Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Politics Online Magazine Volume 2 Number 1
/#######################################################################\
| |
| P o l i t i c s O n l i n e M a g a z i n e |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Volume 2, Number 1 |
| |
| Publisher/Editor ................................. Josh Renaud |
| |
| Contributing Editors/Consultants ................. Mark Waelterman |
| ................. David Killoren |
| |
| Columnists ....................................... Kevin Salks |
| ....................................... Josh Renaud |
| |
| Contributing Writers ............................. Shai Sachs |
| ............................. Shawn Hayes |
| ............................. Joe Antonucci |
| |
| Distributed by .......................... GrossWorld Publishing Co. |
| |
\#######################################################################/
/#######################################################################\
| |
| P o l i t i c s O n l i n e M a g a z i n e |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Table of Contents |
| |
| |
| Introduction to Politics Online Magazine ......... The Editors |
| Congressional Resolutions ........................ Josh Renaud |
| Cutting PBS? ..................................... Shai Sachs |
| POM Does '95 ..................................... Josh Renaud |
| Conflict of Interest ............................. Kevin Salks |
| The Two Party System Myth ........................ Jackie Bradbury |
| The Clinton Administration ....................... Shai Sachs |
| |
\#######################################################################/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Introduction |
| |
| The Editors |
\==============/
Welcome back! This is the official New Years release of POM, and we are
glad to be here. 1994 held some interesting prospects for us at POM, and we
were dealt some pretty lame cards. But we pulled off a coup, and now we are
committed to bringing you a monthly online magazine of the best quality. this
issue is pretty late, but we were busy getting LOTS of articles, so please bare
with us.
This month we have some interesting articles, namely the "Congressional
Resolutions" by Josh Renaud, "POM Does '95" by Josh Renaud, "PBS: A National
Concern?" by Shai Sachs, "Conflict of Interest," by Kevin Salks, and "The Two
Party System Myth" by Jack Bradbury. The latter article was exceprted froma
Missouri Libertarian magazine. I figured it would be interesting to see things
from a point-of-view not many people are aware of: The Libertarians.
Also, mourn with us the loss of Rap City BBS. It was one of our major hubs
of support, but it is now gone. Hopefully, we are told, a reincarnation of Rap
City will be up later on in '95.
Anyway, happy belated New Year! Enjoy the holidays while they last and
prepare for an exciting new year. This issue of POM has _SIX_ articles, which
is our record so far. Hopefully the number will be higher next month. Remember:
Wherever you found THIS edition of POM, rest assured, another will be there
next month.
... The Editors ...
%************************************************************************%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Congressional Resolutions |
| |
| Josh Renaud |
\===========================/
Have you made your New Year's Resolutions yet? I haven't, but then again, I
NEVER make them, so nothing has changed [grin]. Well, Congress has never made
any New Year's resolutions before, either. But I plan to change that. My
article this month is a list of resolutions -I- think Congress needs to make.
First and foremost: Fiscal responsibility. My number one complaint with
Congress is that it doesn't know how to keep a balanced budget OR how to keep
from increasing spending. It's high time we saw drastic cuts in governmental
programs. Welfare is the best place to cut. The Republicans are claiming they
will be reforming welfare. Guys, I've got news for you: Welfare doesn't need
reform. It needs elimination. The Republicans are also working on a Balanced
Budget Amendment. EXCELLENT! If they can pull this off, Congress will begin to
come back to a more beneficial state for the people.
Second, take a stance on important issues and make some policy. The issue
of gays in the military is a prime example of the flip-flop of Congress and the
Executive branch. Either allow them or disallow them. Make up your mind what
you are going to do. This type of stance will make big enemies, but equitable
compromise is not going to be reached. The one exception to this would be
abortion. This is a moral issue, and not the government's responsibility.
Government funding to abortion clinics should cease, and let the other
abortion-related issues settle themselves out. But besides that, it is time for
Congress to tell the people what they have decided to do. No more waffling.
