I was struck by a recent article in a regional newspaper here in southern California regarding a hike in bus fares by the local public transit authority. The NCTD, like just about everybody else on the planet, faces a financial future with uncertainty and constricted revenues as well as rising costs. Ridership is relatively flat, but with unexpectedly rising employee pension costs as well as rising fuel costs, the NCTD board decides to break the law of Supply and Demand, and raise fares in an attempt to close the budget gap.
This seemly minor matter in a small coastal city in suburban southern California hardly seems like it ought to even be noticed, but it is a perfect example of "economics, government style". In the private sector, a business whose product cost is rising either accepts lower profit margins, or offers incentives or product improvements to make its product more attractive to consumers, or to justify a price increase to maintain profit margins. For example, if an auto dealership wants to improve sales, they will offer pricing inventives to bring in consumers. Sometimes they have pony rides and balloons, or free pizza or give away radios or free maintainence. But the LAST thing they would ever do is tell their customers, that" since our costs are rising, we have to increase our prices to you." They make their product—in this case a car—more attractive to consumers to increase sales to cover rising costs.
In the case of this transit company, however, they do the opposite. Their explanation of rising costs is employee costs, especially employee benefits. They also note that fuel costs are higher, as they are for everybody, but instead of trying to INCREASE ridership with incentives, maybe LOWER fares, etc., they choose to RAISE fares! Assuming they don't add new employees or routes, but increase ridership on existing routes, revenue will increase. A prudent business would work to make their product—in this case mass transit— more attractive to consumers.
If the bulk of the increased costs is indeed employee costs, then by increasing ridership they could recover that cost. By raising fares, however, they continue to drive away all but those who have no other choice but to ride public transit.
It is hard to imagine that anyone with even the most basic economics understanding could think that raising fares is a good way of raising revenue. But this is the way government, and more particularly, most government employees typically address issues of economics. They so often lack even the most basic understanding of economics, and yet all of our tax dollars are "managed" by these same people every day.
This is a perfect example of why social welfare programs so very rarely ever work. The people who run them have no idea how free-market economics work, and should give us all pause as we consider whether the government is the best caretaker of our retirement funds, or whether we as individuals should be allowed to manage our own retirement nestegg if we so choose.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
There Is No "Wall Of Separation Between Church And State"
When the history of the 1st Amendment is reviewed and the decisions on 1st Amendment cases by the courts are considered, reasonable people can only conclude that the obvious goal of many atheists and progressives—the complete elimination of all religious symbols, traditions, and references from government—has no legal foundation.
Here in southern California, a cross located in a war memorial on formerly city-owned property at the top of Mt. Soledad in San Diego has lead to a protracted legal battle pitting atheists against those who believe the cross is an appropriate symbol in a war memorial. Recently in Georgia the placement of the Ten Commandments in the state house lead to their removal via federal court order. However, the display of religious symbols in and around government property is nothing new and continues widely today.
In recent decades, however, the concept of “the separation of Church and State” has been increasingly used by atheists and their allies to undermine the religious underpinnings of our traditional holidays and to remove all references to religion from public schools and curricula, government facilities and documents, and all religious symbols from public property.
What was the intent of the behind the drafting of the 1st Amendment, and what were the Framers of the Constitution attempting to ensure? A look at the history of the 1st Amendment is a good start at answering this question:
James Madison, 4th president of the United States, and often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution” originally drafted, in June of 1789, what eventually became the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:
“Fourthly. [Madison’s proposed 4th amendment] That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
The House Select Committee reported for debate on July 28th, 1789:
"Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."
On August 24th, 1789, the House of Representatives passed the amendment that read like this:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.”
The US Senate passed the amendment on September 9th, 1789 in this form:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.”
On September 25th, 1789, after the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the amendment, the Congress of the United States passed the amendment in these words, which were then referred to the States for ratification:
“Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
(Of the twelve articles originally referred to the States for ratification, ten were ratified, which caused the renumbering of the Amendments such that the 3rd Article became the 1st, etc.)
It was thirteen years later that the phrase “separation of church and state” was coined by Thomas Jefferson (then president of the United States) in a letter to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut, wherein he sought to assuage their concerns over rumors that Congregationalism was about to be named the National Religion. In it, he wrote,
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
It is clear from the operative passage above when considered in context that Jefferson’s primary intent was to illustrate that he believed that the 1st Amendment was written to protect religion from government, not government from religion. He believed that religion was a matter between “man and his god [sic]”, and believed that government cannot and shall not impose religion and religious rules and restrictions on the people.
In addition to protecting religion from governmental interference, and the prevention of the establishment of a national religion, he wanted to be sure that it was also clear that government cannot and shall not interfere in any way with the right of the people to practice whatever religion they chose.
These two concepts have come to be known in legal parlance as the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
The Establishment clause, therefore, simply prohibits the federal government from enacting laws which would establish a national religion. Nowhere does the Establishment clause, nor did the foundational principles behind the Establishment clause suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible. Indeed, the courts have routinely held that government and religion can co-mingle under certain closely defined circumstances, as described in some detail below.
We can gain further insight into what the author of the 1st Amendment, James Madison, intended for the Establishment clause in reading his veto message to Congress in 1811 for a bill to incorporate a protestant church:
“The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.”
Likewise the Free Exercise clause prohibits government from enacting laws which would prevent the free exercise of religion, and nowhere does it, nor the foundational principles supporting it, suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible.
It is important to remember that at the time of the adoption of the 1st Amendment, and indeed one of the primary reasons for many of the original settlers in North America to brave a treacherous North Atlantic passage was the pursuit of religious freedom. Whether it was the Church of England or the Catholic Church, or one of the other state religions of Europe, all of which were extremely powerful forces at the time—arguably more powerful than the European governments with whom they were so closely intertwined—most of the people who came to America prior to the Declaration of Independence came because of the promises of personal and religious freedom that the New World held. That they and their progeny sought to prevent the establishment of a national religion and to prevent the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion and religious activity in the enacting of the 1st Amendment should surprise no one. They wanted no part of a national religion, and wanted to ensure that all could practice freely whatever religious faith—or no religious faith—they so chose. The 1st Amendment guarantees these freedoms. This sentiment is also noted in decisions (2) of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on the application of the 1st Amendment, too many, in fact, to recite here. However, there are several themes that emerge while reviewing these decisions.
In Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York the court outlined in Section I of its decision some of the history and meaning behind the 1st Amendment, including,
“It is sufficient to note that, for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the "establishment" of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”
The Court's Opinion in Walz further declared,
"The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts, there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference."
In its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, wrote in Section III,
“Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 422 (1963) (HARLAN, J., dissenting). Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was, in fact, being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” [Emphasis added]
Most Supreme Court decisions on Establishment rely on the Lemon Test, a three-part test developed by the Court over time to determine whether a statute violates either the Establishment or Separation clauses of the 1st Amendment. In Lemon, the court held that,
“Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.”
Obviously, the Lemon test is open to interpretation, but the key issue here is that the Court has clearly shown that the lynchpin of the argument of the anti-religion crowd—the “wall of separation between church and state” argument—is clearly invalid. The idea that there should be no interaction between church and state is completely wrong and has no Constitutional support. Interaction and even “entanglement” is allowed so long as it is not “excessive”.
Therefore, is a cross placed by private individuals on public land (since sold to private entity) excessive entanglement? Does it “advance” or “inhibit” religion? Given the facts laid out above, I don’t think anyone would successfully argue that to reasonable people.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Here in southern California, a cross located in a war memorial on formerly city-owned property at the top of Mt. Soledad in San Diego has lead to a protracted legal battle pitting atheists against those who believe the cross is an appropriate symbol in a war memorial. Recently in Georgia the placement of the Ten Commandments in the state house lead to their removal via federal court order. However, the display of religious symbols in and around government property is nothing new and continues widely today.
In recent decades, however, the concept of “the separation of Church and State” has been increasingly used by atheists and their allies to undermine the religious underpinnings of our traditional holidays and to remove all references to religion from public schools and curricula, government facilities and documents, and all religious symbols from public property.
What was the intent of the behind the drafting of the 1st Amendment, and what were the Framers of the Constitution attempting to ensure? A look at the history of the 1st Amendment is a good start at answering this question:
James Madison, 4th president of the United States, and often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution” originally drafted, in June of 1789, what eventually became the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:
“Fourthly. [Madison’s proposed 4th amendment] That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
The House Select Committee reported for debate on July 28th, 1789:
"Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."
On August 24th, 1789, the House of Representatives passed the amendment that read like this:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.”
The US Senate passed the amendment on September 9th, 1789 in this form:
“ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.”
On September 25th, 1789, after the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the amendment, the Congress of the United States passed the amendment in these words, which were then referred to the States for ratification:
“Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
(Of the twelve articles originally referred to the States for ratification, ten were ratified, which caused the renumbering of the Amendments such that the 3rd Article became the 1st, etc.)
It was thirteen years later that the phrase “separation of church and state” was coined by Thomas Jefferson (then president of the United States) in a letter to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut, wherein he sought to assuage their concerns over rumors that Congregationalism was about to be named the National Religion. In it, he wrote,
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
It is clear from the operative passage above when considered in context that Jefferson’s primary intent was to illustrate that he believed that the 1st Amendment was written to protect religion from government, not government from religion. He believed that religion was a matter between “man and his god [sic]”, and believed that government cannot and shall not impose religion and religious rules and restrictions on the people.
In addition to protecting religion from governmental interference, and the prevention of the establishment of a national religion, he wanted to be sure that it was also clear that government cannot and shall not interfere in any way with the right of the people to practice whatever religion they chose.
These two concepts have come to be known in legal parlance as the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
The Establishment clause, therefore, simply prohibits the federal government from enacting laws which would establish a national religion. Nowhere does the Establishment clause, nor did the foundational principles behind the Establishment clause suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible. Indeed, the courts have routinely held that government and religion can co-mingle under certain closely defined circumstances, as described in some detail below.
We can gain further insight into what the author of the 1st Amendment, James Madison, intended for the Establishment clause in reading his veto message to Congress in 1811 for a bill to incorporate a protestant church:
“The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.”
Likewise the Free Exercise clause prohibits government from enacting laws which would prevent the free exercise of religion, and nowhere does it, nor the foundational principles supporting it, suggest that religious activity and government are incompatible.
It is important to remember that at the time of the adoption of the 1st Amendment, and indeed one of the primary reasons for many of the original settlers in North America to brave a treacherous North Atlantic passage was the pursuit of religious freedom. Whether it was the Church of England or the Catholic Church, or one of the other state religions of Europe, all of which were extremely powerful forces at the time—arguably more powerful than the European governments with whom they were so closely intertwined—most of the people who came to America prior to the Declaration of Independence came because of the promises of personal and religious freedom that the New World held. That they and their progeny sought to prevent the establishment of a national religion and to prevent the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion and religious activity in the enacting of the 1st Amendment should surprise no one. They wanted no part of a national religion, and wanted to ensure that all could practice freely whatever religious faith—or no religious faith—they so chose. The 1st Amendment guarantees these freedoms. This sentiment is also noted in decisions (2) of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on the application of the 1st Amendment, too many, in fact, to recite here. However, there are several themes that emerge while reviewing these decisions.
In Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York the court outlined in Section I of its decision some of the history and meaning behind the 1st Amendment, including,
“It is sufficient to note that, for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the "establishment" of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.”
The Court's Opinion in Walz further declared,
"The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts, there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference."
In its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, wrote in Section III,
“Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 422 (1963) (HARLAN, J., dissenting). Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was, in fact, being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” [Emphasis added]
Most Supreme Court decisions on Establishment rely on the Lemon Test, a three-part test developed by the Court over time to determine whether a statute violates either the Establishment or Separation clauses of the 1st Amendment. In Lemon, the court held that,
“Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.”
