/#######################################################################\ | | | 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 *******************************%