Thursday, November 22, 2018

Breakthroughs toward light of Democracy


Cross-country Election Props to be Thankful for

The biggest story surrounding U.S. Elections 2018 was not a color wave or the president’s campaign against an immigrant caravan or the Democrats’ focus on presidential demeanor—but rather U.S. voters’ “revolt against the political status quo,” writes Independent Voter Network (IVN) editor Shawn M. Griffiths. Though the record-setting performance was ignored by most media outlets, he says, the election cycle of 2018 achieved election reform’s “most groundbreaking year in half a century.”

Some of Griffiths’ notes

S
mall “d” Democratic Choice, Choosing Office Holders
… Maine voters made history in 2018 by being the first to vote in statewide, legislative, and non-presidential federal primary elections using ranked choice voting. Voters also used it in the general election for U.S. House and U.S. Senate.
…the first time in U.S. history that ranked choice voting decided the outcome of a US House race.
Las Cruces, New Mexico; Amherst, Massachusetts; and St. Louis Park, Minnesota—three local governments approved use of ranked choice voting in 2018
Santa Fe, New Mexico
In-place voting machine technology supports ranked choice voting
Santa Fe also used ranked choice voting for the first time in 2018 for city elections, a decade after city voters approved its use.
Ranked choice voting was used to decide mayor’s race.
Memphis, Tennessee
Voters (by nearly 63 percent) rejected proposal to repeal ranked choice voting, scheduled for implementation in 2019; and rejected a proposal to extend term limits for city council members.
Fargo, North Dakota
First U.S. jurisdiction in the US to adopt Approval Voting which allows voters to select as many candidates as they want in an election and the candidate receiving the highest vote count wins.
Lane County, Oregon
First “STAR Voting”— proposal allowing voters to rate candidates on scale of 0-5 stars—sets historic record by reaches election ballots. And promoters vow resubmission of proposal on 2020 ballot.
C
ountering Corruption, and Rigging

Missouri
This state takes on influence peddling, government for sale, tribal maneuvering—Amendment 1. Voters pass most comprehensive government reform proposal, after having overcome an attempt by special interests to bar the reform Amendment from the 2018 ballot.The Amendment — 
Bans nearly all gifts from lobbyists (placing a limit of $5)
Requires lawmakers to wait two years before becoming lobbyists 
Requires legislative records to be open to the public 
Establishes contribution limits for legislative candidates — state senate candidates $2,500, state house candidates $2,000 Puts in measures to prevent groups from working around contribution caps and bars fundraising on state capitol grounds
Establishes nonpartisan redistricting process, with a nonpartisan expert to draw the legislative map and a citizens’ commission to review it
Qualifications count, too: Amendment inserts specific guidelines to ensure that a person hired by the state auditor meets the qualifications and criteria for the role

Michigan
The state approves first proposal to increase influence of independents. Not unlike Missouri’s Amendment 1, Proposal 2 first survives special interests’ challenge; then on the ballot “establishes a 13-member citizens’ redistricting commission— comprised of four Republicans, four Democrats, five citizens registered outside political parties—to draw electoral maps.”
Utah
Voters approve Proposition 4 creating “a 7-member citizens’ redistricting commission” whose approval of new maps mandates five commissioners in a body made up of Republicans (2), Democrats (2), independents (2); and a governor-appointed chairperson.
Massachusetts creates a citizens’ commission to advance a U.S. constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money in politics.

Baltimore, Denver, and New York City voters approve “public financing of elections” and “campaign finance city charters.”

M
onitoring, Mandating Ethics in Politics

New Mexico, North Dakota establish Ethics commissions

North Dakota’s “Measure 1,” in addition to establishing an ethics commission, prohibits foreign political contributions, requires transparency in funding sources, and addresses lobbyists and conflicts of interest.

Alaska
After voters submitted sufficient signatures to put “good government reforms” on the 2018 ballot, the Alaska legislature four months earlier approved a bill similar to North Dakota’s, though lacking an ethics commission
T
hose are breakthroughs worthy of thanksgiving.