Third, work together with the other two branches of government. Mostly this
applies to the Presidency, but to a lesser degree, also the Judicial branch.
Gridlock, we all know, is something that has existed forever. I am not
suggesting an end to gridlock. Gridlock can be very good. But the government
needs to go out, see what the people of America want, and work together to do
it. If it means tax cuts, then cut the taxes. Tax money does NOT belong to the
government. If the people want a cut, GIVE IT TO THEM. Make up for it by taking
out wasteful programs, like welfare.
Finally, destroy the civil-help programs, including welfare, medicaid,
medicare, and other bureaucracies. Government is for the express purpose of
governing. We are paying them to make laws, enforce them, keep them in line
with the Constitution, and defend our country from enemy nations. When they
begin intruding into the private sectors, offering hand-outs, making promises
to cure social ills, and trying to be our big brother, they make a mess.
Government has NEVER successfully instituted a social program that was
successful in elimintating the poor and homelessness problems, or curing the
social/family ills of a nation. NEVER. So stop trying, please. I am paying you
to govern, not to patronize.
I feel 1995 could be a very productive year for us. The new Congress seems
to be committed to achieving its goals. Hopefully these goals will be firmly
put together, agreed on by both sides, and then passed. This type of fluid
movement is only beneficial if the programs are good, and will ultimately help
us all.
%*************************************************************************%
/\/ Flash BBS /\/
-= Running on an Atari ST with FoReM ST software =-
What do we have to offer? How about this:
Over 45 subboards on the Xnet and CrossNet, with nodes ranging all
over America! 15 online games, like Space Trade Elite, Space Empire,
Football Pool, and Assassin. Megs and Megs of files for your
downloading pleasure!
[314] 275-2040
14.4 USR modem
%**************************************************************************%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| PBS: A National Concern? |
| |
| Shai Sachs |
\==========================/
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich calls public broadcasting the
"media of the elite", and subsequently wants federal funding for it to
be eliminated. Both the label and the proposal are preposterous; they
are the fingerprint of the Gingrich Regime: silly and unjustified.
First, the label. Gingrich considers CNN and C-Span, the cable
network's answer to public broadcasting's educational programs, the real
arena of action. He believes that public broadcasting is, as cited
before, "the media of the elite".
Anyone who thinks it over will realize that his labels are simply
untrue. Public broadcasting is free, and anyone can use it. It
features programs that appeal to children and adults, liberals and
conservatives, and men and women. A wide, diverse cross-section of
America uses public broadcasting, and appreciates it tremendously.
Anyone can tap into public broadcasting's vast expanse of information,
and many people do.
On the other hand, consider cable television. CNN and C-Span, while
certainly worthwhile stations, come with a price tag attached. They do
not reach the rural parts of the country. In fact, about 40 percent of
the country does not receive cable.
Calling public broadcasting the "media of the elite" is an outrage
and an insult to anyone who grew up watching Sesame Street and Mr.
Roger's Neighborhood. It is a complete hypocrisy; it is parallel to
calling a homeless man an "elitist", and labeling a wealthy aristocrat a
working-class American.
Next, the merits of public broadcasting over cable television.
Public broadcasting is, bar none, the crown jewels of the media. It
provides high-quality, educational programming, such as "Sesame Street",
for children, or, as a local example, "Donnybrook", for adults. The
programs stimulate thought and creativity; they inform viewers about the
issues of the day. Public broadcasting is cheap for taxpayers: each
resident of the country pays only twenty-nine cents per year. And,
finally, and most importantly, anyone can access public broadcasting,
regardless of their social status: public broadcasting is free. Public
broadcasting is an excellent example of public and private sector
cooperation.
In stark contrast, cable television does not surpass public
broadcasting in any way. Far from it: cable television represents the
worst that media can be. The cable alternative is one of extreme
violence, inexcusable language, and extremely immoral adult scenes.
