Mr. Kunza Podcast 1: Those Other Presidential Candidates

http://mrkunza.podbean.com/feed/

Another election year for America and a presidential one at that. Doesn't it seem like these things are happen every four years?  

I know it is a bad joke. But cut me a little slack here. I am just trying to break the ice.

Anyway, for this election year, 2012 for those of you living the in future, I, Mr.Kunza, have decided to take it upon myself and at the request of no one, to list, give a little information about, analyze, and give my opinion on the Presidential candidates. However, I am going to do something different. This Podcast is going to completely avoid the major party candidates, the current President Obama and the presumed republican nominee Romney.

To be honest there is just so much information out there on them that adding my voice to the melee- that would be no different than adding a drop of water into the ocean.

Instead, I will focus on what are commonly called the third party or independent candidates. You may even hear these people referred to as an 'other' candidate. As if they are some type of other worldly being. Hey they may as well be. Odds are that these people and parties are completely unknown to the general public. With little hope of that changing between now and the election.

Due in part to that. It is not very likely that these people or parties will have much affect on the general election. In past Presidential elections third party and independent candidates have had an impact. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are the most recent examples of this.

But this current crop of Presidential hopefuls are no Ross Perot or even a Ralph Nader. For many of these candidates simply getting one to two percent of the vote would be beyond anyones expectations. To the frank, for the 2012 Presidential election at lest, third party and independent candidates are non factors.

This is nothing new for America. You can find some debate on the matter, yet general consensus is that no third party has ever won the American Presidency. There has been two independent American Presidents, George Washington and Andrew Johnson. However, George Washington was by choice and Andrew Johnson was by political necessity.

There are a few simple reasons as to why Independents and third parties do not win they Presidency.

The first reason is ballot access. Each state has there own laws, meaning that no standard exists. One state may ask for costly filing fees and thousands of signatures. While another may ask for the same number of signatures but the signatures can be declared invalid if the signer votes in a primary.

Moreover one state may require a residency requirement for petition circulators. Also, a state may require that this petitions can only be circulated on odd number years before the election. To say that the system is easy to understand, democratic, and fair would not even be a good joke.

A massive investment of resources both money and people is needed just to get on the ballot. It is not a simple matter. Unless the candidate is knowledgeable on the ballot laws for every single state one can only imagine the lawyer fees.

Which some what nicely brings me to my next point, and that is money. Now you cannot necessity buy an election. Ross Perot gave it a good college try. But money is must for an candidate and the more of it the better off they are.

Money means a campaign can hire people on, it can buy ads, and it can support a infrastructure dedicated to getting the candidate elected. Third Party and Independents simply do not have the same money that a major party does. According to the Federal Election Commission almost Half a Billion dollars has already be raised by the two major parties for the 2012 Presidential election. The most a Third party has raised is a little over 700,000 dollars. Only around 428 times less than Obama has in his war chest.

But all of that money is for not if a candidate does not get media coverage. The National media overlooks third party candidates.

I can only guess this is because they do not see them as legitimate candidates.

There in-lies the problem. If the national media does not cover a candidate the public will not easily know that a candidate is even running for office let alone what they stand for.

While the internet is helping in the matter. It still requires the will of the individual to look beyond the major party candidates.

One would think that with 24 hour news networks more time could be given to third party and independents but this is not the case.

Exposure is essential for a candidate and the national media evidently does not want to give it to anyone outside of the major parties.

Those are just three reasons as to why third parties and independents do not win. A whole host of more exist but I do not want to get to bogged down. As I said before this is nothing new. The Anti-Monopoly Party, Know-Nothings, Populists, and the Progressive Party. Are just a few examples of past third parties that suffered the same fate that Independents and Third Parties of today.

For some reason appears that Americans just like having two choices.

Yet, despite this third Party and Independents still run. Election after election they are to be found on the ballot.