Sources

Independent Voter Network (IVN) “Here is Everywhere Nonpartisan Reform Won Big in 2018” Shawn M. Griffiths in Electoral Reform November 19, 2018 https://ivn.us/2018/11/19/everywhere-nonpartisan-reform-won-big-2018/
IVN Election Reform Editor Shawn M. Griffiths is a Texas native living in San Diego California, who has, according to IVN’s website, “several years experience covering the broad scope of political and election reform efforts across the country” and “an extensive knowledge of the election reform movement” more generally.

IVN “Federal Judge Denies GOP Congressman’s Attempt to Stop Ranked Choice Voting Count”  … “Maine voters approved the use of ranked choice voting at the ballot box twice. Its current use has been upheld by the courts already, and ranked choice voting has never been ruled unconstitutional by any federal court on U.S. constitutional grounds.” ● Update 11/15/18, 12:30 pm ET: “After the second round of votes were tabulated, Jared Golden over took U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin’s marginal lead and has been proclaimed the apparent winner with 50.53% of the vote. This was the first U.S. House race in history to be decided by ranked choice voting.” ● Update: 11/15/18, 1:00 pm ET: “U.S. Rep Bruce Poliquin announced on Twitter before the second round tabulation that he would continue his legal challenge against ranked choice voting even if he won. He is asking Judge Walker to rule on the constitutionality of ranked choice voting by December 14.” Shawn M. Griffiths in Electoral Reform November 15, 2018 https://ivn.us/2018/11/15/federal-judge-denies-gop-congressman-attempt-stop-ranked-choice-voting/

Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights Reserved



Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Tale of Two “Invaders”: the Threatener, the Threatened


A short History of Unwanted nuclear-powered “Caravans”

Americans either ignorant, amnesiac or paranoid and just plain self-centered would rather raise a wall of waste instead of feeding their own education. They would rather raise their ire against “foreigner” neighbors knocking on “our” borders instead of opening their minds and raising their voices against a centuries breach in blood far worse than a bedraggled caravan.


A

mericans feign ignorance of the grave and shameful reality of U.S. leadership’s (legislative, congressional, judicial) acts, orders and/or acquiescence to violent aggression against more than a hundred countries around the world, including and most particularly the countries of the Americas.

Yet U.S. leadership’s global aggression and occupation — often uninvited, years-long opposition (from Okinawa Islanders, Syrians and Yemeni, Pakistanis and Afghans) — is without match in its cruelty, criminality and impunity in just the 20th and 21st centuries without touching on the U.S. crimes of aggression staining earlier centuries with blood!


U

SA foreign occupation
Breach of international law

The United States of America is the largest operator of military bases in places (sovereign nations, indigenous lands, countries, islands) outside the land and borders of the United States.

Posted in 150 countries of the world, the U.S. military’s “active-duty personnel” are estimated at 170,000—with personnel, arms sales, remotely-operated killer missiles, landmines and varieties of lethal weaponry at the ready and to be employed any time politicians and their partners decide to invade, stoke conflict, or otherwise interfere (with violence instead of verbal negotiation and engagement) in the affairs of other nations and peoples.  

Though the United States, through its leaders at the time, ratified the 1945 UN Charter, “the preeminent international law document,” Article 2 of which prohibits, except in very limited circumstances, the threat or use of force in international relations—thus placing a high bar on any attempt by foreign powers to justify, on legal ground, any regime change—the United States, before and long after World War II, and to the present day, has persisted in regime change in other countries, in direct violation of international law.  


C

enturies long U.S. offensive 
violent aggression, interventions, invasions
Lawless Practice of Regime Change
U.S. Presidents 1945-2018: Harry S. Truman (Democratic Party 1945–53); Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican Party 1953–61); John F. Kennedy (Democratic Party 1961–63); Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic Party 1963–69); Richard M. Nixon (Republican Party 1969–74); Gerald R. Ford (Republican Party 1974–77); Jimmy Carter (Democratic Party 1977–81); Ronald Reagan Ill (Republican Party 1981–89); George H.W. Bush (Republican Party 1989–93); Bill Clinton (Democratic Party 1993–2001); George W. Bush (Republican Party 2001–09); Barack Obama (Democratic Party 2009–2016); Donald John Trump (Republican (?)Party 2016- )
20th Century
U.S. wars, invasions, interference
20th Century
U.S. wars, invasions, interference cont.
21ST Century
U.S. wars, invasions, interference



