I am not a wimp, but I've learned that all of life is not about anger either. There are only so many times you can say 'I told you so' before you become a characterization. Lifting a word of warning is one thing. Stating what you believe is another. And yet, I think sometimes looking back at those magic moments in the world where people WERE able to overcome their difficulties and differences helps.
Especially in the darkest of times.
The Christmas Truce is a famous story often told around Christmas, about a Christmas eve long ago where the Germans and Allies stopped their fighting and put it aside for one night to have a spot of good will between them. I think the elements of culture the two sides shared helped make this possible. Sometimes sharing a moment together can make a difference.
I think the thing that makes this particularly poignant for me is....its not like they didn't hate each other. I mean seriously, read the propaganda at the time. They went so far as to rename everything German with an Americanized name. Furthermore, there was so much animosity on the side of the allies, that when Germany surrendered they saddled it with a debt so crushing that, when combined with the depression forced the people to accept whatever crazy ideas came along that would give them hope.
And we all know how that went.
So the fact that this happened was amazing. It was, literally, in my mind a miracle.
Miracles happen. They do exist. Its hard to understand them, but miracles happen sometimes. Although, in this context, the larger elements still stayed in play. That is to say, the miracle was a window in time where man acted in his best possible nature, but the historical tides before it and after it continued.
I've had miracles in my life, but many of them have been brief respites such as this rather than lasting life changing events that lasted for the better. In one instance in particular, I was able to be an instance of benevolence in someone else's life and (I hope) make it better, but I paid for it with a week or two of near starvation.
Miracles often come with costs attached, but that doesn't mean that they don't happen, and they're important to recognize when they do. I'm not speaking from a supernatural perspective but purely a spiritual one. There is something in us that needs to recognize wonder and beauty when we see it, for otherwise why are we really here? I argue that it is the moments of wonder in life that matter most, not the mundane ones; even if the work in the mundane times is what often makes wonder possible.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
[Cons] My political road map of America
I started this out with my list of how to topple the current regime in the American Empire but I'll need to save that for tomorrow. When I started my 'road map' to explain some of my terminology for needed coalitions and actions, I found it took WAY more time than I thought, since real American politics is complicated.
Republicans:
Reagan Republicans: These are moderately fiscally conservative, moderately social conservative Republicans who are strong on defense, but who are also capable of compromising with the Democratic party when need be. Many of them now call themselves Independent because they feel their party no longer represents them.[Personally I consider Obama a Reagan Republican, but most Reagan Republicans would beg to disagree.]
Rush Republicans: Radically fiscally conservative and moderately social republicans who speak the language of radically social conservatives. They are the owners of the Right Reality, and dictate its narrative. They control the keys to the kingdom and the infrastructure that allow the Right Reality to function. They are ‘the man’ which all other political factions in the United States would do well to overcome but not without great cost, time and difficulty.
Beck Republicans: Radically fiscally conservative and Radically socially conservative, they invoke Godwin more often than God. These are the foot soldiers in the Rush-Beck alliance. They are the enforcers of the Right Reality. While the Rush republicans might control the narrative, the Beck Republicans enforce it and threaten to vote out the Rush Republicans that do not heed their call.
Rockefeller Republicans: Moderate fiscal and liberal social Republicans, they are a
dying breed. Really, there are none in office, but I still believe there are large populations of them, particularly in the North East. I think many of them now call themselves independent and no longer consider themselves part of the Republican party. I take back my earlier statement…Joe Lieberman might be a good example of a Rockefeller Republican.
Roosevelt Republicans: As in Teddy Roosevelt. Moderate Fiscal and Moderate Social Republicans, they’re also strong on defense but pragmatic enough that they not only get along with Democrats but actively work with them. The primary distinguisher in my opinion between Reagan and Roosevelt Republicans is that Reagan Republicans are moderate enough to be bothered by the current Republican party to detach themselves from it, but still subscribe to the Right Reality whereas Roosevelt Republicans subscribe to the Reality Reality. Meagan McCain is probably the best example of a prominent Roosevelt Republican that I can think of. Ron Paul’s behavior (but not his actual political beliefs) also exemplify this philosophy. John McCain of 2000 would be another excellent example of this. They’re the Republicans I like the most, and wish we had more of.
Democrats
Clinton Democrats: AKA Corporate Dems, AKA Blue Dog dems. Fiscally conservative and moderate socially. The truth of the matter is that they are very milquetoast on social issues and really only care about them to nose ring and control the democratic party. They’re very fiscally conservative and they are in an unholy alliance with the Rush and Beck (and formerly Reagan) Republicans to lock out all other factions. They, more than any other faction, believe in the status quo, and are the token democrats Wall Street billionaires give their money to. They are ‘the pragmatists’ that really don’t believe in anything but tell themselves they do. But they’re scrappy, and they’re fighters. Good examples of Clinton Democrats include the Clintons and Rom Emmanuel. Most of Obama’s cabinet are Clinton Democrats. They are part of the regime all other factions would do well to over throw.
LBJ Democrats: Statists. Moderately conservative, socially very liberal. They are fractured and often largely divided by identity politics, focusing more on their identity than their ideology when it comes to their voting record. They are the most numerous faction in the Democratic party and formerly the enforcers of the Democratic Party narrative. They still have power but are easily distracted and placated by the Clinton Democrats. It is the LBJ Democrats that let the Clinton Democrats retain power, but the resentment in LBJ democrats is slowly building but still easily exploited.
Roosevelt Democrats: Liberal economically and liberal socially. They are ideologists. These are Progressives, and they know how to fight. They understand the power of narrative and they were the previous creators of the narrative of the Democratic Party but were horribly weakened by the Carter/Kennedy fight in 1980, and have been out of power ever since. Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Senator Franken, Senator Gillibrand, and Alan Grayson are an example of this faction. They’re honestly the ones that I want in charge of the Democratic Party and while they are still slowly building an infrastructure to counter the Clinton Democrats, I don’t think most of them REALLY understand what it is that they’re up against. They are also extremely loyal to the Democratic Party.
Kucinich Democrats: Very liberal economically and very liberal socially. These are the guys who were to the left of Roosevelt even when the democrats dominated everything. These are the guys who would actually be considered the Left in much of the world, particularly in Europe. They don’t give up, they don’t give in. They compromise when they must but only reluctantly. Sometimes they go too far, and sometimes they’re responsible for the crazy that is associated with and discredits the entire left as narrated by the Right Reality, but I admire them, for no other reason than they have the strongest conviction of any political faction and they drive the Beck Republicans apoplectic. They are not tied to the Democratic Party at all even though they often vote Democratic. They are also the most likely faction to truly split and form their own party.