I can only assume that this candidates are not fools. After all Running for President is time consuming, costly, and very exposing for the candidate. They have to know that the odds are against them and that many ways on a fools errand.

But they still do it. They put in the same time and effort to into their campaigns as other candidate. These people deserve respect it would be easier for them if they simple sat it out however they try. It is almost poetic. The lone hero against the intrenched hordes.

Before I begin going into detail on the Candidates I want to make it clear that I will try to be as objective as I can be.

But when it comes to the opinion podcasts on the candidate, well no asked for it so skip it over if you want. Just bear in mind I will try to be honest and yes I swear like a sailor.

I will try to use reputable sources for whatever information I can. However this may not always be possible due to the obscurity of some of these candidates and parties. Be skeptical of anything I say, I know that I am

These podcasts are by no means a comprehensive guide to every candidate. I will only cover a select number of candidates, right now 27 in total likely to be around 30 when all is said and done.

I used Federal Election Commission, FEC filings and Wikipida to find third Party Candidates.

All the of the third party candidates had to fit a simple criteria:

They had to be parties nominee. Those that are currently undergoing primaries I will cover on a later date.

Also, the Party had to have a official website.  

As for the independent candidates I only used Federal Election Commission filing to find them. The Candidate had to have a website and they had to have at lest one dollar on their FEC report.

So without further delay here we go on our third party adventure...

Changes

Cue David Bowie. Cha-Cha-Changes.

Because I am now working on a Podcast, Mr. Kunza Speaks. A lot of the old content here will no longer fit the direction that I am going in. Read it and laugh at all the bad writing and half thought out posts.

I hope that you will enjoy my new podcast. I may write something from time to time but for here on out the focus of this blog will be my Podcasts.

Thanks for the support everyone.

Mr.Kunza Looks at the news for you: Obama supports same sex marriage

Here is a new thing I am going to try. I will look three English language news sites and compare and contrast their reporting on breaking news story.

Here is the topic: Obama supports same sex marriage. An easy enough topic and here are the sites that I will be look at.

ABC News

BBC News

Fox News

I tried to find the report that came out around the same time that the story broke. However, a lot of these pages have been and likely will continue to be updated so this applies to around 19:15 GMT or 2:15 pm EST.

We start off with the guys and gals that broke the story. ABC News, we get the video of interview in which he made his support of same sex marriage know. Well what is he says is: "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married"

You know what is nice about this we get the full transcript of the video. Right after the little blurb that sums up the story and tells who did the interview. It's nice then they go and say hey we got more of this interview airing on two of our other shows. A nice plug. Likely nothing as juicy as the as the lead but one should expect some good ratings for these two programs (I will look up the ratings on a later date to see if this happens).

Also right below the plug for the other shows we get a summary for parts of the interview that has not aired yet. Nothing shocking just some nice political back tracking that says more or less that he is cool with the gays but it still comes down to the states to make the effort. 

"The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own."

Well okay maybe not as bold of statement as some would like. A bit like past American politicians saying "I think slavery is wrong up it is still up to the states to decide for themselves." So its really just a personal statement on how he feels on the issue. He has no plan to make sex same marriage legal.     

Carrying on then we get a link to same video at the top of the page but this one is two the ABC News on-line video archive. Well okay thats a little odd. Maybe they expect to change or take off the top video at some point. Just so you know if you do click on it you get an ad before every video and plays a play-list of news videos by default so better pause or exit out after you have the video you want.

Okay really it's fine for all I know it could be some type of ABC News text ad that leads you to related news videos based on news you are reading now.

Then another video say how is kids helped shape his views. Then the rest is more or less about what he has said in the past about same sex marriage. Then right at the bottom we informed that Obama's 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage. The closing quote is from him: 

""My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," Romney said. "That's the position I've had for some time, and I don't intend to make any adjustments at this point. ... Or ever, by the way.""

Okay that is ABC take on it and they should own it after all they have the interview. ABC just went with the hot topic and kept talking about it. 