Conservatives, who despise this programming and cry that it is eroding
our morals, must remember that destroying public television will leave
only the immoral contents of cable television to entertain children and
adults alike. Furthermore, cable television cannot and never will reach
everyone. It is far too expensive for cable companies to reach rural
areas, and cable television will always cost a monthly bill. Therefore,
only well-off suburban or urban residents can access cable, leaving the
rural viewers and the poor out in the dark.
Eliminating governmental funding from public broadcasting will
certainly destory a number of public television stations, and seriously
cripple many others. Many rural stations will certainly fall almost
immediately. Others will only barely manage to provide their services.
Meanwhile, urban stations will suffer as well. While most will not
immediately cut off services, almost all will certainly have to decrease
the quality of their programming to compensate for the lost funds.
Meanwhile, taxpayers will not feel the difference in their pockets.
While millions of federal dollars might seem an incredible burden, it
would not be enough to significantly decrease the deficit, or pay for
any substantial tax decreases.
Taxpayers will hurt if federal funds are recalled. Their children
will not have access to shows like "Sesame Street", that teach the kind
of morals that adults would be proud of. Their children would be
subject to the mercy of ruthless cable television, the source of many
horrible programs. Taxpayers themselves would no longer benifit from
interesting and intelligent news shows, such as the McNeil-Lehrer News
Hour. They could no longer rely on the unparalleled news analysis of
the MacLaughlin Group or Donnybrook. No taxpayer would have the
advantage of waking up each morning to National Public Radio's morning
show. Again, adults would have to rely on commercial television to
replace public broadcasting, which it could not do.
Public broadcasting is a boon to everyone. It is the best example
of working, effective, government cooperation with the private sector.
It costs taxpayers almost nothing, yet public broadcasting educates,
stimulates, and entertains viewers. Government could not provide us
with a better service for a lower price, and we would be ill advised to
eliminate it.
To even consider replacing public television with cable is the most
outragoues and ludicrous notion ever considered. It should be swiftly
and resoundingly rejected by the Congress.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| POM Does 95 |
| |
| Josh Renaud |
\===============/
I was asked to write a small article about our 1995 plans at POM. Well,
I'll do just that, but please bear in mind, these are just plans, and nothing
has been finalized.
Number one on our agenda is this: Getting more writers. A magazine can not
be good without content. And right now, we are suffering, and we are suffering
drastically. We are scowering every place imaginable, looking for articles to
put into POM, like the excerpted article "The Two Party System Myth" this
month. If you would like to write, please contact us, using the information at
the end of the magazine.
When we -do- have enough writers, we will get the Political Chat Match up
and running every month. The Match is an online debate that we capture and then
place into POM each month. We had planned to do the Match from the very
beginning, but a lack of dedicated writers thus far has prevented us from doing
it.
Also, we plan to get a forum reserved on the Den of Happiness BBS, get an
official Internet address, and open up a WWIVnet POM subboard. These three
advances will help us automate our distribution, as well as spread out and
reach more people. I am also working with someone who will put POM in the Rush
Limbaugh subs on CompuServe, as well as people to distribute POM on GEnie,
Delphi, Prodigy, and the new e*World.
We plan on getting White House press releases delivered to our online
address as they come out, so hopefully we can pick out interesting ones and put
them in POM. No other magazine (Printed or online) offers White House press
releases for public consumption.
These and other changes will be attempted throughout 1995. If, indeed, we
can pull all of this off, we will rise to the forefront of online magazines. We
are determined to get better and better, until WE are the standard. You can
help us. Send us feedback, continue to read us, and maybe even write an article
for us. POM plans to do '95, and do it good.
%*************************************************************************%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Conflicts of Interest |
| |
| Kevin Salks |
\=======================/
Hello, all! I am Kevin Salks, a relatively new writer to POM. I plan on
writing monthly. If YOU can write at all, I encourage you to help out and do so
as well. Anyway, this column is about MY views, which are inherantly moderate.