Korean War (1950–1953) Location: Korea
 Lebanese Civil War (1982–1984) Location: Lebanon
War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
Location: Afghanistan




Operation Ajax(1953) Location: Tehran, Imperial State of Iran
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Location: Grenada
Iraq War (2003–2011)
Location: Iraq




Laotian Civil War (1953–1975) Location: Laos
Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) US forces & Libya Location: Gulf of Sidra
War in North-West Pakistan (2004–present)
Location: Pakistan




Lebanon Crisis (1958) Location: Lebanon
Bombing of Libya(1986)
Location: Libya
War in Somalia (2007–present)
Location: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya




Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) Location: Cuba
Tanker War (1987–1988)
Location: Persian Gulf
Operation Ocean Shield (2009–2016)
Location: Indian Ocean




Vietnam War (1965–1973-1975 Location: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos
Tobruk encounter(1989)
Location: Mediterranean Sea
American-led intervention in Libya (2011)
Location: Libya




Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965-1983)
Location: Thailand
Invasion of Panama (1989–1990) Location: Panama
Operation Observant Compass (2011-2017)
Location: Uganda




Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) Location: Korean Demilitarized Zone
Gulf War (1990–1991) Location: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel
American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2017)
Location: Iraq




Dominican Civil War (1965–1966) Location: Dominican Republic
Iraqi No-Fly Zone Enforcement Operations (1991–2003)
Location: Iraq
American-led intervention in Syria (2014–present)
Location: Syria




Insurgency in Bolivia (1966–1967) Location: Bolivia
First Intervention in the Somali Civil War (1992–1995) Location: Somalia
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) Location: Yemen




Cambodian Civil War (1967–1975) Location: Cambodia
Bosnian War (1992-1995) Location: Bosnia and Herzegovina

American intervention in Libya (2015–present)
Location: Libya [END 21ST]

War in South Zaire (1978)
Location: Zaire
Intervention in Haiti (1994-1995) Location: Haiti


Gulf of Sidra encounter (1981)
Location: Gulf of Sidra
Kosovo War (1998–1999) Location: Serbia



Operation Infinite Reach
(1998) Location: Sudan and Afghanistan  [END 20TH]


1940s-1950s Regime CH
1945–1950: South Korea
1946–1949: China
1946–1949: Greece
1952: Egypt
1947–1970s: Italy
1949: Syria
1950s
1953: Iran
1954: Guatemala
1955–1960: Laos
1956, 1957 Failed coup plots against Syria
1957–1959: Indonesia
1958: Lebanon
1959: Iraq
1960s
1960: Laos
1961: Bay of Pigs The CIA orchestrated a force composed of CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade Cuba with support and equipment from the US military, in an attempt to overthrow the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.
1960s: Cuba
1961–1964: Brazil
1963: Iraq
1963: Vietnam
1965–66: Dominican Republic
1965–1967: Indonesia
1970s Regime Change
1971: Bolivia
1973: Chile
1979–1989: Afghanistan
1980s
1980–1992: El Salvador
1982–1989: Nicaragua
1983: Grenada
1989: Panama
Post Cold War
1990s
1991: Kuwait
1991: Haiti
1991–2003: Iraq
1994–2000: Iraq
1997: Indonesia


2000s Regime Change
2000: Yugoslavia
2005: Iran
2006–07: Palestinian territories
Post-2005 - Syria

2010s
2011 Libya
2015 - present Yemen

END
1940s-2000s
REGIME CHANGE ESTIMATES


U

SA nuclear Aggression

The United States is neither a victim nor under threat by any nation or people.
The United States is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons against another country.
The estimated nuclear weapons arsenal (deployment or storage) of the United States, as of 2017, was “4,018 nuclear weapons.”

Another year of ending-November Thursdays and Black Fridays and Americans gorging themselves on everything and anything; thanking their gods yet feeling unfulfilled and blaming “foreigners” for their frustrating, unspecified failures—

America! America! In a moment of reflection Crown thy good with Brotherhood from sea to shining sea!




Sources

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th-century_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights Reserved



Long Way from Madison—Time to Rethink, Revise

Qualifications Standards Enforcement  Prerequisites for Public Office We are a long way—carelessly and arrogantly distanced— from Madison, ...