Archie Bunker Democrats: I can’t really call these Reagan Democrats because I respect Reagan too much for that. They used to be Yellow Dog democrats, but that term is also old fashioned at this point because they’re all over the country. Unionists. Working men, but also guys who largely believe in a world gone by. They don’t like where the Democratic Party has gone and frequently vote for the Republicans. They’re generally moderately conservative and socially liberal, but because of their beliefs easily exploited by Rush Republicans into believing that the Clinton Democrats are working against their interests. This is actually the truth but its not like the Rush Republicans are a better alternative. They’re just better at selling the message.
Independents
There are so many factions of independents that trying to name them all is functionally impossible, but I’m going to give it a try.
Ron Paul Libertarians: Look, the fact of the matter is while many of them camp out in the Republican Party, they’re really libertarians. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative, they have honor, principals and yet some beliefs that quite frankly I don’t agree with. But I can agree to disagree with them. I think the thing that sets Ron Paul Libertarians apart the most is that they are strict constitutionalists. Unfortunately, the other thing that sets Ron Paul Libertarians apart the most is that they are one of the two independent factions that are most likely to subscribe to the Right Reality, even if many of them are Worldwalkers (capable of understanding or viewing the Reality Reality). This means that it can be very difficult for other factions of independents or democrats to build a coalition with them.
Nolan Libertarians: Socially moderate to liberal and fiscally moderate but weird. They are what I might call ‘libertarian libertarians’ in that they are one of the hardest factions to characterize that still actually have a coherent ideology. They subscribe to much of the views of Heinlein and the saner parts of Randian philosophy. I think the other major difference between them and the Ron Paul libertarians is that they want little or nothing to do with the Republican party and they are more driven by the Reality Reality, though they are slowly being coopted into the Right Reality by the recent usurpation of the Cato institute by Rush sleeper agents.
Nader Greens: Very liberal socially and very liberal economically. They have a lot of really interesting ideas. There is often a close alliance between the Kucinich Democrats and the Nader Greens, but the primary difference between the two is that Nader Greens are pretty much OVER voting for the Democratic Party at this point. I can’t say I blame them, but then again, they weren’t even willing to form a coalition to defeat Bush in 2004.
Anarchists: Really, I can’t put a name to anarchists, because each one is his own island. And I can’t say they’re liberal or conservative socially or economically. They are a faction unto themselves but they do, at the least have an ideology and vote or don’t vote as they see fit. But they by and large DON’T do coalitions.
Conan Independents: Like Anarchists, there are as many philosophies in this camp as there are people so naming someone as their leader is difficult so I choose Conan. No, not the guy with show, the guy with the sword. They wander the land and fight for causes they feel are just, sometimes wisely, sometimes foolishly but they are informed, they choose their issues and their stands on them independent from each other, walk between the Right Reality and the Reality Reality at will, form coalitions as they need to and yet still retain their independence. I admire them for it and consider them the most American of American factions. They are, however, still sometimes deceived.
Snowflakes: Ill-informed independents or just people who don’t give a damn or who consider themselves above it all. This is the largest faction of independents. They don’t form coalitions but they will often vote for whoever has the winning tide or the incumbent. They have no ideology except their own comfort and occasionally that of their friends. Snowflakes do not form coalitions.
Wiggams: Everything is great. Everything is fine. I like ice cream. I will vote for someone because they have good hair. Because they have a nice voice. Because they are the incumbent. Wiggams are too clueless to have an indentity but are very gregarious and wander in among many factions pretending to be members of that faction and probably even firmly believing that they are. They don’t have an ideology so much as a particular direction that they’re going at the time.
Roadkills: The middle of the road faction that moves to the middle of the road based on the Narrative provided by the Left and the Right. No matter what the situation, they will listen to both sides and plant themselves firmly in the middle. They are the second most popular faction among Independents and unlike Snowflakes, they will almost always vote. These guys are the reasons many people go nuts in polls trying to understand why neither the Left nor the Right has any dominance. They form coalitions but are more like chaff in the wind. They are neither admirable nor interesting but they are, however, easily exploitable, and anyone interested in overturning the Rush/Beck/Clinton regime would do well to cater to their instincts, which of course means seizing the Narrative.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
[Phil] The Rule of Comfort
There is a classic struggle that is far older than my life time in philosophy between the Rule of Might and the Rule of Law. The thumbnail version of this. The rule of Might is the rule of the strong. Whoever commands society with the biggest army, the most weapons and the most fear is the one who determines what happens. The rule of Law basically states that members of a society get together and decide the way things SHOULD be with laws, and then those laws are applied evenly to members of society.
I posit that there is a third state, and that it is really ultimately the glue that makes civilization work. It is the Rule of Comfort. Most people live their lives significantly on autopilot, establishing a set degree of patterns that they enjoy. When those patterns are disrupted, there is discomfort. Sometimes this is something they can do something about it, and sometimes there isn’t.
A lot of time and a lot of money have been spent studying people and what makes them tick. Sociology, Psychology and Marketing have made amazing discoveries into the nature of the human mind, and when combined with the advances in medicine that we’re making they’re going to be making even more. Fortunately, there is a lot of what makes humanity tick that is still an unknown X factor. It is why regimes that are corrupt or evil are toppled. Its why the Arab spring was able to happen. Its why the Berlin wall was able to fall.
The instant we have a perfect understanding of the human mind is the instant that a perfect tyranny will rise up to enslave it. There is actually some legitimate fear on the part of libertarians at the concentration of too much power in one place. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
People do not realize the consequences of the government obtaining all of the power that it is in the United States. One crisis after another accrues more power, and the government never gives it up once it has it. Right now, the people of the United States, despite all of their suffering, still enjoy tremendous wealth, prosperity and opportunity though that is slowly being taken away bit by bit.
Of course part of the problem is that the people can’t unite very easily. They are kept separated, in part by an artificial drama of conflict where often there is none, but also in part by diverging definitions of realities. Seriously, when you can’t agree on some of the most basic facts, how can you unite on a single principal?