On to the BBC 

Well they keep updating it so thats nice.

We get a longer video then the one that ABC News has (57 secs to 2:12 mins). Nothing new just more of how he changed his mind on the subject. They point out that "He has become the first sitting US president to back gay marriage." Furthermore, right off the bat they point out that  Romney is against it.

So right away it is cast with the upcoming election in mind. They go as far to highlight that a lot Obama's side is for same sex marriage. Making very clear that in this election we have one side for marriage and the other against.

Thats what the story is about. It has a poll that says half of those poll are fine with same sex marriage and 48% of those polled said no.

All of this story is about how it relates to the upcoming election. They state how 31 states have laws against it and how NC is just the latest one.

The BBC news is for a British market so it makes sense that this how they would write the story. The sitting President said he is for marriage, the other guy is not, and here are some states that have banned it. So it is really just analysis.

Alright analysis but nothing more. 

Fox News. Oh Fox News honestly I expect something awful from them. But what to get. Well nothing really all that bad. All in all we end up with about the same stuff ABC news and hint of BBC report. However, for about 1/3 of the report Fox keeps point out that hey those Republicans are all against same sex marriage. Also, we get something new. The Black vote. They point out that conservative blacks will not like this and may not bother to vote because of it.

Which is a fair point to make. However, it seems a little pointless. It comes across more as a moral boost for the Republican faithful. You know what this is how Fox's story comes across. Hope for the  Republicans that they guy they are not all that crazy about may really have a shot now and that if you do not like the idea of sex same marriage never fear the  Republican are not about to change their mind on the subject. 

In closing. This is quick little post I would have gone to more sites but I did not have the time and I wanted to get this done as quick as I could.

But here is my input for what it is worth. 

I do not care. Yes it is nice that Obama is cool with same sex marriage but it is just him talking. Nothing more than that. It give hope to those that want to see same sex marriage legalized. Those may in turn give their support via money, time, and/or vote to Obama now. But I tend to think that those people where going to vote for him anyway. While at the same time to those that care a lot about keeping it illegal well here is another reason to not vote for him. But I do not think that they where going to anyway. Furthermore, I do not think that this will mean that they are going to crazy for the other guy. 

So to sum it up. Obama energizes some of his supports and maybe gets some more involved. He does not really lose much since after all it is just his opinion and he can always fall back on that.

All this news over a subject that in a Pew Research Center survey came in last as a "very important issue" for this election year.    

Abortion Part 2

I googled Pro-Life in order to understand by people are against Abortion. I looked at only the first page of results. Since this is the most popular information available. 

Here are the sites that I looked at:

Prolifeinfo.org

Nrlc.org/abortion/index.html

Prolifeaction.org

Lifenews.com

I really could not find a list of reasons for them wanting to outlaw Abortion. While the Prolifeinfo has information on it and the best I can find as to reason to be against abortions was this: 

"Pro life movements support the life of the child in the womb, with the understanding that life begins the moment the child is conceived. In the eyes of the pro life movement, each child that is aborted has been murdered, which is a child in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of many religions."

And on life news I found this:

"So you can see why I am disgusted when I hear of abortion being propagated as a’ woman’s right’. Abortion is an unnatural act; it goes against every protective instinct a mother has towards her child. Abortion is also the most horrendous violence that can ever be perpetrated on a woman."

My first reaction to the person that wrote that was was 'well you are an ass hole'. Why do I say such a thing because for lack of a better word you have to be such a big dick to say about another person that you have never met. It is a cold lack of respect that this person is showing to their fellow humans. The most   horrendous violence, I fail to see the point. But I will get more into this later on.      

So on to the Pro-Life Action League which states the following:

"The Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion because abortion kills an innocent unborn child, a human person at one of those early stages of human development through which each one of us passes before birth.