Obviously, the Lemon test is open to interpretation, but the key issue here is that the Court has clearly shown that the lynchpin of the argument of the anti-religion crowd—the “wall of separation between church and state” argument—is clearly invalid. The idea that there should be no interaction between church and state is completely wrong and has no Constitutional support. Interaction and even “entanglement” is allowed so long as it is not “excessive”.
Therefore, is a cross placed by private individuals on public land (since sold to private entity) excessive entanglement? Does it “advance” or “inhibit” religion? Given the facts laid out above, I don’t think anyone would successfully argue that to reasonable people.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
OK, so I've been Busy...
Haven't had time to blog, but I am working on a long post about the 1st Amendment.
Look for it very soon!
Look for it very soon!
Saturday, May 07, 2005
A Proposal To Reform How We Choose Legislators
We need to return government to the people, and the best way to do that is to get rid of ALL "elected" legislative bodies. That sounds like a radical, undemocratic proposal, but first listen to the rest of it:
First, though, some background. The problem with politics is politicians. Without the interference of politicians, politics wouldn't be so dirty, underhanded, partisan, and corrupt. As I laid out in an earlier post (here or here) the framers of the Constitution intended that the legislative branch be a part time body, that meets "at least once each year". That clearly suggests that they intended that those who serve as legislators should do so in addition to their 'real' job, not as their 'real' job.
So how, then, do we rid ourselves of professional politicians? I have always been impressed with our jury system. We have judges who ensure that a trial is conducted fairly and within the law, and we have attorneys who prosecute and defend the accused. But we reserve to the common people—plumbers, secretarys, engineers, shipwrights, welders, bartenders, window installers, housewives, etc.—the right to render judgement on guilt or innocence. Jury pools are selected from the population in different ways, but usually it is from voter registration records, driver's licenses, etc. If such a system works for the criminal justice system, why can't it work for selecting legislators as well?
My proposal, then, is to select a pool of potential legislators each year from a similar database of potential legislators, or possibly from a new database created just for this purpose. This pool would be selected randomly by lottery, and once selected for the pool an individual would not be eligible for some period of years hence to ensure a good cross-section of potential legislators if freshly available.
This pool would meet, perhaps in smaller, local conventions to debate and select those from the pool who will actually serve as legislators. The selection process would be something like the way a jury deliberates, with some rules about eligibility such as willingness to serve, availability to serve, family obligations, critical work responsibilities, convicted felons, etc. Once the actual legislators have been chosen, they would report for legislative duty at the appointed place and time set aside for the legislative body to meet.
There would have to be laws requiring that employers hold open the jobs of those who serve, and continue to pay their salary, but government would reimburse employers to some level for the employee chosen to serve.
A system like this would be radical, I know. But it would also have many benefits. Most importantly, it would eliminate professional politicians. We'd all be legislators, or potentially be legislators, and we'd all bring our own personal experiences, beliefs, and biases to the process of legislation. I trust the people who actually live under and sometime stuggle under the laws passed by the legislature to have the better judgement than professional politicians who do not.
When a piece of legislation is up for debate on plumbing, for instance, I would trust the people who have made plumbing their life to best decide than a professional politician. I trust the retired stock broker to render the best judgement on whether new securities laws are necessary.
I trust the people over politcians.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
First, though, some background. The problem with politics is politicians. Without the interference of politicians, politics wouldn't be so dirty, underhanded, partisan, and corrupt. As I laid out in an earlier post (here or here) the framers of the Constitution intended that the legislative branch be a part time body, that meets "at least once each year". That clearly suggests that they intended that those who serve as legislators should do so in addition to their 'real' job, not as their 'real' job.
So how, then, do we rid ourselves of professional politicians? I have always been impressed with our jury system. We have judges who ensure that a trial is conducted fairly and within the law, and we have attorneys who prosecute and defend the accused. But we reserve to the common people—plumbers, secretarys, engineers, shipwrights, welders, bartenders, window installers, housewives, etc.—the right to render judgement on guilt or innocence. Jury pools are selected from the population in different ways, but usually it is from voter registration records, driver's licenses, etc. If such a system works for the criminal justice system, why can't it work for selecting legislators as well?
My proposal, then, is to select a pool of potential legislators each year from a similar database of potential legislators, or possibly from a new database created just for this purpose. This pool would be selected randomly by lottery, and once selected for the pool an individual would not be eligible for some period of years hence to ensure a good cross-section of potential legislators if freshly available.
This pool would meet, perhaps in smaller, local conventions to debate and select those from the pool who will actually serve as legislators. The selection process would be something like the way a jury deliberates, with some rules about eligibility such as willingness to serve, availability to serve, family obligations, critical work responsibilities, convicted felons, etc. Once the actual legislators have been chosen, they would report for legislative duty at the appointed place and time set aside for the legislative body to meet.
There would have to be laws requiring that employers hold open the jobs of those who serve, and continue to pay their salary, but government would reimburse employers to some level for the employee chosen to serve.
A system like this would be radical, I know. But it would also have many benefits. Most importantly, it would eliminate professional politicians. We'd all be legislators, or potentially be legislators, and we'd all bring our own personal experiences, beliefs, and biases to the process of legislation. I trust the people who actually live under and sometime stuggle under the laws passed by the legislature to have the better judgement than professional politicians who do not.
When a piece of legislation is up for debate on plumbing, for instance, I would trust the people who have made plumbing their life to best decide than a professional politician. I trust the retired stock broker to render the best judgement on whether new securities laws are necessary.
I trust the people over politcians.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Leftism Further Defined
Dissecting Leftism's Of Interest (2) sub-blog has a brilliant post today of a reader's email on leftism. I have shown it here in it's entirety:
"Why I distrust liberalism:
By Jason Depew
At a brief glance, liberalism appears very noble and altruistic. I believe that people who are liberals truly do elicit genuine concern for humanity. Some common topics of liberal interest are concern for the environment, concern for the welfare of all members of a population, and a hope that all people of the world can have access to certain things in life(food, shelter, education, health care, opportunity, etc..), and be protected from certain things in life(oppression, physical danger, etc..). They believe that in order to improve things as a whole, it is necessary for us to try to correct the injustices, inequities, and dangers that plague mankind and the world. Let me state that many policies that have benefitted the world have arisen from the liberal and progressive political movements. However, I have noticed some glaring weaknesses in some of today's liberals that I cannot ignore.