One of the things I’ll be discussing in future entries are concrete ACTUAL methods and steps that can be used to fix things. They’re not going to fix themselves. The inertia is too strong. The same comfort that keeps Americans from pouring out into the streets in rage at what is being done by Wall Street and Washington is the comfort in Washington, in the Village (Corporate Media), and Wall Street itself. People blame ‘the system’ without attaching emotional value to it. It Is easy to have good will toward a brand but harder to have negative feelings to it unless it affects you personally.
People who had their lives ruined by BP in the oil spill may or may not ever forgive the company. But Americans who saw it on the television will quickly forget it within a few months. Their collective memory has been wiped clean, in part by the internet, and also the wealth of opportunities of distraction and also in part by the extra work they have to do each day to survive, and also in part by the shared apathy of their peers. Liberals and Independents are fractured. Conservatives are strong and motivated and focused, but only on destruction. They know that they want smaller government but aren’t really trying to work Liberals and Independents to establish common ground.
The Debt Ceiling is a crucible. But I would argue that the real crisis, the real changing of the rules will be something that no one expects. After all in Tunisia it was a fruit cart that finally set things off. I know people so I know Americans ARE capable of moving out into the streets…..but the threshold is much higher. And even if they do, there are so many traps designed to catch that anger once it occurs, pundits designed to blur the lines with talking heads, divergent reality interpreters who will state that what is happening is directly the opposite of what is actually happening that even should that ‘magic moment’ occur there will be no focus to it. More than likely it will simply be a series of riots such as what occurred in Los Angeles after Rodney King.
When I went on my mission to Venezuela, there was a coup attempt. I saw the way people acted and it was listless, and somewhat chaotic. One of the reasons I call civilization an illusion is because unlike say…a rock, civilization can stop being such at any particular time. But it is the most persistent reality we have, because we want it. We are biologically hardwired to seek the status quo. It is this basic desire for comfort that makes dictatorships able to do as much as they are. A true democracy requires a level of diligence. Ben Franklin was not lying when he said, “We have a Republic. Now let us see if you can keep it.”
Inertia is a tough thing. 200 years of freedom makes overturning it difficult without finesse, but at the same time that freedom can be overturned much quicker than you think, especially when the antibodies/immune system of society have been coopted in a poisonous reality. But that is the subject for another post.
I posit that there is a third state, and that it is really ultimately the glue that makes civilization work. It is the Rule of Comfort. Most people live their lives significantly on autopilot, establishing a set degree of patterns that they enjoy. When those patterns are disrupted, there is discomfort. Sometimes this is something they can do something about it, and sometimes there isn’t.
A lot of time and a lot of money have been spent studying people and what makes them tick. Sociology, Psychology and Marketing have made amazing discoveries into the nature of the human mind, and when combined with the advances in medicine that we’re making they’re going to be making even more. Fortunately, there is a lot of what makes humanity tick that is still an unknown X factor. It is why regimes that are corrupt or evil are toppled. Its why the Arab spring was able to happen. Its why the Berlin wall was able to fall.
The instant we have a perfect understanding of the human mind is the instant that a perfect tyranny will rise up to enslave it. There is actually some legitimate fear on the part of libertarians at the concentration of too much power in one place. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
People do not realize the consequences of the government obtaining all of the power that it is in the United States. One crisis after another accrues more power, and the government never gives it up once it has it. Right now, the people of the United States, despite all of their suffering, still enjoy tremendous wealth, prosperity and opportunity though that is slowly being taken away bit by bit.
Of course part of the problem is that the people can’t unite very easily. They are kept separated, in part by an artificial drama of conflict where often there is none, but also in part by diverging definitions of realities. Seriously, when you can’t agree on some of the most basic facts, how can you unite on a single principal?
One of the things I’ll be discussing in future entries are concrete ACTUAL methods and steps that can be used to fix things. They’re not going to fix themselves. The inertia is too strong. The same comfort that keeps Americans from pouring out into the streets in rage at what is being done by Wall Street and Washington is the comfort in Washington, in the Village (Corporate Media), and Wall Street itself. People blame ‘the system’ without attaching emotional value to it. It Is easy to have good will toward a brand but harder to have negative feelings to it unless it affects you personally.
People who had their lives ruined by BP in the oil spill may or may not ever forgive the company. But Americans who saw it on the television will quickly forget it within a few months. Their collective memory has been wiped clean, in part by the internet, and also the wealth of opportunities of distraction and also in part by the extra work they have to do each day to survive, and also in part by the shared apathy of their peers. Liberals and Independents are fractured. Conservatives are strong and motivated and focused, but only on destruction. They know that they want smaller government but aren’t really trying to work Liberals and Independents to establish common ground.
The Debt Ceiling is a crucible. But I would argue that the real crisis, the real changing of the rules will be something that no one expects. After all in Tunisia it was a fruit cart that finally set things off. I know people so I know Americans ARE capable of moving out into the streets…..but the threshold is much higher. And even if they do, there are so many traps designed to catch that anger once it occurs, pundits designed to blur the lines with talking heads, divergent reality interpreters who will state that what is happening is directly the opposite of what is actually happening that even should that ‘magic moment’ occur there will be no focus to it. More than likely it will simply be a series of riots such as what occurred in Los Angeles after Rodney King.
When I went on my mission to Venezuela, there was a coup attempt. I saw the way people acted and it was listless, and somewhat chaotic. One of the reasons I call civilization an illusion is because unlike say…a rock, civilization can stop being such at any particular time. But it is the most persistent reality we have, because we want it. We are biologically hardwired to seek the status quo. It is this basic desire for comfort that makes dictatorships able to do as much as they are. A true democracy requires a level of diligence. Ben Franklin was not lying when he said, “We have a Republic. Now let us see if you can keep it.”
Inertia is a tough thing. 200 years of freedom makes overturning it difficult without finesse, but at the same time that freedom can be overturned much quicker than you think, especially when the antibodies/immune system of society have been coopted in a poisonous reality. But that is the subject for another post.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
[Rant] Who is to blame for the debt crisis?
The American People, that's who.
Republicans are doing what they were elected to do, shorten spending at any cost. They only kind of lied this time. Sure they've voted for deficits in the past, but the American People decided that it was more important to Send a Message to Washington this time than think about the consequences of what they were doing.
Some, of course, including many tea partiers knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They want the government, and certainly at the least the government we know to come crashing down.
They consider people that rely on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you know 'entitlements' to be parasites. They think that people that get their money from the government haven't 'earned' what they got. I laugh at the people who believe this. Obviously they've never talked to someone who lives on those benefits. I'd love to see some tea partier call a WWII veteran a 'parasite' because they're on social security.