Today I am tackling a topic that has come to the forefront of the media: Newt
Gingrich, speaker of the House, and his book deal.
Recently, Gingrich announced he had made plans with a major printing
company to write a book. Now, obviously the question arises: Isn't this a
conflict of interest? Writing a book while in a position of legislation is not
exactly conducive to legislating. However badly this move was thought out, the
media has jumped at the chance to dent the new Republican Speaker's
reputation.
With a new Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, Gingrich
is a leader of the GOP. The media, notoriously Democrat and biased to
liberalism, has been searching for a scapegoat. And they've found one. Now,
here is the ultimate question: Is this treatment justified? I must say no. Why?
A simple reason, of course. Mr. Gingrich's deals are his own business. However
if the public feels this is such a bad thing, they WILL speak up about it. And
then an inquiry may begin, thus resolving once and for all any problems or
conflicts.
But I have another point of light to bring up. Former-senator (now Vice
President) Albert Gore wrote a book while serving as a senator. Yet nothing was
said about it. Well, unless you count the reviews of the book and the promoters
raving it. What was this book? It was a slew of Mr. Gore's personal feelings on
such topics as animal rights and the environment. Mr. Gore, in case you didn't
know, is a staunch liberal Democrat. Perhaps this is why nothing was ever
mentioned about his writing a book being a possible conflict of interest.
It all boils down to this: The media is biased, and they have let that show
through way too much. Whether writing a book while in office is indeed a
conflict of interest remains to be resolved. But the media certainly has it's
motives for reporting this incident way off kilter. If I remember correctly,
they are supposed to be informing the public of happenings in an objective,
unbiased method. This has not happened. To those responsible for this
absurdity, I say "STOP IT!" And to Newt: You made a blunder. At least this
gives you a lesson in how the media eats Republicans alive. Next time something
like this happens, make sure you think the moral and civil implications through
very carefully. And to Mr. Gore: Why aren't you commenting on this? Perhaps
it's time to cross partisan boundaries and defend Mr. Gingrich, or even better,
denounce both of your actions.
I'll see you next month with another article from MY point of view... :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM MYTH |
| Presidential Elections: |
| The Multi-Partisan Truth |
| |
| Jackie Bradbury, Secretary |
| Missouri Libertarian Party |
\================================/
People in the United States have been clinging to a myth for a very long
time now - that the United States is a two party system. Heck, they use the
term "bipartisan" as if it means that all views are represented, when in fact
it is only two opinions out of many. We Libertarians know this is incorrect
(and we have been using the term ourselves lately in Columbia, meaning
Libertarians and Greens), but it's nice to have it verified by outside
sources.
The source I used is my old college days history textbook:
_Essentials_Of_American_History_. It lists all of the Presidential elections
from 1789 (I added 1988 and 1992): it lists most of the candidates who got
anything near a significant vote total or an electoral vote.
See the chart below (Ed. Note: At the end of the article) As you can see,
in fact a _three-way_ race is more common than any other. Three-way races make
up 44% of all of our Presidential elections, as a matter of fact (23 out of 52
total), and two- candidate races only make up 37% of all Presidential elections
in history... We have even had a few four and five-way races as well (19% of
all elections). And as an interesting note, look at how rare a two-way race is
in the 20th Century as compared to the previous one. Perhaps we could
speculate WHY the cycle swings from multi-candidate elections to two- candidate
elections.
It may have something to do with social upheaval - you can point to many
of the multi-party swings and they tend to correspond with social movements
such as women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, etc. They also somewhat
correspond to economic stability as well, such as the current economic crisis
(our national debt) corresponds with the current multi- candidate swing in the
cycle. I'm sure a more competent political scientist than I can figure out
what happens and why: the important thing is that, whatever the reasons, you
can see that indeed multi-candidate and multi-partisan politics are no
strangers to democracy in the United States.