We fully appreciate the many pressures and crises which may lead some parents to believe they have no choice but to abort their child. That is why we work to offer abortion-bound mothers and fathers the help they need to overcome their difficult situations and choose life when faced with an untimely pregnancy.

However, killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a toddler to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development.

In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy—problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems.

Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances."

I know a lot of text to sum it Abortion is murder. Alright I am going to say that is big reason why you should be against abortion, to put it crudely, is baby killing. To those that want to make abortion illegal an abortion is equal to murdering a child. At lest that is the point I got after reading their publicly made information found of the listed popular anti abortion site. They believe that thing growing the womb is a 'human person' and that having an abortion is killing a person.

Okay point taken. So if abortion is murder then so a miscarriage or a still birth. Furthermore, it is murder if a twin dies early in the pregnancy and the other twin grows and absorbs it. Point is anytime a pregnancy does not yield a healthy child it is murder according to the anti-Abortionist. No they do not say that but it is the same logic. If it is murder when a doctor ends a  pregnancy how is not murder when mothers body cannot support a baby.

I understand a Doctor has to follow a medical procedure to a end pregnancy. That is why it is murder. But if a womans own body does the following it must at lest be called manslaughter the end result is the same. If a pregnancy ending with the aid of Doctor is murder then a still birth is also. 

It is a crude and aggressive statement to fault out call abortion murder. It is just mean, if someone thinks that way that is fine. However, the issue is when that becomes the single point of the augment.

All an abortion does is end a pregnancy. That is it. It does not take much of a detailed look into pregnancy to understand what is going on during a pregnancy. A  pregnancy is fertilization and development of one or more offspring. What needs to be pointed out is that under the child is born exists in a state of potential human life. It is not human life in and of itself. To make this claim is a failing to understand the prenatal development.

Here is a simple way to think of the subject. A woman tell you the following "I have one child" you reply "How old is that child" and she says "Around Four months since I am 4 months pregnant". I believe must people would find it odd to claim you have a child when you have not yet given birth to it. But if that woman has a abortion is it killing a child.

Often these groups are married to the idea that life begins at conception. Even foolish law makers have passed laws saying as much. Again the words 'ass holes' come to mind. Again I am going to have to be rude but they are saying that the moment when a man cums into a womans vagina a human life begins.  So saying that life beings at  conception is saying that life beings when the sperm mets in the vagina and then the egg.     

Now that is just a silly thing to say. One just because a woman had sex with a man does not mean that she will get pregnant. Yes, sex is how babies get made the old fashioned way but it does not work all the time. Even if ones does not use any from of birth control sex simply a man via is penis placing sperm into a vagina. After that the sperm tries to make it to the egg and then the sperm tries to get inside of  the egg. 

If that is when human life starts then once again anyone that has ever had sex has killed a lot of people. Because under this logic human life begins prior to conception. After all each sperm and egg cell is existing before and for quiet sometime after sex. So saying that life beings at conception is foolish. 

Sperm is made by millions, eggs are made more or less by the month. If a woman has her period does that make her a kill of life after it is a wasted egg that can be a person. The same goes for sperm only one sperm needs to make to the egg. Are the rest dead people? Furthermore it means that male masturbation is a war crime for all the human life that is killed.      

When sentience comes these issues for some. However much of it seems to be clouded by the veil of bad logic. When was reading this websites I often found that they speak about sex in general often under a very ill light. The often say no sex outside of marriage and so on.

Now I am going to go a little off topic for the rest of this post. Because I think that these groups are really about sex at the end of the day. Many how, when, and why a person should have sex.

First off sex was around long before marriage and will carry on so long as their are people. To say sex outside of marriage is wrong is simply foolish and a outdated idea. Marriage is at its core about men, inheritance, and power. For a patriarchal society to work one must always know who a child's father is. After all one always knows who the mother is. The father on the other hand some doubt can be cast on it. Thus for inheritance of wealth or power it matters a lot. After all a man does not want leave his stuff to a child that is not his own.