Of course to the leadership of this movement, this is revenge against the baby boomers for the 60's. Roger Ailes and the Koch Brothers want to ensure that THEY never get the 'entitlements' because they dared do things like Brown Vs Board of Education, the Civil Rights movement and Equal Rights for Women (all of which, by the way, required a powerful federal government, as did the end of Slavery.)
But the American People? The majority of them failed.
*Stayed Home
*Voted for a third party (nothing wrong with this but they cared more about their right to vote for a third party than care about what the Republicans would do)
*Voted Republican
I mean, Democrats often vote for Democrats for dumb reasons and don't think more than Republicans do, but the one thing you CAN'T do is blame Democrats for what Republicans are doing regarding the deficit.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people who thinks what the Republicans are doing moving us towards the edge of doom via the current debt crisis is a feature, not a bug.
To which I say, Fuck You.
Republicans are doing what they were elected to do, shorten spending at any cost. They only kind of lied this time. Sure they've voted for deficits in the past, but the American People decided that it was more important to Send a Message to Washington this time than think about the consequences of what they were doing.
Some, of course, including many tea partiers knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They want the government, and certainly at the least the government we know to come crashing down.
They consider people that rely on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you know 'entitlements' to be parasites. They think that people that get their money from the government haven't 'earned' what they got. I laugh at the people who believe this. Obviously they've never talked to someone who lives on those benefits. I'd love to see some tea partier call a WWII veteran a 'parasite' because they're on social security.
Of course to the leadership of this movement, this is revenge against the baby boomers for the 60's. Roger Ailes and the Koch Brothers want to ensure that THEY never get the 'entitlements' because they dared do things like Brown Vs Board of Education, the Civil Rights movement and Equal Rights for Women (all of which, by the way, required a powerful federal government, as did the end of Slavery.)
But the American People? The majority of them failed.
*Stayed Home
*Voted for a third party (nothing wrong with this but they cared more about their right to vote for a third party than care about what the Republicans would do)
*Voted Republican
I mean, Democrats often vote for Democrats for dumb reasons and don't think more than Republicans do, but the one thing you CAN'T do is blame Democrats for what Republicans are doing regarding the deficit.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people who thinks what the Republicans are doing moving us towards the edge of doom via the current debt crisis is a feature, not a bug.
To which I say, Fuck You.
Friday, July 15, 2011
[CONS] NeoFederalism
Federalism is one of the strengths that makes the United States different than other countries. In my observation, confederations do not work. Europe is either going to disintegrate or integrate more. There are of course, conflicting camps in Europe, but as the current crisis with the Euro is showing, the status quo cannot stand. I personally think the odds are 65% towards an integration at a financial level within 5-15 years. The other 30% chance most likely possibility to me is the creation of a ‘probation’ status for some nations, removing their ability to print their own Euro’s, and I just don’t see that working. More than likely any nation placed on such a status will remove itself from the EU.
Federalism is woven into the United States on every level, even its name. There are many progressives who believe the time has come to dissolve state governments. When I look at the state government of MY state, I can’t blame them. Even when Republicans control every element of state government, they can’t get any work done on real issues. They barely managed to repeal the stupid blue law prohibiting Sunday sales of alcohol, but they have done nothing to resolve critical issues of education, transportation and water, much less doing anything meaningful to fix the economy.
This is not a praise of Democrats. They did little while they were in power. In fact for the entire duration of while I’ve been here, I have had little but contempt for all but a small handful of state politicians.
The same story is repeated over and over again in other states like Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Iowa, Kansas etc. States spend more time catering to their rabid psychotic base than they do trying to fix real issues. I have nothing but contempt for the ‘both sides are equal’ mantra, but in this case I will say that the democrats have real problems too. When I got my state pest control license in California it was a nightmare. When they put a tax lien on me for a the income I supposedly MIGHT have earned (even though I was out of state) it took TEN YEARS of dealing with the labyrinth that was their state to deal with it. And while some progress has been shown recently (now that it doesn’t take TWO THIRDS MAJORITY to pass a budget (an idiotic idea approved and repeatedly approved by the voters until they finally realized why it doesn’t work) the democrats are still so wedded to their support of public unions that they refuse to decriminalize a host of issues due to the lobbying of the state prison guards. This, despite the fact that their prisons are the worst in the nation, and have been ordered by the Supreme Court to lessen their population. And I say this as someone who supports the idea of unions and even public employees unions. California is MESSED UP.
But the Federal government is no better. I’ll be tearing it apart enough in subsequent posts without a need to go into detail but everyone who is not in the Village knows that Washington stopped functioning long ago. Exactly when that was varies depending on what reality you observe and how conservative you are, but everyone agrees that it is broken.
But if the Federal government is broken (and it is) how would making the states go away or replacing them with ‘regional districts’ make things any better?
Answer: It wouldn’t.
Having said that, I think the Romans had the right idea. When their empire started to decay, they moved the capital. This renewal kept them around as the Roman Empire for another few centuries and as the Byzantines for another 1000 years after that.
After a certain amount of time, a government just begins to become corrupt. The corridors and levers of power ossify and need to be shaken up. All the more reason then, for an entirely new Constitution.
But on top of that, I believe that we are too fixated on the borders of states. We need states. And states should be as powerful (if not MORE powerful) than they currently are. But there are some problems with states as they are, that go way beyond their utterly broken and useless state legislatures. One of these is the tendency in multiple states for one part of the state to loot the rest of the state for their own benefit. In Georgia, the rural parts of the state loot the Atlanta Tax base without providing any meaningful report in return. Due to Republican and rural opposition to Marta, it has to go hat in hand to the state legislature to use its own money. In California, the South loots the North. The Cities loot the Suburbs. In Illinois, Chicago dominates the state entire state. In New York, the private prison cities jack up the severity of the laws to incarcerate and kidnap citizens of New York City to maintain their local populations. In North Carolina, there has been feuding between the mountains and the flat lands for as long as the state has existed.
How do you solve this problem equitably?
My solution is to allow residents to create their own state. There have to be rules to this, but I believe it could work. You do it by predefined regions roughly along the lines of Zip Codes. Every 20 years, people get to vote on which state they want their ‘zip code’ to be a part of. The state has to be a line of continuous unbroken territory. It has to have a minimum population (at least enough to have 1 representative in the House of Representatives or whatever body represents population) and it has to have a State Constitution that at least 60% of the members of that prospective state approve.
