Democrats raised holy hell back in the presidential election of 2001, where voting irregularities in Florida were cited as evidence that not all votes were being counted. It's somewhat ironic that the same issue has once again raised its ugly head in this year's primary season, only this time it's Florida and Michigan voters that are being disenfranchised. The main difference, of course, is that a large portion of the Democratic faithful (those who pull for Obama) are the ones being accused by a different large portion of the Democratic faithful (those pulling for Hillary) of ignoring the will of the people.

Amidst this ongoing tempest, it's interesting to see that in yesterday's Guam primary the difference between winner Barack Obama and loser Hillary Clinton was a scant seven votes. SEVEN. That's like a few friends who decided to vote before going to a movie.

I guess every vote does count, as long as you don't live in Florida or Michigan. 

The latest issue of Time carries the story "Is it time to invade Burma?" They describe the devastation of Cyclone Nargis as it slammed into the Irrawaddy Delta last week, and the inability/unwillingness of the military junta to embrace international aid to their stricken populace.

Is the answer here to "force" assistance? Is the answer to render aid in spite of the wishes of the Burmese government? This is a hard one to swallow. On one hand, the humanitarian perspective says "it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." On the other hand, the "rightness" of forcing our values and sense of justice on a sovereign nation is at the core of the current opposition to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It isn't easy being the good guy... 

Last year the Republican and Democratic national committees laid down the rules for when states could schedule their primaries. Florida and Michigan both decided unilaterally that they were not going to wait until after Super Tuesday and scheduled their primaries early. Both states were tired of the races being over before they got their say, and felt states like theirs with important voting blocks should have a say in the primary outcomes.

Both committees threatened sanctions against the states, and neither side backed down. So now we stand mired in a quandary: if the committees stand firm they risk alienating large voting blocks; if they give in, pandemonium will ensue next primary season as every state ignores the committee guidelines. Face it, coverage of the last several Democratic primaries have all had similar themes -- "this is the first time West Virginia has had a say in the primary..." States dig this opportunity, and at the local level this gets more people interested in registering and voting.

I don't know how this will play out for this year. (Personally I think every registered voter who wants to vote should be able to do so, and that vote should count.) For next time, though, I propose a solution before the problems start.

• Let Iowa and New Hampshire go first, they'll have a fit otherwise. As every parent knows, sometimes you just have to let the little ones have their way if you want any peace.
• For the rest of the states, schedule primary dates for Super Tuesday, not so super Monday, etc. so that you have the right number of total primaries.
• Hold a lottery draw to fill in the slots for those primaries. This way, Montana and South Dakota and New Mexico won't always be the last ones -- they could luck into a Super Tuesday slot!

Food for thought... Anticipate the problem and come up with a solution BEFORE it rears its ugly head.
 

In the aftermath of the latest round of primaries, the talking heads of CNN/MSN/Fox etc are a-twitter with their assessment of the Democratic candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Similarly, the candidates themselves are doing their own spin-jobs as they enter the home stretch of this primary season.

Obama trumpeted the fact that he has secured the majority of the pledged delegates, while Hilary points to her popular vote lead along with her wins in the swing states the Democrats need to win in the fall.

Many talking heads are saying that the majority of pledged delegates is a clear indicator that Obama should be the nominee, that the superdelegates should not contradict the "will of the people" in this. Huh? If the "will of the people" was the sole guiding factor, then the delegate formula wouldn't have ANY superdelegates -- it would be ALL pledged delegates. Why are the superdelegates in there, if not to (potentially) correct for a popular but misguided wave sweeping up the "will of the people".

In fact, look no farther than West Virginia for a case in point. Senator Robert Byrd, the most senior Senator from West Virginia, endorsed Obama this week, just after West Virginia finished totally trouncing Obama in favor of Hillary. Basically, Byrd told his constituents that he knows better. I won't debate his choice here, but if the most powerful Democratic member of the Senate decides its ok to contradict his constituents' vote then I don't see why the other superdelegates need to march in lockstep with their constituents.

The Florida and Michigan mess remains a thorn in the Democrats side, both now and in the future. Whether those delegates are included or not changes the finish line, but the finish line remains just that -- the point at which the race ends. Not before, unless all but one of the runners drops out.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism as "the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." Socialism has been a cornerstone of many countries over the years, including North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. It is also featured in its more "moderate" form in other countries like Sweden. The main points of socialism, as I understand them, are that of re-distribution of wealth and a "mothering" of citizens (for lack of a better term) where services are provided not by free markets but by the government.

In a socialist environment, wealth is believed to be a zero sum game. If I have wealth, that can only be because I have deprived someone else of it. Taxation is a great socialist method to achieve re-distribution of wealth in this case, because it takes money away from "wealthy" citizens and gives it to the government to accomplish whatever "mothering" activities it sees fit.

Barack Obama advocates tax policies that increase taxes on "wealthy" Americans (although his definition of wealthy is less broad than the targets of the tax increases). Barack Obama advocates a government sponsored health care system (clearly "mothering" there).

In fact, Obama's official campaign posters bear an uncanny resemblance to the old Che Guevara posters. (Che was a noted Latin American Marxist revolutionary back in the 50's who was instrumental in helping to bring Fidel Castro to power in Cuba.) It's no wonder, then, that Obama wants to talk with leaders from Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea -- idealogically, they would seem to have much in common. 

Is this the America you want to live in?