Thus we end up with marriage a contract that says to the woman you can only have sex with this man and no one else for the rest of their life or until the man dies. Women were are still are killed or harmed if they break this contract or are even suspected of doing so. Marriage in America has changed with the times but the idea remains the same.

It is a bad idea. If you want to be someone and just that one person great enjoy your time together. However, if you longer want to be with them so what that happens. No person by law should be bound to another person for the rest of their life.

I often think that the reason why people are against abortion is that they see it as something of a tax on sex. Oh you had sex outside of marriage that pregnancy is the price that you pay for doing it. I often think that those that want to make it illegal think that it will stop sex and for lack better word 'whoring'. Oh you where a whore now you have to responsible because you are now a mother. Forgetting the key point that people love sex and that having a child will not stop a person from doing so.

Here is the simple reality of it all making something illegal does not stop it from happening. Abortions carry on because the simple fact is that people want and need them. Driving underground makes it unsafe and unaccountable.

Furthermore, Abortions mean that women can have children when they are ready. Meaning that they can offer their child a better life then they could otherwise. A unwanted child by mother that is too young or simply does not have the means to raise a child is already at a massive disadvantage. Moreover because of this abortions lower crime. "It's a very simple theory. Unwanted children are a tremendous risk for growing up and having criminal lives," said Levitt. "With the legalization of abortion, many fewer unwanted children were born, therefore, the children who were most at risk for being criminals -- they were never born."

Here is my point. Hate abortions if you want but damn it stop it. Just do not get a abortion. It is very easy thing not to do. But do not for moment think that it is a moral stance because it is not. Having or not having a child is not moral issue but a personal one.   

Abortion Part 1

I hate to say it right off the bat like this but I have a penis between my legs. Which in the abortion 'debate' is really important. Because I am male I cannot, no matter how hard I try, get pregnant. Meaning that I am in no way affected by the abortion debate. After all I am already born. Yes, I can get a woman pregnant however my addition is only so genetic information my body brews up by the thousands. Furthermore, I am person fully capably of loving another child even an unborn one. 

I cannot overlook the simple fact that it is not my body at risk nor is it my body that bears the joys and horrors of carrying a budding potential human around in them for under a year. All men are like me in this regard. In baby making men are nothing more than spectators. Our part in the creation of human life is short and sometimes fun for both parties involved. However, when it comes down to it the creation of life can be done with a turkey baster and some well kept semen. The truth is other an semen men are not needed much for a child to be born. Many children have and will be born by methods crudely named 'test tube'.

Point is that creation human life still needs semen but it really needs a woman to work.

So when it comes to abortion I have to bear in mind my biological place. Yes abortion can touch a man's life. Not in any direct bodily way. The only way a male is affected is by not having a  potential biological child. Granted this can have a deep psychological impact on a man. However it should never be forgotten that pregnancy always directly affects the life and body of a woman. Even if that woman has an abortion her body is still changed. A man can leave a pregnant woman. He can leave behind any and all responsibility for his part. But a woman cannot just walk away from being pregnant. To just walk away in the same way that a man can is not possible for a woman. Her body is altered her life changed.

Simply put a man can never know what it is like be pregnant nor can we understand what an Abortion means to a woman.

Because of these simple biological truths I have always thought that men have little to no place in the  abortion debate. As men we risk little to nothing if Abortion ends up legal or illegal. We can flee from our responsibilities rather easily. Sure we made end up having to pay child support but that is just money. It is not our bodies on the line in any way.

So male politicians against abortion, sorry but yeah shut up. There is little to no place for men in this issue. We cannot get abortions so saying your against something that has no role in your life. Even someone like me that is for legal abortions I only show my support knowing that I risk nothing. I do it only because we all have to get over ourselves.

Abortion is not debate it is not something that should be democratically handled. A person has the right to their own body and right to make their choices for it. The body is the dictatorship of the person. It is not up for vote or political debate. It for the person and the person only to do what they think is best. We can judge but we do not have to live with the choice.