I think this could best be accomplished by having a select set of state packages, such as “Georgia” or “Atlanta” or “North Georgia” etc. These packages would include boundaries and a proposed constitution to include those boundaries. You would vote for your preferred border set, and then approve or reject the proposed constitution for each package in a separate section of the ballot.
The default would be the status quo. Yes, that means you could keep things the same by rejecting all existing new constitutions, but on the other hand if a zip code was sufficiently motivated to leave a state and set up their own state, or even just jump over to the nearby bordering state, they stand a better chance of doing it.
There are some problems with this. Poor areas or minority areas would try to be removed from richer states. This could be countered with greater federal subsidies (which would be more possible in a new constitution). Radical constitutions would potentially be snuck by people, but honestly, given the fact that our current constitution is routinely ignored and candidates lie all the time, I don’t see much difference. At some point voters need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Such a radical reconfiguration of the way states work would, in my opinion, not be possible with a simple amendment. It would be legal (I checked) but it would greatly confuse the issue and allow previous precedent regarding states to interfere with the new process. A lot of things can be fixed with simple amendments but I believe the ability to let people choose their own states would not be possible without a total reboot of the constitution, which is, I believe, my strongest argument (but certainly not my only argument) for the need for a restart.
Federalism is woven into the United States on every level, even its name. There are many progressives who believe the time has come to dissolve state governments. When I look at the state government of MY state, I can’t blame them. Even when Republicans control every element of state government, they can’t get any work done on real issues. They barely managed to repeal the stupid blue law prohibiting Sunday sales of alcohol, but they have done nothing to resolve critical issues of education, transportation and water, much less doing anything meaningful to fix the economy.
This is not a praise of Democrats. They did little while they were in power. In fact for the entire duration of while I’ve been here, I have had little but contempt for all but a small handful of state politicians.
The same story is repeated over and over again in other states like Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Iowa, Kansas etc. States spend more time catering to their rabid psychotic base than they do trying to fix real issues. I have nothing but contempt for the ‘both sides are equal’ mantra, but in this case I will say that the democrats have real problems too. When I got my state pest control license in California it was a nightmare. When they put a tax lien on me for a the income I supposedly MIGHT have earned (even though I was out of state) it took TEN YEARS of dealing with the labyrinth that was their state to deal with it. And while some progress has been shown recently (now that it doesn’t take TWO THIRDS MAJORITY to pass a budget (an idiotic idea approved and repeatedly approved by the voters until they finally realized why it doesn’t work) the democrats are still so wedded to their support of public unions that they refuse to decriminalize a host of issues due to the lobbying of the state prison guards. This, despite the fact that their prisons are the worst in the nation, and have been ordered by the Supreme Court to lessen their population. And I say this as someone who supports the idea of unions and even public employees unions. California is MESSED UP.
But the Federal government is no better. I’ll be tearing it apart enough in subsequent posts without a need to go into detail but everyone who is not in the Village knows that Washington stopped functioning long ago. Exactly when that was varies depending on what reality you observe and how conservative you are, but everyone agrees that it is broken.
But if the Federal government is broken (and it is) how would making the states go away or replacing them with ‘regional districts’ make things any better?
Answer: It wouldn’t.
Having said that, I think the Romans had the right idea. When their empire started to decay, they moved the capital. This renewal kept them around as the Roman Empire for another few centuries and as the Byzantines for another 1000 years after that.
After a certain amount of time, a government just begins to become corrupt. The corridors and levers of power ossify and need to be shaken up. All the more reason then, for an entirely new Constitution.
But on top of that, I believe that we are too fixated on the borders of states. We need states. And states should be as powerful (if not MORE powerful) than they currently are. But there are some problems with states as they are, that go way beyond their utterly broken and useless state legislatures. One of these is the tendency in multiple states for one part of the state to loot the rest of the state for their own benefit. In Georgia, the rural parts of the state loot the Atlanta Tax base without providing any meaningful report in return. Due to Republican and rural opposition to Marta, it has to go hat in hand to the state legislature to use its own money. In California, the South loots the North. The Cities loot the Suburbs. In Illinois, Chicago dominates the state entire state. In New York, the private prison cities jack up the severity of the laws to incarcerate and kidnap citizens of New York City to maintain their local populations. In North Carolina, there has been feuding between the mountains and the flat lands for as long as the state has existed.
How do you solve this problem equitably?
My solution is to allow residents to create their own state. There have to be rules to this, but I believe it could work. You do it by predefined regions roughly along the lines of Zip Codes. Every 20 years, people get to vote on which state they want their ‘zip code’ to be a part of. The state has to be a line of continuous unbroken territory. It has to have a minimum population (at least enough to have 1 representative in the House of Representatives or whatever body represents population) and it has to have a State Constitution that at least 60% of the members of that prospective state approve.
I think this could best be accomplished by having a select set of state packages, such as “Georgia” or “Atlanta” or “North Georgia” etc. These packages would include boundaries and a proposed constitution to include those boundaries. You would vote for your preferred border set, and then approve or reject the proposed constitution for each package in a separate section of the ballot.
The default would be the status quo. Yes, that means you could keep things the same by rejecting all existing new constitutions, but on the other hand if a zip code was sufficiently motivated to leave a state and set up their own state, or even just jump over to the nearby bordering state, they stand a better chance of doing it.
There are some problems with this. Poor areas or minority areas would try to be removed from richer states. This could be countered with greater federal subsidies (which would be more possible in a new constitution). Radical constitutions would potentially be snuck by people, but honestly, given the fact that our current constitution is routinely ignored and candidates lie all the time, I don’t see much difference. At some point voters need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Such a radical reconfiguration of the way states work would, in my opinion, not be possible with a simple amendment. It would be legal (I checked) but it would greatly confuse the issue and allow previous precedent regarding states to interfere with the new process. A lot of things can be fixed with simple amendments but I believe the ability to let people choose their own states would not be possible without a total reboot of the constitution, which is, I believe, my strongest argument (but certainly not my only argument) for the need for a restart.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
[CONS] Countering Reasons to Keep the Constitution
There are many reasons to do this, but I'm going to start with four and my counter argument against them.
1) "We should honor the Founding Fathers!"
There is this idea that somehow the Founding Fathers are somehow sacrosanct and holy individuals that should be revered. I have no problem with this. They were remarkable men that performed a remarkable act. They put together one of the most enduring documents of all time. Their work has stood strong for two centuries, and in truth could probably function for another two more. Having said that, I believe that there are people who hold more reverence for the Founding Fathers than they do their own diety, or (in the more common place) religious teachers of their own belief set. The Cult of the Constitution is alive and well.