There are various types of liberals. I have decided to narrow my descriptions to the slight, moderate, and extreme liberals with the hopes that most of the other liberals that populate the world will fall somewhere in between. My descriptions of "liberal" behavior are not confined to views on economic ideas. I think they are applicable to liberal stances on other topics of concern(racial issues, the environment, etc..).
Slight liberals have beliefs that hover more towards the center of the political spectrum. They espouse all of the standard liberal centerpiece beliefs. Ironically, the most recognizable trait of the slight liberal is apathy. They believe in these things and would like to see them instituted so that people may benefit from them, but they usually don't do anything about it. Most of the time their beliefs are purely aesthetic things which please their sensibilities
and idle concerns but that are not powerful enough to elicit concerted and significant action.
As someone gets more towards the moderate and extreme liberal beliefs they have a tendency to impose what I call the "Oppression Dialectic" on their observations of the world.
The moderate liberals use a more muted version of the "Oppression Dialectic". They examine situations and often seperate the participants into two groups; the party that is "on top" who are the winners(who possibly have unfair advantages) and the party that just couldn't succeed in the said situation that deserves pity and sympathy. Moderate liberals don't like to see disadvantaged parties experience disappointment, failure, and hardship(strangely enough they sometimes take pleasure in seeing people fail that they construe as being "on top".). They have a tendency to disapprove of success, because when one party wins there is at least one party that didn't win. Invariably, they side with the perceived loser; the poor downtrodden party.
There are things that I can admire about moderate liberals. They are more energetic than slight liberals and less myopic than extreme liberals. They also tend to be well-informed and optimistic about what they want the world to be like.
I can understand the moderate liberal's desire(which arises out of empathy) to shield people from hardship and to root for the underdog. But, attempting to eliminate failure from the human experience is not natural. I think that failure is a valuable part of life. It has the capability of teaching important lessons such as humility and wisdom. If looked back upon with a clear head, failure can help a person determine what they need to do or change in order to succeed. People were not meant to float through life while experiencing no disappointments. If all that everyone experiences is a rigged and controlled success, where failure is abolished and everyone is equal, it is not true success; it is a sham. You are taking a person's right to pursue what they want and what they want to achieve and you are relegating them to a forced equality with their fellow man. Sure, you raise some people out of the depths of failure, but you also limit other people's access to success and its fruits. This gagging of the human spirit; in the name of politeness, equality, and civility disheartens me. I can think of nothing that is more unnatural, restricting, stifling, and insulting to ambition and self-determination.
Of all of the forms of liberalism, I think I am most qualified to talk about extreme liberalism because I used to be heavily influenced and controlled by it. To put it bluntly; I was young, naive, and I didn't thoroughly question the tenets that I excitedly embraced. Nowadays, this brand of liberalism merits the most scorn from me.
Extreme liberals usually fall into one of two categories: The first contains people who are woefully misinformed and who engage in a slogan-filled, jingoistic, and bombastic exercise of their beliefs. These first types have an avante-garde penchant for conforming to rebellion (the irony here is obvious), and as a result appear pretentious and comical. The second group contains people who are usually educated beyond their intelligence. This second group is filled with people who are sincere but misguided sophists that engage in esoteric and pedantic intellectual masturbation as they immerse themselves in their ideas and theories. They are so enamored with their ideas (that have grand implications and that concern injustices that are often far-off) that they usually fail to objectively observe actual people. When no injustice can be seen they will exaggerate or invent one.
The extreme liberals utilize the "Oppression Dialectic" in a much more shrill and audacious way than the moderate liberals do. They frame every occurrence to fit their ideological tilt and are so eager to correct perceived inequalities that they engage in hyperbolic action and speech. They will examine a situation and seperate the participants into two parties; the power-hungry oppressors who sadistically and tyrannically pursue and wield absolute control and the victimized and oppressed group who have to live under such humiliating and inhumane circumstances. They always disapprove of the people they view as the oppressors and use every chance they have to discredit them. They exaggerate every mistake, shortcoming, and failure of the oppressors. They always side with the perceived underdog and oftentimes sympathize with, attempt to justify, or outright ignore any innappropriate behaviour of the members of the perceived oppressed community. They also exaggerate every hardship endured by, and every accomplishment of, the oppressed. If an extreme liberal determines themself to be a member of a disadvantaged group, they cling to a sense of victimhood(which is oftentimes exaggerated and self-righteous). If the extreme liberal is not a member of the disadvantaged group, they will go out of their way to coddle members of the disadvantaged group. This coddling usually manifests itself in a prostrating and obsequious politeness(which I find to be absolutely nauseating).
They preach a sanctimonious tolerance for everything and everyone. Ironically, this tolerance is almost always selectively applied to ideas and groups of their choosing. All too often, extreme liberals are possessed by a vitriolic, derisive, and arrogant elitism that commands them to become enraged at anybody who deviates from their views. They laud the ideals of freedom of expression and independent thought and they are disdainful of close-mindedness and people blindly following a cause, yet they consistently fail to achieve the things that they espouse and they consistently succumb to the traits that they despise.
The more extreme a liberal gets the more pronounced their simultaneous acerbic pessimism and hopeless idealism is. They have a tendency to view their fellow humans(especially people who happen to not hold their beliefs) in a condescending manner, yet they have undying hopes and dreams for humanity. These hopes and dreams usually translate into obsessive utopian yearnings for Mankind. As with all extremists, they think that only they know what ails the world and only their beliefs provide relief for it. Their unrealistic assessments of the world are followed by unrealistic prescriptions for its improvement. They think that if only the institutions, attitudes, and policies that they deem are self-serving, exploitative, and ignorant would melt away, the world would magically become happy, free, and idyllic. This will never happen and the following paragraph explains why:
For a society to work you need a majority of participants who agree to live their lives in a certain way. In a utopian society where there is no hunger, everyone recieves a basic level of material sustenance (even those that are not physically or mentally capable of producing anything), and there is no greed or vice, people would need to put forth a remarkable effort and sacrifice personal interest. This will never happen. No matter what system people live under, no matter what they strive for, and no matter what they think the world should be like, they will never be able to live up to these unattainable dreams for humanity. Mankind is not capable of making a perfect world. There has never been an idea that originated from Man that was able to lift the human race completely out of its depravity and there never will be. Human beings are too enslaved by their whims. People will always exhibit every possible emotion and motive, from the most caring empathy to the most despicable selfishness. It has happened since the beginning of time and will happen until the end of time. No amount of "enlightenment" will ever change the fickleness and unpredictability of Man's behavior.
