Good Politician Promoting Algorithms
What process could we put our politicians through to help us identify better people?
What other ways could we deepen our debates?
We need to find ways to elevate the debate and to make our arguments more in-depth and substantive.
We need to go past the 30-second talking points.
It might not be an actual proposal. But what if we require politicians to write book reports once a year on the most important book they think they read that year. If they were locked on a Big-Brother type competition, and they had to write the article themselves.
Couldn't Hollywood produce a big-brother-type competition where people have to debate the issues? It would be easy to expose the best candidates and the hypocritical, pompous, self-important blow-hards. This would be good to know before they got into office.
Real people with fundamental ideas are willing to explain themselves clearly and explain the problems we face and how we can fix our problems. Politicians should no longer pretend that they are experts while having staff write everything for them.
Government By Algorithm
An algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed in problem-solving operations.
The US founding fathers believed in the power of algorithms. They wanted to construct systems that would input complex problems and output reasonable solutions. The US Constitution is the process or set of rules the founders of America believed would secure the principles of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence says countries should "organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " In other words, how the government is structured will alter our safety and happiness.
Governor Mitt Romney and the letter "G"
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z
- Good teachers should be rewarded for their hard work.
Gangs
- “Gang violence destroys the fabric of our communities and offers nothing but a dead end street to young people drawn in by false hope,” said Romney. “This program will encourage communities to develop and pursue promising new strategies that stop the mayhem and bloodshed that gangs inflict.”
- “Our criminal justice and public safety professionals now have a real tool to protect those who join with us to take a stand against crime and violence in our communities,” Romney said during the ceremony at St. Peter’s School, which specializes in youth programs that have shown great success in keeping students out of gangs and connecting them to their community. “Witnesses who have the courage to come forward and testify should not have to live in fear for cooperating with prosecutors to keep their communities safe.”
- “Nothing troubles me more than watching a child’s future shatter in a blast of violence,” said Romney. “Our call for action will give law enforcement officials additional resources to protect the lives of our children and their families.”
Gender
- "Experience shows that kids have a far better chance of succeeding if they have a mother and a father at home. Of course, divorce or death means that there will always be many, many single parents; these single parents often make huge sacrifices and their kids can indeed succeed. But let’s do everything we can to encourage our kids to have their kids after they’ve married, not while they’re single and in school. We have sex education in our schools. Let’s also have abstinence education in our schools. Marriage and two parent families are fundamental to the development of children and to our success as a culture. We cannot afford to shrink from the timeless, priceless principles of human experience."
- "Today, you are witnessing democracy in action. On issues of fundamental importance affecting all of the people, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. That is what this Constitutional Convention is all about. It serves as an important reminder that no one person and no branch of government is above the voice of the people. This is as it should be. Amending the constitution is a serious matter and any changes to the document itself should be finely and narrowly drawn. I recognize that the Senate President and the Senate Minority Leader are trying to find a compromise that will satisfy people on both sides of this issue, but their proposed amendment goes too far. The Constitution should not be used to legislate new social policy. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government."
- "I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As I’ve said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch. Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don’t think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it’s been in the Constitution all along. Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide."
"Good afternoon. Our elected representatives met yesterday and took the first steps toward passing an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I applaud Senate President Travaglini, Speaker Finneran and all the members of the Legislature for conducting a respectful and thoughtful debate. As we saw, some people feel that the amendment changes the Constitution; I, and many others, feel that it preserves the Constitution. This amendment process began after the state Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage, setting aside thousands of years of recorded history and legal precedent. The Court directed the Legislature to take action as it deemed appropriate. That’s just what the Legislature did yesterday. The Legislature is now on a track to put this issue before the voters. Ultimately, this is as it should be: the people of our state will decide. I know there are deeply held personal convictions around this issue. There are real people and real lives that are affected. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, I would ask that we continue to show respect and consideration for those of differing views. For all of us, the rule of law is bedrock. We’ve seen the lawlessness that has erupted in other states and how it undermines the higher purposes we all seek to preserve. I know there’s been a lot of speculation about what action I will take as Governor of the Commonwealth. Until the Legislature completes its work at the end of this month, I will have no comment on the options before me. But let me state clearly that whatever I do will be within the bounds of the law. Just as the Legislature is working within the constitutional and legal structure of our state, I will do the same. The Legislature has taken the first step. As the process continues, let us hope the final step will be taken by the people. Thank you.”
- "Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to join you today. First, I ask that my written remarks be inserted into the record of this hearing. You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriagein my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians. Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Congress and America now face important questions regarding the institution of marriage. Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world’s major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case. And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights. But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father? My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove “father” and “mother” and replace them with “parent A” and “parent B?” What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not “parent A” and “parent B,” but a mother and a father. Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries. Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years. Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all. Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures. Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration. The constitution’s framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend. The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states. In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary. This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations. With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice. I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens."
Guns
- “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Government Inefficiency
- “Government inefficiency wastes resources and places a burden on citizens and employers that’s harmful to our future. And anytime I see waste, or patronage, it bothers me.”
- Governor Mitt Romney, The Atlantic (September 2005)
Gangs;
Gather;
Gender;
George Romney;
Global Warming;
Groups;
Giuliani;
Governor's FY04 Budget Vetoes;
Governor's FY05 Budget Vetoes;
Governor's FY06 Budget Vetoes;
Group Goals;
Guns
Questions asked of Governor Mitt Romney from Interviews, Debates, and others... organized by subject.
Click on the question for the answer.
This would make a great tool for anyone who is interviewing Mitt. You can see the questions that have already been asked a number of times, and which ones still need to be asked.
- George Stephanopoulos
- Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly and honestly in the military?
- Wolf Blitzer:
- Do you want to tell our viewers why you disagree with Mary Cheney?
- Robert B Bluey
- Would you accept another endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans if it was offered to you?
- Katherine Jean Lopez
- Have your positions on gay rights changed?
- Do you want to change don't ask don't tell?
- 3rd Debate
- Do you believe that gays should be able to serve openly in the military?
- Katherine Jean Lopez
- Do you regret at all not running for reelection as governor?
- George Stephanopoulos
- When did you join the NRA?
Top