Tea Party must get real to have lasting power - CNN

Tea Party must get real to have lasting power - CNN

Mr. Martin gets Ditched for compromising on the spirit of the democratic process for the sake of political probability. His message in this article is that the Tea Party should adjust some of their stances in order to produce more mainstream candidates with a better chance of being elected. That, he believes, is the only real way in which they can be taken seriously and affect legislation.

In arguing this position, though, Mr. Martin reveals his very twisted take on politics and parties in general. First, Mr. Martin seems to believe that a party has rendered itself and it's message impotent if it does not win an election. Second, he seems to believe that the only messages worthy of attention must be coming from either of the parties in power. Finally, his message carries an overwhelming sense of "settling". Parties and interest groups that are in their nascent stages should adjust their message and "settle" on a mainstream candidate. In turn, voters should have to "settle" on candidates from either of the main parties in power who carry the highest probability of winning.

In response to the first point: Mr. Martin completely overlooks the power of smaller parties to still have a very big effect on elections and raise the public's awareness of different political stances. Parties can wield a very real power with their ability to steal votes away from other candidates. Additionally, even though a party may lose an election, the public has still been exposed to their platform through their participation in the political process. They may not be in office directly applying their interests, but the public still knows that they exist and that those interests are still important to some voters. Could that not weigh upon the decisions of those candidates that were actually elected and are forming legislation?

Most importantly, Mr. Martin needs to understand that the freedoms we have in this country provide for a very diverse collection of beliefs. The election process should always be a reflection of that diversity, not a stifling force. No group, whether Mr. Martin happens to agree or disagree with them, should be forced to dilute their message for the sole sake of winning an election. To do so is to "settle" for nothing more than the status quo and a system incapable of evolving.

NBER declares recession ended in June 2009 - Sep. 20, 2010

NBER declares recession ended in June 2009 - Sep. 20, 2010


The National Bureau of Economic Research gets Ditched for not using a more relevant definition for economic downturn that incorporates a stronger use of unemployment and poverty levels. Additionally, the NBER gets Ditched for their role in setting up useless "checkpoints" for our economy that instill a false sense of accomplishment and simply take away from the urgency of the matter at hand. This is a financial "Mission Accomplished" sign being touted right before November elections meant to prevent voters from remembering that unemployment is at 9.6% and almost 44 million people in the US are living in poverty. No matter what side of the aisle you fall on or what fiscal policies you adhere to, it is imperative to remember that much work still needs to be done before the country realizes a meaningful recovery.


Unemployemt Reference: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
Poverty Reference: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf

I’m American. And You?

I'm American. And You? - NYTimes.com

Matt Bai gets a semi-ditch in this article about immigration. He starts with George W. Bush - who was a moderate on immigration - and how the republican party has changed their stance. The problem I have is with his treatment of the idea of repealing the 14th amendment. Bai, and many other writers on this topic, sell the 14th amendment short. He describes the 14th amendments as: "that’s the one that affords children born on American soil automatic citizenship."

Well, yes, but it also guarantees equal protection under the law. Georgia cannot make a law infringing on the civil rights of visitors from another state (unless it involves gay marriage, but that's another topic). I think readers deserve at least some expanded background on the 14th amendment. People are likely to read the limited description, and not anything else. Soon you have people voting on something they don't understand.

I take a very narrow view of travel agencies that book trips to the US in order for a child to be born here, then return home as a US citizen. Repealing the amendment is not the way to fix the problem.

Arizona immigration law sections struck down by federal judge - CSMonitor.com

Arizona immigration law sections struck down by federal judge - CSMonitor.com

Ms. Bolton is Ditched for part of her legal reasoning quoted in this article. She mentions that there is a likelihood that legal immigrants could be arrested under this new law. It does not seem wise precedent to strike down a law because of the chance that some enforcement officials could make mistakes or abuse it. Mistakes and abuses could occur with any law. There does not appear to be justification for having any rule of law using Ms. Bolton's reasoning on this case thus far.

Why governing Americans is so hard - CSMonitor.com

Why governing Americans is so hard - CSMonitor.com

Mr. Gleckman gets Ditched because he seems to sympathize with politicians because of their demanding and, sometimes, contradictory audience. Who amongst us lowly constituents does not deal with the same contradiction with our occupations on a daily basis?! Shame on any politician that is not prepared to deal with this paradox!