The only way to ensure the complete safety, equality, tolerance, tranquility, and "enlightenment" that extreme liberals crave would be to control Mankind mercilessly (which ironically is something that they claim to abhor). I would rather eat dirt and live in my own filth than to live under a system or a mandatory communal attitude that dictated what I should think, how I should act, and what I should be.
We of course must strive to make things as tolerable and as much to our liking as is possible. But, it is pointless to ignore reality and to attempt the impossible; especially if you are armed with something as pathetic as a hopelessly idealistic philosophy. It is like trying to leap up to the top of a mountain in one jump. But, extreme liberals who think that their beliefs contain the answer for mankind attempt it again and again. How can perfection arise from, or be expressed by, such an imperfect creature as Man? Extreme liberals never have an answer for that simple question and as a result their efforts and rantings are nothing but dogmatic exercises in futility.
Extreme liberalism can be summarized as a militant, warped, and misguided egalitarianism that is brought about by disaffected cynicism. It is a belief system that is often (but not always) confined to young people because the impetuousness and irrationality that taint it are also common symptoms of youth. On a certain level, I can admire and appreciate the energy, rigor, and determination of extreme liberalism. But, it is hard to ignore the lack of wisdom and open-mindedness that mark it. These people who seek to impose their ideological whims upon their fellow man are nothing but tumors."
"Why I distrust liberalism:
By Jason Depew
At a brief glance, liberalism appears very noble and altruistic. I believe that people who are liberals truly do elicit genuine concern for humanity. Some common topics of liberal interest are concern for the environment, concern for the welfare of all members of a population, and a hope that all people of the world can have access to certain things in life(food, shelter, education, health care, opportunity, etc..), and be protected from certain things in life(oppression, physical danger, etc..). They believe that in order to improve things as a whole, it is necessary for us to try to correct the injustices, inequities, and dangers that plague mankind and the world. Let me state that many policies that have benefitted the world have arisen from the liberal and progressive political movements. However, I have noticed some glaring weaknesses in some of today's liberals that I cannot ignore.
There are various types of liberals. I have decided to narrow my descriptions to the slight, moderate, and extreme liberals with the hopes that most of the other liberals that populate the world will fall somewhere in between. My descriptions of "liberal" behavior are not confined to views on economic ideas. I think they are applicable to liberal stances on other topics of concern(racial issues, the environment, etc..).
Slight liberals have beliefs that hover more towards the center of the political spectrum. They espouse all of the standard liberal centerpiece beliefs. Ironically, the most recognizable trait of the slight liberal is apathy. They believe in these things and would like to see them instituted so that people may benefit from them, but they usually don't do anything about it. Most of the time their beliefs are purely aesthetic things which please their sensibilities
and idle concerns but that are not powerful enough to elicit concerted and significant action.
As someone gets more towards the moderate and extreme liberal beliefs they have a tendency to impose what I call the "Oppression Dialectic" on their observations of the world.
The moderate liberals use a more muted version of the "Oppression Dialectic". They examine situations and often seperate the participants into two groups; the party that is "on top" who are the winners(who possibly have unfair advantages) and the party that just couldn't succeed in the said situation that deserves pity and sympathy. Moderate liberals don't like to see disadvantaged parties experience disappointment, failure, and hardship(strangely enough they sometimes take pleasure in seeing people fail that they construe as being "on top".). They have a tendency to disapprove of success, because when one party wins there is at least one party that didn't win. Invariably, they side with the perceived loser; the poor downtrodden party.
There are things that I can admire about moderate liberals. They are more energetic than slight liberals and less myopic than extreme liberals. They also tend to be well-informed and optimistic about what they want the world to be like.
I can understand the moderate liberal's desire(which arises out of empathy) to shield people from hardship and to root for the underdog. But, attempting to eliminate failure from the human experience is not natural. I think that failure is a valuable part of life. It has the capability of teaching important lessons such as humility and wisdom. If looked back upon with a clear head, failure can help a person determine what they need to do or change in order to succeed. People were not meant to float through life while experiencing no disappointments. If all that everyone experiences is a rigged and controlled success, where failure is abolished and everyone is equal, it is not true success; it is a sham. You are taking a person's right to pursue what they want and what they want to achieve and you are relegating them to a forced equality with their fellow man. Sure, you raise some people out of the depths of failure, but you also limit other people's access to success and its fruits. This gagging of the human spirit; in the name of politeness, equality, and civility disheartens me. I can think of nothing that is more unnatural, restricting, stifling, and insulting to ambition and self-determination.
Of all of the forms of liberalism, I think I am most qualified to talk about extreme liberalism because I used to be heavily influenced and controlled by it. To put it bluntly; I was young, naive, and I didn't thoroughly question the tenets that I excitedly embraced. Nowadays, this brand of liberalism merits the most scorn from me.
Extreme liberals usually fall into one of two categories: The first contains people who are woefully misinformed and who engage in a slogan-filled, jingoistic, and bombastic exercise of their beliefs. These first types have an avante-garde penchant for conforming to rebellion (the irony here is obvious), and as a result appear pretentious and comical. The second group contains people who are usually educated beyond their intelligence. This second group is filled with people who are sincere but misguided sophists that engage in esoteric and pedantic intellectual masturbation as they immerse themselves in their ideas and theories. They are so enamored with their ideas (that have grand implications and that concern injustices that are often far-off) that they usually fail to objectively observe actual people. When no injustice can be seen they will exaggerate or invent one.