Most people don't take it that far of course, but from our earliest days we are taught that the Constitution is a miracle and that it has helped our nation be set apart above all others.
And yet, many of the founding fathers thought that creating another constitution was a very good idea. In fact, they did it themselves. If we really honored the Founding Fathers we would be willing to repeat their steps when needed to revive the constitution. They actually put a clause in the Constitution itself that allows another Constitution convention. The Founding Fathers looked forward to the future despite the fact that they took inspiration from the past.
I believe we need to go farther than this, and I'll explain the reasons for that in another post, but regardless, if the Founding Fathers were so against the idea of a reboot, why did they put the very idea in Article V?
2) God Inspired the Constitution.
It is actually a component of the religious belief of some sects that the Constitution really IS a holy document albiet primarily as a vehicle to allow the said sect to come into fruition.
However they also cite a chain of documents from the Bible, down through the Magna Carta or even in certain cases ancient Babylonian Law or the Roman Senate as part of a chain of events allowed, created and enhanced by God.
If such were the case, why would God cease to inspire men to do something better, taking the lessons that He has taught them in the past? Is God dead? And if not, then why would He cease to inspire us to greater forms of government?
3) The Alternative Might Be Worse
A convincing argument can be made that given the charged political environment we live in right now, that a significant amount of representatives from Conservative states would try to incorporate things that would be dire, or highly undesirable. Right now we live in an environment where we not only have two different viewpoints (and there are many) but I argue that we have (at the least) two versions of reality itself, with different camps accepting basic scientific facts as subjective things. Science and the reflection of objective reality that it gives us has become optional.
Here is my counter argument.
We have many people in this day and age who are passionate about their viewpoints. However, unlike the last time we had a constitutional convention; we have no one who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to own another human being. We really don’t have many people who think the idea of a monarchy is a really good idea. We don’t have that many who believe that the poor deserve no right to vote (at least publicly anyway.) They also generally (with the possible exception of Texas) don’t hold more loyalty to their STATE than they do the union. Americans these days call themselves Americans before they call themselves Georgians, Texans or Californians.
The Founding Fathers were amazing human beings, but they had also just fought a war. That has its advantages and its disadvantages. It meant that they had a bonding experience, including such heroes such as George Washington who was able to bridge otherwise unbridgeable differences. But at the same time, they were all rich, white men who had very specific ideas about the way the world was supposed to work, long before the discovery of Evolution, Chaos Theory, Relativity or Quantum Physics.
More importantly, any ratification procedure will require at LEAST the majority of the states, and whichever version of reality you prefer is not going to be able to simply run roughshod over the other view point in order to make the constitution pass. Plus, remember that for this to become a reality you have to convince enough people that it is time to make a new constitution in the first place. That’s not going to happen unless you can convince people that THEIR viewpoint will be reflected in the constitution at least partially.
4) We Should Just Amend The Constitution
Amending the constitution is hard. It is ridiculously hard. Most people say that this is a feature, not a bug and they’d be right. The system of checks and balances has protected us from ‘the whim of the mob’ for quite some time. People act in a dumb fashion when given a chance to panic. People also act corrupt when they get too much power, so by channeling that power into divided aspects of time, to make change hard, the Constitution has above all given us STABILITY which I argue is the primary source of our nation’s wealth. Businesses thrive in a predictable climate and our constitution has allowed much of our government to thrive because change could be predicted until a huge portion of society was utterly outraged at the implications of something, like, for example, sending huge numbers of 18 year olds off to war but not allowing them to vote for the same politicians who were sending them out to die.
Here is my counter argument.
Entropy is the single law of the universe. Everything we know, or at least everything we can scientifically observe decays. No matter how well set up, things are born, they mature and then they die. Sometimes they are able to reproduce and give new life and thus the cycle is renewed, but nothing lives forever.
Our living constitution has reached a point where there are so many flaws, so many holes that I argue that a single amendment is not enough to fix it. A constitutional convention with numerous amendments is the second best way, because we need to fix A LOT, but I will argue in my next post why simple amendments will not do.
1) "We should honor the Founding Fathers!"
There is this idea that somehow the Founding Fathers are somehow sacrosanct and holy individuals that should be revered. I have no problem with this. They were remarkable men that performed a remarkable act. They put together one of the most enduring documents of all time. Their work has stood strong for two centuries, and in truth could probably function for another two more. Having said that, I believe that there are people who hold more reverence for the Founding Fathers than they do their own diety, or (in the more common place) religious teachers of their own belief set. The Cult of the Constitution is alive and well.
Most people don't take it that far of course, but from our earliest days we are taught that the Constitution is a miracle and that it has helped our nation be set apart above all others.
And yet, many of the founding fathers thought that creating another constitution was a very good idea. In fact, they did it themselves. If we really honored the Founding Fathers we would be willing to repeat their steps when needed to revive the constitution. They actually put a clause in the Constitution itself that allows another Constitution convention. The Founding Fathers looked forward to the future despite the fact that they took inspiration from the past.
I believe we need to go farther than this, and I'll explain the reasons for that in another post, but regardless, if the Founding Fathers were so against the idea of a reboot, why did they put the very idea in Article V?
2) God Inspired the Constitution.
It is actually a component of the religious belief of some sects that the Constitution really IS a holy document albiet primarily as a vehicle to allow the said sect to come into fruition.
However they also cite a chain of documents from the Bible, down through the Magna Carta or even in certain cases ancient Babylonian Law or the Roman Senate as part of a chain of events allowed, created and enhanced by God.
If such were the case, why would God cease to inspire men to do something better, taking the lessons that He has taught them in the past? Is God dead? And if not, then why would He cease to inspire us to greater forms of government?
3) The Alternative Might Be Worse
A convincing argument can be made that given the charged political environment we live in right now, that a significant amount of representatives from Conservative states would try to incorporate things that would be dire, or highly undesirable. Right now we live in an environment where we not only have two different viewpoints (and there are many) but I argue that we have (at the least) two versions of reality itself, with different camps accepting basic scientific facts as subjective things. Science and the reflection of objective reality that it gives us has become optional.
Here is my counter argument.