Part 2 coming soon

I may just join the two posts together once I get it done. Just bear with me.         

IPs are not People and Money is free speech

Some good news for those fear mass lawsuits by media companies. A New York Judge has ruled that an IP-address is not sufficient evidence to identify a copyright infringer. Since an IP does not collate to a person but to an account. While the account has an owner it is not possible to tell if the owner was using the account at the time any copyright infringement happened.

As the article puts it: "The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person".

This should take some of the steam out of massive lawsuits against copyright breakers. Mainly those that illegal download movies, tv shows, games, music, etc on-line. By no means will this stop the legal action against down-loaders. Even with the Judge reported to have said in his  recommendation that: 

"[M]ass-BitTorrent lawsuits a “waste of judicial resources.” For a variety of reasons he recommends other judges to reject similar cases in the future."

A lot of this is by-product of an industry that simply did not or could keep with the changes in technology. Rather than make it simple to download music or other media many of these companies have overlooked or at lest did not make much of a serious effort to embrace new technology. Many have stood by their guns and kept to the old media models as their users moved more and more away from that very model. 

It is all very silly and a waste of everyones time. A good article on this topic can be found here. No need to rehash it since it makes a lot of the same points that I was going to.

Citizens United has brought out a lot of passions. It legal allows for  corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political campaigns via their own political groups (PACs, Friends of ___  and the such).

The simple fact is that Money has been equated to freedom of speech in America. Buckley v. Valeo is often cited as the landmark case as it stated that money is free speech and that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns. Since that ruling in 1976 courts have upheld the idea that money is a from a free speech. All people (citizens at lest) in America  have freedom of speech and spending your money is freedom of speech. 

So if I want to spend my own money on an ad that says I think that the mayor of my town is jerk then I have that right.

But Citizens United allows for corporations to do what only people could do in years past.  

Well corporations are people and that was been a legal fact for quite some time. Justice Marshall explicitly stated as much back in 1823 in Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet:

"The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."

One can many more ruling relating to corporations being people across the American legal landscape. The idea of corporations having some of the same rights as people is nothing new nor should it be viewed as something unexpected.

Why should it not be unexpected it makes the legal life of corporation a lot simpler since they can sue another person and make legal contracts just as if they where a human. In fact had it been for the past 200 odd years of legal rulings on the matter they would be no lawsuits against the downloaders of today. 

Getting back to my title, which is my point, IPs are not People and Money is free speech. 

We have entered an odd world legally speaking. In this world what is and is not a person or what can and cannot be directly linked to another person it proving to be quite a tricky thing legally. 

Here is fun thought can an IP address, no name no other means of contact, send unlimited money to a political campaign. 

Yeah okay that may not be as fun as I thought but still it may very well come up one day in a court.

We have reached a nice point in history our technology has changed everything from the top the bottom. Wiki Leaks means that cases like New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers) will no longer happen. Short of completely shutting down the Internet suppressing information is no longer possible. Trying to control it is costly and often high infective.

As this is happening in America we are seeing the old media becoming untied under a few corporate banners. Also other groups are using their new found freedom of speech to flood the old media with their political message. Clouding it up they are attacking those that freely sent out their content over the Internet. 

The American legal system nor is political system is really ready for this. Attacks, information, and well to be frank truth comes from the Internet via a nameless IP. Now the old media may very well try to hide but for those that wish to look with ease they can find the information. Furthermore is legally difficult to track back the to person that uploaded the information also once something is out there countless sources can host and reproduce the information. Making it costly and nearly impossible to stop the spread of the information.

It is a brave new world that we are a part of. Censorship is no longer an easy affair. Propaganda is losing its effectiveness. Even with all the money the Internet allows for any voice to heard. As the old world is being bought up and craved up among a few corporations. They true power is vested in fading world. A world thats day to day impact on the lives of people grows less and less.