The extreme liberals utilize the "Oppression Dialectic" in a much more shrill and audacious way than the moderate liberals do. They frame every occurrence to fit their ideological tilt and are so eager to correct perceived inequalities that they engage in hyperbolic action and speech. They will examine a situation and seperate the participants into two parties; the power-hungry oppressors who sadistically and tyrannically pursue and wield absolute control and the victimized and oppressed group who have to live under such humiliating and inhumane circumstances. They always disapprove of the people they view as the oppressors and use every chance they have to discredit them. They exaggerate every mistake, shortcoming, and failure of the oppressors. They always side with the perceived underdog and oftentimes sympathize with, attempt to justify, or outright ignore any innappropriate behaviour of the members of the perceived oppressed community. They also exaggerate every hardship endured by, and every accomplishment of, the oppressed. If an extreme liberal determines themself to be a member of a disadvantaged group, they cling to a sense of victimhood(which is oftentimes exaggerated and self-righteous). If the extreme liberal is not a member of the disadvantaged group, they will go out of their way to coddle members of the disadvantaged group. This coddling usually manifests itself in a prostrating and obsequious politeness(which I find to be absolutely nauseating).
They preach a sanctimonious tolerance for everything and everyone. Ironically, this tolerance is almost always selectively applied to ideas and groups of their choosing. All too often, extreme liberals are possessed by a vitriolic, derisive, and arrogant elitism that commands them to become enraged at anybody who deviates from their views. They laud the ideals of freedom of expression and independent thought and they are disdainful of close-mindedness and people blindly following a cause, yet they consistently fail to achieve the things that they espouse and they consistently succumb to the traits that they despise.
The more extreme a liberal gets the more pronounced their simultaneous acerbic pessimism and hopeless idealism is. They have a tendency to view their fellow humans(especially people who happen to not hold their beliefs) in a condescending manner, yet they have undying hopes and dreams for humanity. These hopes and dreams usually translate into obsessive utopian yearnings for Mankind. As with all extremists, they think that only they know what ails the world and only their beliefs provide relief for it. Their unrealistic assessments of the world are followed by unrealistic prescriptions for its improvement. They think that if only the institutions, attitudes, and policies that they deem are self-serving, exploitative, and ignorant would melt away, the world would magically become happy, free, and idyllic. This will never happen and the following paragraph explains why:
For a society to work you need a majority of participants who agree to live their lives in a certain way. In a utopian society where there is no hunger, everyone recieves a basic level of material sustenance (even those that are not physically or mentally capable of producing anything), and there is no greed or vice, people would need to put forth a remarkable effort and sacrifice personal interest. This will never happen. No matter what system people live under, no matter what they strive for, and no matter what they think the world should be like, they will never be able to live up to these unattainable dreams for humanity. Mankind is not capable of making a perfect world. There has never been an idea that originated from Man that was able to lift the human race completely out of its depravity and there never will be. Human beings are too enslaved by their whims. People will always exhibit every possible emotion and motive, from the most caring empathy to the most despicable selfishness. It has happened since the beginning of time and will happen until the end of time. No amount of "enlightenment" will ever change the fickleness and unpredictability of Man's behavior.
The only way to ensure the complete safety, equality, tolerance, tranquility, and "enlightenment" that extreme liberals crave would be to control Mankind mercilessly (which ironically is something that they claim to abhor). I would rather eat dirt and live in my own filth than to live under a system or a mandatory communal attitude that dictated what I should think, how I should act, and what I should be.
We of course must strive to make things as tolerable and as much to our liking as is possible. But, it is pointless to ignore reality and to attempt the impossible; especially if you are armed with something as pathetic as a hopelessly idealistic philosophy. It is like trying to leap up to the top of a mountain in one jump. But, extreme liberals who think that their beliefs contain the answer for mankind attempt it again and again. How can perfection arise from, or be expressed by, such an imperfect creature as Man? Extreme liberals never have an answer for that simple question and as a result their efforts and rantings are nothing but dogmatic exercises in futility.
Extreme liberalism can be summarized as a militant, warped, and misguided egalitarianism that is brought about by disaffected cynicism. It is a belief system that is often (but not always) confined to young people because the impetuousness and irrationality that taint it are also common symptoms of youth. On a certain level, I can admire and appreciate the energy, rigor, and determination of extreme liberalism. But, it is hard to ignore the lack of wisdom and open-mindedness that mark it. These people who seek to impose their ideological whims upon their fellow man are nothing but tumors."
Monday, May 02, 2005
The Weaning of America
Unless the program is significantly reformed, Social Security (SS) will become insolvent by 2041. According to Dictionary.net, "insolvency" means "one who is unable to pay his debts as they fall due". In 2041, SS will no longer be able to pay promised debts and will be insolvent, as obligations will by that year exceed income to the fund, as the trustees of the SS Trust Fund recently reported.
If nothing is done to correct this impending insolvency, the program will by 2041 be able to pay recipients of SS only 74% of promised benefits. According to the SS trustee's report, one solution to the impending insolvency of the program is the "immediate increase of 15 percent in the amount of payroll taxes or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two)." I am confident that almost no one would want to see their taxes increased or benefits reduced by that much to protect a system so fundamentally flawed as SS. What is needed, therefore, is a gradual weaning from the current pay-as-you-go, federally controlled system to an ownership-based system, as broadly outlined by the president in his news conference last week.
A system where individuals have control of their own retirement money, and have choices for how the money is invested, will align the retirement goals of all Americans with the continued success of our market-based economy. The money put away for retirement will be put back into the economy where it can be used by business to create jobs, provide goods and services, and build a better, more financially secure America.
For some people, the idea of investing in the stock market is very intimidating, but there can easily be selectable portfolios with varying degrees of risk and reward to protect those with little or no investing experience. The system would need to be gradually phased-in starting with younger workers, where their investment time-horizon to retirement is long enough that any market fluctuations will both teach them how to invest, and won't hurt them long-term. Finally, as one approaches retirement the system could restrict the type of investments available to minimize risk and protect the retirement nest egg from sudden market changes just before retirement. And of course, there would still be a 'safety net' to ensure the dignified retirement for the poor and those who, for one reason or another, simply cannot provide for themselves.