We have many people in this day and age who are passionate about their viewpoints. However, unlike the last time we had a constitutional convention; we have no one who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to own another human being. We really don’t have many people who think the idea of a monarchy is a really good idea. We don’t have that many who believe that the poor deserve no right to vote (at least publicly anyway.) They also generally (with the possible exception of Texas) don’t hold more loyalty to their STATE than they do the union. Americans these days call themselves Americans before they call themselves Georgians, Texans or Californians.
The Founding Fathers were amazing human beings, but they had also just fought a war. That has its advantages and its disadvantages. It meant that they had a bonding experience, including such heroes such as George Washington who was able to bridge otherwise unbridgeable differences. But at the same time, they were all rich, white men who had very specific ideas about the way the world was supposed to work, long before the discovery of Evolution, Chaos Theory, Relativity or Quantum Physics.
More importantly, any ratification procedure will require at LEAST the majority of the states, and whichever version of reality you prefer is not going to be able to simply run roughshod over the other view point in order to make the constitution pass. Plus, remember that for this to become a reality you have to convince enough people that it is time to make a new constitution in the first place. That’s not going to happen unless you can convince people that THEIR viewpoint will be reflected in the constitution at least partially.
4) We Should Just Amend The Constitution
Amending the constitution is hard. It is ridiculously hard. Most people say that this is a feature, not a bug and they’d be right. The system of checks and balances has protected us from ‘the whim of the mob’ for quite some time. People act in a dumb fashion when given a chance to panic. People also act corrupt when they get too much power, so by channeling that power into divided aspects of time, to make change hard, the Constitution has above all given us STABILITY which I argue is the primary source of our nation’s wealth. Businesses thrive in a predictable climate and our constitution has allowed much of our government to thrive because change could be predicted until a huge portion of society was utterly outraged at the implications of something, like, for example, sending huge numbers of 18 year olds off to war but not allowing them to vote for the same politicians who were sending them out to die.
Here is my counter argument.
Entropy is the single law of the universe. Everything we know, or at least everything we can scientifically observe decays. No matter how well set up, things are born, they mature and then they die. Sometimes they are able to reproduce and give new life and thus the cycle is renewed, but nothing lives forever.
Our living constitution has reached a point where there are so many flaws, so many holes that I argue that a single amendment is not enough to fix it. A constitutional convention with numerous amendments is the second best way, because we need to fix A LOT, but I will argue in my next post why simple amendments will not do.
Monday, July 4, 2011
A Constitutional Post
Eleven Score and Four years ago, our forefathers set forth on a great experiment in government. For thirteen years, the Articles of Confederation, the first and failed attempt at a unifying government for the former colonies, had made America the laughing stock of the world. The confederation had several problems. It had no meaningful foreign policy, it had a complete inability to resolve problems between the states, and it was almost impossible to accomplish anything because it had no tax base and no ability to enforce its laws.
The Founding Fathers recognized this as a problem, and sent representatives to a convention to discuss changing the situation. But the more they looked at the situation, the more they became convinced that the old articles were broken...so instead, they took the more courageous step to start from scratch and put together a government. And for nearly two centuries, that government has served us well.
But where are we today?
The Supreme Court has recently said that it is constitutional for a corporation to spend an unlimited amount of money on political contributions. They say that money equals speech and that therefore it is protected by the freedom of speech clause of the constitution. In the entire history of the court, only a small handful have ever been investigated for impeachment and (so far as I can tell) NONE has ever been removed from office.
The President of the United States has violated both national law and international treaty to commit questionable acts of torture under the guise of protecting us from terrorism and not been held accountable for it. In the history of the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached, both for highly charged political reasons, and even then neither was actually removed by the Senate. In the history of the office, the president has routinely taken power from congress or committed numerous historically criminal acts without any consequences. In fact, there are actually schools of thoughts among some that the President should essentially be unaccountable and this school of thought has clearly influenced at the LEAST the previous administration and demonstrably the current demonstration as well.
The Legislature recently had an 83% disapproval rating. They routinely exempt themselves from laws. Some legislators have been prosecuted and held accountable for their abuses of power, but they are by far in the minority. They alone are unaccountable to any other branch (not even the other legislature), determine their own pay rate and enjoy privileges that the rest of us can only dream of.
And yet the American people reelect them time and time again. The rate of reelection of incumbants is astonishingly high.
I will over time in this blog make the case that the system has become sufficiently broken that rather than trying to amend the current constitution, we need to start over from scratch, and do as the Founding Fathers did, which is take the best elements of the previous government and at the same time update the document to reflect modern ideas, needs and sensibilities.
Before I do that, however, I'm going to lay out some of my basic beliefs and principals. The reason I do this is as a courtesy to those who automatically filter out ideas they don't believe in or accept.
I have such a filter.
I consider Fox News Propoganda. And I discount any meme that I hear originates from them. I know them too well. If you have a problem with that, then this blog isn't for you. I believe in reality and facts, and while I might be sometimes misinformed, I know that Fox outright lies on its positions.
That's the big one.
I will have four tags to differentiate posts.
[Rant] - An emotionally based post based on current events, that might or might not be partisan.
[Const] - A post based on the central premise of this blog dealing with ways to fix the constitution, advocate the creation of a new one, and methods to help enact it.
[Phil] - Philosophical discussion about abstract concepts such as truth, justice and such.
[World] - International events and my views therein.
I had another Blog that I used to do this on, but that Blog has largely become about Poetry, and also the original central premise of the blog has since proven to be untrue. The experiment I engaged in to find a balance proved (to me) false. I also like the interface on Blogger better, at least for now.
I reserve the right to remove or change posts at any time because my beliefs have changed over time. I will "flip flop", not because I'm running for office but because I base my beliefs on reality, observed reality and what works.
Other belief to clarify where I am coming from:
I love America. I think Americans are dumb. The ideal of America is noble, patriotic, inspiring and a beacon to the world. Americans in 2010 decided that electing Republicans in their current state was a really good idea, and that essentially rewarding the behavior of Bush for the previous 8 years was a good idea.
I believe that both major parties are bad for America, but that they're not equally bad. I believe that to the degree a party is disconnected from reality then it is destined to harm people. Liberals and Conservatives have made major decisions that have greatly harmed people.
I believe Government should be as small as possible.
I also believe that the illusion that people are islands, and that they can achieve significant wealth without relying on the infrastructure and society provided by society is the most harmful delusion in society today and creates a sense of entitlement that somehow these individuals are more productive than others and that the weak, and the vulnerable that rely on government services provided by a more benevolent society thanks to the observed harshness of the 20th century and that individuals who follow the Randian creed are either naively unrealistic or harsh to the point of being borderline sociopaths.
