stores, its disregard for communities' sense of connectedness and its small businesses, many of which fold upon the arrival of a Wal-Mart, and its tearing down wilderness, a home to wild animals of all sorts, to construct its Supercenters. Now the Supreme Court says it can take your land for a Wal-Mart. If you are dead set against the store, you will be really angry about this. If this mood prevails over a huge community of such people, a rebellion could result.
I don't know what the Supremes were thinking on this one. They need to protect the individual property owner's sense of security in his home.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Democrat to be elected in 2008?
I notice that Allan Lichtman, author of The Keys to the White House, says that it is likely that a Democrat will be elected President of the United States in 2008. He bases his reasoning on his 13-Key system for determining the winner of a US Presidential election. Each of the keys is a statement that can be true or false; the incumbent party wins if and only if 5 or fewer keys are false.
Allan Lichtman sees 4 keys for the Republicans (the incumbent party) , 5 for the Democrats, and 4 uncertain keys. I think that 7 keys could fall instead, with 4 standing and 2 uncertain. Here is the key by key rundown:
1. Mandate. Incumbent party gains in midterm elections over previous midterm elections. Lichtman says that all the Democrats have to do is win 3 seats to take this key (not the House, but the key). So he fails this key. I think it is uncertain; last time the Republicans had a field day.
2. Contested Nomination. The candidate is nominated with at least 2/3 of the vote on the first ballot. Allan Lichtman thinks this will fall, since there is going to be a squabbling match among a bunch of contenders. True, it may be a donnybrook at first, but usually the result is a breakaway by one of the candidates. So I think this key is uncertain.
3. Incumbency. Falls. Bush can't run again, and he probably will be the President in 2008.
4. Third Party. Where is there a third party? I don't see any. Neither does Lichtman. Stands.
5. Short-term economy. There is no recession in the presidential year (2008). See key 6.
6. Long-term economy. Growth in the term exceeds growth in the previous term. I think both keys 5 and 6 will fall because peak oil will cause a recession. Some people say that shortages may begin in 2008. This certainly will not be good for the economy. So I think these keys will fall. Lichtman says they are uncertain; I wonder if he is aware of peak oil.
7. Policy. Bush has not put forth any good leadership in office, and if he starts anything, the result will be a Congressional squabble over it, as witness the "nuclear" option. I say this will fall, and so does Lichtman.
8. Social Unrest. There is no major social unrest during the term. By "major", I mean major riots occurring all over the place (not just in one place), war or armed conflict, major rebellions such as the Bonus Army, and major rioting at a convention. I don't see any on the horizon unless Peak Oil starts something. Both Lichtman and I say this stands.
9. Scandal. There is no major scandal during the term. By a "major" scandal, I mean a scandal strong enough to cause impeachment or threat of impeachment of the President, or many high-ranking officials quitting or going to jail because of their misdeeds. I don't see any of that either, unless lying about oil reserves constitutes a scandal. Stands.
10. Foreign/military failure. There is no foreign or military failure during the term. I think this has already fallen. The occupation of Iraq is a failure. The place is still full of violence, and a stable government really has not formed there. But Lichtman thinks this is uncertain.
11. Foreign/military success. There is a foreign or military success during the term. I think this will fall, because I don't see where Bush can succeed this term. But Lichtman thinks this is uncertain.
12. Incumbent charisma. Only John McCain of the Republicans has a chance at this one. This will probably fall.
13. Challenger charisma. None of the Democrats seem to have it, except possibly Hillary Clinton. This will probably stand.
This is an important election coming up, as whoever is elected will measure in stature to Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Whoever is elected will have to deal with peak oil and global warming head on, and it will be a major crisis. To me the present administration will not be able to do it, and I am hoping someone from the Democrats will be able to pull us through the crisis.
I say the Democrats will win in 2008.
Allan Lichtman sees 4 keys for the Republicans (the incumbent party) , 5 for the Democrats, and 4 uncertain keys. I think that 7 keys could fall instead, with 4 standing and 2 uncertain. Here is the key by key rundown:
1. Mandate. Incumbent party gains in midterm elections over previous midterm elections. Lichtman says that all the Democrats have to do is win 3 seats to take this key (not the House, but the key). So he fails this key. I think it is uncertain; last time the Republicans had a field day.
2. Contested Nomination. The candidate is nominated with at least 2/3 of the vote on the first ballot. Allan Lichtman thinks this will fall, since there is going to be a squabbling match among a bunch of contenders. True, it may be a donnybrook at first, but usually the result is a breakaway by one of the candidates. So I think this key is uncertain.
3. Incumbency. Falls. Bush can't run again, and he probably will be the President in 2008.
4. Third Party. Where is there a third party? I don't see any. Neither does Lichtman. Stands.
5. Short-term economy. There is no recession in the presidential year (2008). See key 6.
6. Long-term economy. Growth in the term exceeds growth in the previous term. I think both keys 5 and 6 will fall because peak oil will cause a recession. Some people say that shortages may begin in 2008. This certainly will not be good for the economy. So I think these keys will fall. Lichtman says they are uncertain; I wonder if he is aware of peak oil.
7. Policy. Bush has not put forth any good leadership in office, and if he starts anything, the result will be a Congressional squabble over it, as witness the "nuclear" option. I say this will fall, and so does Lichtman.
8. Social Unrest. There is no major social unrest during the term. By "major", I mean major riots occurring all over the place (not just in one place), war or armed conflict, major rebellions such as the Bonus Army, and major rioting at a convention. I don't see any on the horizon unless Peak Oil starts something. Both Lichtman and I say this stands.
9. Scandal. There is no major scandal during the term. By a "major" scandal, I mean a scandal strong enough to cause impeachment or threat of impeachment of the President, or many high-ranking officials quitting or going to jail because of their misdeeds. I don't see any of that either, unless lying about oil reserves constitutes a scandal. Stands.
10. Foreign/military failure. There is no foreign or military failure during the term. I think this has already fallen. The occupation of Iraq is a failure. The place is still full of violence, and a stable government really has not formed there. But Lichtman thinks this is uncertain.
11. Foreign/military success. There is a foreign or military success during the term. I think this will fall, because I don't see where Bush can succeed this term. But Lichtman thinks this is uncertain.
12. Incumbent charisma. Only John McCain of the Republicans has a chance at this one. This will probably fall.
13. Challenger charisma. None of the Democrats seem to have it, except possibly Hillary Clinton. This will probably stand.
This is an important election coming up, as whoever is elected will measure in stature to Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Whoever is elected will have to deal with peak oil and global warming head on, and it will be a major crisis. To me the present administration will not be able to do it, and I am hoping someone from the Democrats will be able to pull us through the crisis.
I say the Democrats will win in 2008.