The key to this system, though, is the alignment of retirement goals with the overall economy. We all participate in the economy, and when our retirement funds are invested in and count on the future success of the economy, it will put us all in the same boat rowing in the same direction. It will lessen the tax burden on Americans, and will make the public funding of retirement for the poor easier for the taxpayer and more fullfilling for the recipient. Remaining tax dollars can go to funding other priorities, such as the even more urgent Medicare crisis. Best of all, we won't have to revisit this same argument again to try to "save" a system that is by its design destined for failure.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
If nothing is done to correct this impending insolvency, the program will by 2041 be able to pay recipients of SS only 74% of promised benefits. According to the SS trustee's report, one solution to the impending insolvency of the program is the "immediate increase of 15 percent in the amount of payroll taxes or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two)." I am confident that almost no one would want to see their taxes increased or benefits reduced by that much to protect a system so fundamentally flawed as SS. What is needed, therefore, is a gradual weaning from the current pay-as-you-go, federally controlled system to an ownership-based system, as broadly outlined by the president in his news conference last week.
A system where individuals have control of their own retirement money, and have choices for how the money is invested, will align the retirement goals of all Americans with the continued success of our market-based economy. The money put away for retirement will be put back into the economy where it can be used by business to create jobs, provide goods and services, and build a better, more financially secure America.
For some people, the idea of investing in the stock market is very intimidating, but there can easily be selectable portfolios with varying degrees of risk and reward to protect those with little or no investing experience. The system would need to be gradually phased-in starting with younger workers, where their investment time-horizon to retirement is long enough that any market fluctuations will both teach them how to invest, and won't hurt them long-term. Finally, as one approaches retirement the system could restrict the type of investments available to minimize risk and protect the retirement nest egg from sudden market changes just before retirement. And of course, there would still be a 'safety net' to ensure the dignified retirement for the poor and those who, for one reason or another, simply cannot provide for themselves.
The key to this system, though, is the alignment of retirement goals with the overall economy. We all participate in the economy, and when our retirement funds are invested in and count on the future success of the economy, it will put us all in the same boat rowing in the same direction. It will lessen the tax burden on Americans, and will make the public funding of retirement for the poor easier for the taxpayer and more fullfilling for the recipient. Remaining tax dollars can go to funding other priorities, such as the even more urgent Medicare crisis. Best of all, we won't have to revisit this same argument again to try to "save" a system that is by its design destined for failure.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Reforming Social Security Makes More Sense Than Ever
I didn't get to hear all of the president's news conference this week, but what I did hear about his proposals for reforming Social Security (SS) impressed me very much. Most interesting to me was the overall strategy of his fix, and that brought into focus even more sharply than I laid out in my previous post on this subject.
The vision that the president displayed for all to see was that he wants to change the way people think about SS. Under the current pay-as-you-go system, the money we pay into the system as workers is used to pay those already retired, widowed, or orphaned. So you don't get the money you pay in. It's not "your money", as so many believe. He wants to change people's attitude about it by allowing those of us who want to to put part of that money aside in our own private account. That money will always be there for us and us alone.
Despite early attempts by the Democrats to deny the undeniable fate of SS if we do nothing, everyone now recognizes that SS is in trouble. The only disagreement is how to fix the problem. The president is showing leadership by proposing very minor changes. The Democrats, by their own admission, have no such plan. They don't know what to do except try to protect the current fundamentally flawed system.
One of the proposals put forth by the president this week was to consider reducing benefits to the wealthy, and raise benfits for the poor. The Democrats oppose this proposal as they did during the debates to "fix" SS in the previous decades because they don't want the American people to realize that this is just a welfare program for the poor. The Democrats want EVERYONE to receive SS benefits regardless of income or need. This view is mainly because the Democrats don't want to see one of the socialist bastions of the New Deal era modified so that it supports capitalism and and actually uses the concept of the free market and capitalism to improve the program. Their opposition isn't because they want to make the system better and help more people, it is purely political. They see one more source of their political power, the power of controlling the retirement prospects of the people, being devolved to the from the central government to the people. Despite their fervent statements about "being for the little guy", the Democrats don't trust the people to make the "right choices" about money.
The president understands that without significant tax increases, or significant reductions in payouts, by 2042 no one will recieve more than 70% of their promised benefits. The private accounts will not solve this problem, but it will lessen the burden on the SS trust fund. So the severity of the tax increases and/or benefit cuts will reduced by the amount of money diverted to private accounts that will generate far greater return than traditional SS money. Private accounts within the SS system will make the entire system more efficient, and better able to support more people.
Support the changes outlined by the president. They are right for SS, and their are right for our future.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
The vision that the president displayed for all to see was that he wants to change the way people think about SS. Under the current pay-as-you-go system, the money we pay into the system as workers is used to pay those already retired, widowed, or orphaned. So you don't get the money you pay in. It's not "your money", as so many believe. He wants to change people's attitude about it by allowing those of us who want to to put part of that money aside in our own private account. That money will always be there for us and us alone.
Despite early attempts by the Democrats to deny the undeniable fate of SS if we do nothing, everyone now recognizes that SS is in trouble. The only disagreement is how to fix the problem. The president is showing leadership by proposing very minor changes. The Democrats, by their own admission, have no such plan. They don't know what to do except try to protect the current fundamentally flawed system.
One of the proposals put forth by the president this week was to consider reducing benefits to the wealthy, and raise benfits for the poor. The Democrats oppose this proposal as they did during the debates to "fix" SS in the previous decades because they don't want the American people to realize that this is just a welfare program for the poor. The Democrats want EVERYONE to receive SS benefits regardless of income or need. This view is mainly because the Democrats don't want to see one of the socialist bastions of the New Deal era modified so that it supports capitalism and and actually uses the concept of the free market and capitalism to improve the program. Their opposition isn't because they want to make the system better and help more people, it is purely political. They see one more source of their political power, the power of controlling the retirement prospects of the people, being devolved to the from the central government to the people. Despite their fervent statements about "being for the little guy", the Democrats don't trust the people to make the "right choices" about money.