Figure 1: "US ELECTIONS - NUMBER OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES"
Number of Candidates
0 1 2 3 4 5
_______________________________________________________
1789 o
o
1796 o
o
1804 o
o
1812 o
o
1820 o
o
1828 o
o
1836 o
o
1844 o
o
1852 o
o
1860 o
o
1876 o <----Longest 2 Candidate Streak
o
1884 o
o
1892 o
o
1900 o
o
1906 o
o
1916 o
o <-Longest 3+ Cand.Streak
1924 o
o
1932 o
o
1940 o
o
1948 o
o
1956 o
o
1964 o
o
1972 o
o
1980 o
o
1988 o
_____________________________________________o_______________
^
|__Presidential Election Years
(This interesting article was taken from the SHOW ME FREEDOM, June 1993 issue,
a publication of the Missouri Libertarian Party).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| The Clinton Administration |
| |
| Shai Sachs |
\============================/
Bill Clinton's Presidency is in a very troubled situation. The crime
bill which he loved so dearly suffered a major reduction last year in the House
of Representatives. It passed, but has had no effect on the old Gephardt
health-care reform bill, which First Lady Hillary Clinton said was closer to
the original Health Security Act of 1994, offered by the Clintons originally.
With health-care reform as one of the main, if not the main issue, the Clinton
Administration is on the brink of a very dangerous political cliff.
But how has Clinton's administration proceded so far? The oft-criticized
administration has had various successes and failures, from everything from the
economy to foreign policy. The following is a look at some of the issues
facing the President:
Economy
-------
Clinton has so far stressed the economy more than any other problem
facing the country, or seemingly so. As of last year, the unemployment rate
had fallen 1.5% since his inaguration, seeming to indicate success. However,
his economic plan far exceeded simply dealing with unemployment.
Budget Deficit: Clinton entered office with a $329.1 billion deficit, and
20% of the population angry as wet hens about the national debt. Since then,
the deficit has fallen to an estimated $167 billion for Fiscal Year 1995.
Clinton started with a deficit-reduction bill last summer, which would cut,
over several years, $500 billion. That figure is now estimated at $700 billion
worth of cuts, due mostly to rising revenue, not falling spending. The Clinton
administration now repetitively boasts the first three years of deficit
reduction since Harry Truman (despite the fact that the first year of deficit
reduction -- fiscal year 1993 -- was initiated by George Bush.)
"Reforms": Bill Clinton and his administration may be known in history as
the most sweeping social reformer since Lyndon B. Johnson. He once tried
reforming both the health-insurance system, a feat on its own, and is now
trying to reform the welfare system, a task which is none too easy.
To Clinton's credit is his very dilligent work on reforming the
health-insurance system, perhaps one of the most earnest, massive efforts since
Medicare and Medicaid. As a result, the country could have seen one of two
things: either a very massive change for the better in health insurance, or a
very angry group of voters at the polls last November. Guess which one
happened. The health-insurance reforms have faced numerous misinformation
attacks, as well as informed attacks on the original Health Security Act, such
as the large bureacracies which it would set up. Also attacked, with good
reason, were the methods of funding, primarily the employer mandate, which
continues to face extinction in Congress. Bill Clinton has worked remarkably
hard for the health-care reforms he promised the country, and they have thus
far been thoroughly defeated.
In the meanwhile, the President has also started working, much more
quietly, on welfare reform. His proposal, which attempts to put an end to
subsidizing of teenage mothers, and to put people back on a payroll, were
overshadowed heavily by the health-care reform efforts. Now that Congress is
controlled by welfare-hating Republicans, is reform imminent?
Free Trade: In 1993, President Clinton put forth a large lobbying effort
as he attempted to pass the North America Free Trade Agreement, despite attacks
by labor unions and Ross Perot. Since that time, the economy seems stable, and
exports to Mexico appear to be on the rise. He worked on a much broader, though
quieter, attempt at free trade. Acceptance of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, or GATT, has been a quiet goal of the Clinton administration. This
is one of the few goals they were able to attain. The treaty will lower or
freeze many international tariffs, and, among other things, establish a World
Trade Organization to oversee the regulations of trade in participating
countries.