I believe in fiscal responsibility of government. I think debt should be avoided at all costs.
I believe in Anthrogenic Global Warming.
I believe in evolution.
I think that abortion is morally wrong but that the government has no place in regulating a woman's body.
I believe that calling a fetus a human being is a religious argument, and therefore has no place in legislative agendas. More importantly, I believe that all my observed attempts to regulate this issue for the last 40 years bear my observation out on this issue and that there is a distinct thematically observable linkage between attempts to regulate abortion and to ban or alter the teaching of evolution in the schools.
I believe in nuclear power despite the risks. I think if you claim to be for the environment then you realize that climate change is far more dangerous than the other environmental risks for power and that if you are anti nuclear power you don't understand the risks of climate change, believe in magic, or want to reduce humanity to the stone age.
I believe in freedom of speech but I believe that if you claim to be a news organization you should be obligated to tell the truth and that there should be consequences for lying.
There are, quite frankly, a lot of things I believe but I wanted to get some of those out of the way so that we can avoid wasting each other's time on certain issues.
Normally I will allow comments, but on this first post I will not, because this is a declarative that I feel needs no response. If you want to make your own declaritive, start you own blog. If I change my position on any of those issues in the future, I'll change the position here.
The Founding Fathers recognized this as a problem, and sent representatives to a convention to discuss changing the situation. But the more they looked at the situation, the more they became convinced that the old articles were broken...so instead, they took the more courageous step to start from scratch and put together a government. And for nearly two centuries, that government has served us well.
But where are we today?
The Supreme Court has recently said that it is constitutional for a corporation to spend an unlimited amount of money on political contributions. They say that money equals speech and that therefore it is protected by the freedom of speech clause of the constitution. In the entire history of the court, only a small handful have ever been investigated for impeachment and (so far as I can tell) NONE has ever been removed from office.
The President of the United States has violated both national law and international treaty to commit questionable acts of torture under the guise of protecting us from terrorism and not been held accountable for it. In the history of the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached, both for highly charged political reasons, and even then neither was actually removed by the Senate. In the history of the office, the president has routinely taken power from congress or committed numerous historically criminal acts without any consequences. In fact, there are actually schools of thoughts among some that the President should essentially be unaccountable and this school of thought has clearly influenced at the LEAST the previous administration and demonstrably the current demonstration as well.
The Legislature recently had an 83% disapproval rating. They routinely exempt themselves from laws. Some legislators have been prosecuted and held accountable for their abuses of power, but they are by far in the minority. They alone are unaccountable to any other branch (not even the other legislature), determine their own pay rate and enjoy privileges that the rest of us can only dream of.
And yet the American people reelect them time and time again. The rate of reelection of incumbants is astonishingly high.
I will over time in this blog make the case that the system has become sufficiently broken that rather than trying to amend the current constitution, we need to start over from scratch, and do as the Founding Fathers did, which is take the best elements of the previous government and at the same time update the document to reflect modern ideas, needs and sensibilities.
Before I do that, however, I'm going to lay out some of my basic beliefs and principals. The reason I do this is as a courtesy to those who automatically filter out ideas they don't believe in or accept.
I have such a filter.
I consider Fox News Propoganda. And I discount any meme that I hear originates from them. I know them too well. If you have a problem with that, then this blog isn't for you. I believe in reality and facts, and while I might be sometimes misinformed, I know that Fox outright lies on its positions.
That's the big one.
I will have four tags to differentiate posts.
[Rant] - An emotionally based post based on current events, that might or might not be partisan.
[Const] - A post based on the central premise of this blog dealing with ways to fix the constitution, advocate the creation of a new one, and methods to help enact it.
[Phil] - Philosophical discussion about abstract concepts such as truth, justice and such.
[World] - International events and my views therein.
I had another Blog that I used to do this on, but that Blog has largely become about Poetry, and also the original central premise of the blog has since proven to be untrue. The experiment I engaged in to find a balance proved (to me) false. I also like the interface on Blogger better, at least for now.
I reserve the right to remove or change posts at any time because my beliefs have changed over time. I will "flip flop", not because I'm running for office but because I base my beliefs on reality, observed reality and what works.
Other belief to clarify where I am coming from:
I love America. I think Americans are dumb. The ideal of America is noble, patriotic, inspiring and a beacon to the world. Americans in 2010 decided that electing Republicans in their current state was a really good idea, and that essentially rewarding the behavior of Bush for the previous 8 years was a good idea.
I believe that both major parties are bad for America, but that they're not equally bad. I believe that to the degree a party is disconnected from reality then it is destined to harm people. Liberals and Conservatives have made major decisions that have greatly harmed people.
I believe Government should be as small as possible.
I also believe that the illusion that people are islands, and that they can achieve significant wealth without relying on the infrastructure and society provided by society is the most harmful delusion in society today and creates a sense of entitlement that somehow these individuals are more productive than others and that the weak, and the vulnerable that rely on government services provided by a more benevolent society thanks to the observed harshness of the 20th century and that individuals who follow the Randian creed are either naively unrealistic or harsh to the point of being borderline sociopaths.
I believe in fiscal responsibility of government. I think debt should be avoided at all costs.
I believe in Anthrogenic Global Warming.
I believe in evolution.
I think that abortion is morally wrong but that the government has no place in regulating a woman's body.
I believe that calling a fetus a human being is a religious argument, and therefore has no place in legislative agendas. More importantly, I believe that all my observed attempts to regulate this issue for the last 40 years bear my observation out on this issue and that there is a distinct thematically observable linkage between attempts to regulate abortion and to ban or alter the teaching of evolution in the schools.
I believe in nuclear power despite the risks. I think if you claim to be for the environment then you realize that climate change is far more dangerous than the other environmental risks for power and that if you are anti nuclear power you don't understand the risks of climate change, believe in magic, or want to reduce humanity to the stone age.
I believe in freedom of speech but I believe that if you claim to be a news organization you should be obligated to tell the truth and that there should be consequences for lying.
There are, quite frankly, a lot of things I believe but I wanted to get some of those out of the way so that we can avoid wasting each other's time on certain issues.
Normally I will allow comments, but on this first post I will not, because this is a declarative that I feel needs no response. If you want to make your own declaritive, start you own blog. If I change my position on any of those issues in the future, I'll change the position here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)