Combining all these aspects of his economic plan, the President claims
good economic stability. It is true -- somewhat. Although the economy has
been growing steadily, the Federal Reserve Board, having raised interest rates,
is now trying to slow down that growth to a slow but steady beat. Some
political speculators believe that this move is intended to prepare for
stimulated growth in late 1995 or during 1996, the next presidential election
year.
Environment
-----------
When he was selected as Vice Presidential running mate, Al Gore's history
was as an environmentalist Senator from Tennessee. However, the dminsitration
has not conducted any broad efforts to favor the nvironment recently, except
for a policy issued two years ago that the hite House would buy and use
recycled paper, a light victory for ecyclers, whose overflowing stock of
recycled paper was beginning to treaten the future of the recycling effort.
Human Rights
------------
Clinton has been fairly quiet on human rights, with a few exceptions.
However, certain issues seem to stand out in the last two years.
Clinton started off his presidency with a review of the Army's policy
towards homosexuals. Although his public image was somewhat scarred by strong
opposition from such military experts as Colin Powell and Sam Nunn, Clinton was
able to better the military policy with a compromise "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
policy, which has been criticized as a compromise of human rights.
The Clinton administration began with the army in Somalia, a move started
in December of 1992. The continuing effort there was labeled a humanitarian
and democratic effort, and it was, until the death of 18 GIs forced Clinton to
leave Somalia for safer ground.
Early last year, the administration, with strong efforts by former
Majority Leader Gephardt, threatened to punish China's Most Favored Nation
trade status as a result of continued, consistent, brutal human rights abuses.
Clinton, however, chose to renew the status, remarking on China's seat in the
Security Council, and her fast growing economy, not to mention the reliance of
over 100,000 jobs in the United States on Chinese importing and exporting. His
move quickly prompted criticism by human rights groups and many Congressmen,
who blamed Clinton of sending a message to China: dictatorship and brutal human
rights abuse would not only be tolerated, but also subsidized, by the United
States.
On the home front, Clinton's stance on the death penalty has been brought
into question. The penalty, which was to be broadened in the crime bill,
backfired on Clinton as some members of the House of Representatives found the
death penalty too strong a barrier to them to allow it in the crime bill. In
the meanwhile, the debate has continued to spark controversy, although the
Supreme Court has ruled it to be constitutional (in that it is not cruel and
unusual).
The Vice President
------------------
Although usually a minor part of the administration, the Vice President
has found a very active niche, relative to other Vice Presidents, in Clinton's
administration. Al Gore has established both the National Information
Infrastructure and the National Performance Review (NPR). The first was aimed
at a federal role in the so-called Information Superhighway, and has prompted
activation on the federal level to put the government on-line. Many government
agencies have found great success on the Internet, including the White House,
and have been prompted by Gore's efforts to digitize the country. Gore also
worked on decreasing bureacracy in the NPR, and savings since then have been
estimated in the billions. Although the Vice President has not been palying a
role in many controversial issues, he has played an important, unexpectedly
active role in the administration.
%***************************************************************************%
| Reaching Politics Online Magazine |
| |
\=====================================/
To write a letter to the writers at POM, send us a Reader's Write letter,
or just to make comments or suggestions, please call the following BBSes and
EMail the Contact listed.
If you are interested in becoming a writer or an advertiser in POM, use the
Flash BBS instructions.
In Area Code 314
Fire Escape's BBS ... (314) 741-9505
Contact: Captain Kirk
House of Texaco ..... (314) 963-9374
Contact: Captain Kirk
* Flash BBS ........... (314) 275-2040
Contact: Josh Renaud
* -- Flash is our main hub. If possible, try to correspond at Flash.
%***************************************************************************%
Copyright (c)1995 GrossWorld Publishing Company
%********************************* THE * END *******************************%