The president understands that without significant tax increases, or significant reductions in payouts, by 2042 no one will recieve more than 70% of their promised benefits. The private accounts will not solve this problem, but it will lessen the burden on the SS trust fund. So the severity of the tax increases and/or benefit cuts will reduced by the amount of money diverted to private accounts that will generate far greater return than traditional SS money. Private accounts within the SS system will make the entire system more efficient, and better able to support more people.
Support the changes outlined by the president. They are right for SS, and their are right for our future.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
How Much of the Federal Government is Un-Constitutional?
The federal government has overstepped its Constitutional authority in the creation of the gigantic bureaucracy of departments, agencies, and regulations. A very high percentage of the federal bureaucracy and the supporting laws and regulations take from the states and the people their Constitutional rights and prerogatives.
It was not always this way, of course. The Civil War went a long way to increase the power and authority of the federal government over that which had been until then the power of the states. The chaos that followed the end of the Civil War was brought into “order” by the intervention of the federal government into what had until then always recognized as the responsibility of the states.
Some of these interventions made sense, such as the adoption of federal currency in lieu of state-sponsored currencies. Despite the clear federal authority in the establishment and regulation of a national currency, many states continued to coin their own currency. The need for a common currency, especially given the urgency of the Reconstruction period, made its establishment and supremacy an important part of the restoration of the Unite States.
The New Deal of the 1930’s further expanded federal authority, but did it exponentially. There were new agencies, departments, authorities set up; an alphabet soup of new federal power over the states and the people. The New Deal laid the foundation for many new and expensive federal programs, departments, and regulations that continued throughout the later part of the 20th century, and unprecedented expansion of federal authority, and the consequential contraction of state and local control.
Ronald Reagan once said that “when government expands, liberty contracts.” The truth of that statement is obvious when we consider how strong the federal government, and how weak the states and the people have become.
The Constitution, however, is quite specific on those powers granted to the federal government, and those reserved to the states, and/or to the people.
Here is Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, on the specific power of the legislative branch of the federal government:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
That’s it. Those are the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. Clause 1 is often construed to allow the enacting of laws such as those of the New Deal, in that it discusses the promotion of “the general welfare of the United States”. In reality, however, Clause 1 refers only to the laying and collecting of taxes and duties to support the enforcement of the powers granted by the other 17 clauses of the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about the potential of too much power concentrated in too few hands, and subsequently drafted the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, part of the original Bill of Rights, to specifically limit the power of the federal government. These two amendments define even more closely the powers of the federal government versus those of the states and the people:
Article [IX.] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These two amendments essentially state that only those powers specifically spelled out in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government actually belong to the federal government. All other rights and powers are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Social Security, or No Child Left Behind, or the EPA, or the Farm Bureau, or the Department of Education, or Housing, or any of the New Deal or subsequent or related departments, agencies, or bureaus. Nothing. All of the laws passed and signed relating to these things are, in this author’s opinion, un-Constitutional.
The power of the bureaucracy is today so entrenched that the likelihood of reverting control back to the states or the people is obviously remote, but it is important to at least recognize that our system is completely out of alignment with what the framers intended. With this recognition we can begin to take the small steps to restoring to the states and to the people their rightful authority over their lives, their schools, their privacy, and their liberty.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
It was not always this way, of course. The Civil War went a long way to increase the power and authority of the federal government over that which had been until then the power of the states. The chaos that followed the end of the Civil War was brought into “order” by the intervention of the federal government into what had until then always recognized as the responsibility of the states.
Some of these interventions made sense, such as the adoption of federal currency in lieu of state-sponsored currencies. Despite the clear federal authority in the establishment and regulation of a national currency, many states continued to coin their own currency. The need for a common currency, especially given the urgency of the Reconstruction period, made its establishment and supremacy an important part of the restoration of the Unite States.
The New Deal of the 1930’s further expanded federal authority, but did it exponentially. There were new agencies, departments, authorities set up; an alphabet soup of new federal power over the states and the people. The New Deal laid the foundation for many new and expensive federal programs, departments, and regulations that continued throughout the later part of the 20th century, and unprecedented expansion of federal authority, and the consequential contraction of state and local control.
Ronald Reagan once said that “when government expands, liberty contracts.” The truth of that statement is obvious when we consider how strong the federal government, and how weak the states and the people have become.
The Constitution, however, is quite specific on those powers granted to the federal government, and those reserved to the states, and/or to the people.
Here is Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, on the specific power of the legislative branch of the federal government:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
That’s it. Those are the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. Clause 1 is often construed to allow the enacting of laws such as those of the New Deal, in that it discusses the promotion of “the general welfare of the United States”. In reality, however, Clause 1 refers only to the laying and collecting of taxes and duties to support the enforcement of the powers granted by the other 17 clauses of the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about the potential of too much power concentrated in too few hands, and subsequently drafted the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, part of the original Bill of Rights, to specifically limit the power of the federal government. These two amendments define even more closely the powers of the federal government versus those of the states and the people:
Article [IX.] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These two amendments essentially state that only those powers specifically spelled out in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government actually belong to the federal government. All other rights and powers are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Social Security, or No Child Left Behind, or the EPA, or the Farm Bureau, or the Department of Education, or Housing, or any of the New Deal or subsequent or related departments, agencies, or bureaus. Nothing. All of the laws passed and signed relating to these things are, in this author’s opinion, un-Constitutional.
The power of the bureaucracy is today so entrenched that the likelihood of reverting control back to the states or the people is obviously remote, but it is important to at least recognize that our system is completely out of alignment with what the framers intended. With this recognition we can begin to take the small steps to restoring to the states and to the people their rightful authority over their lives, their schools, their privacy, and their liberty.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Slide Show From Iraq
The North County Times in northern San Diego County here in southern California has published a great slide show based on one of their photojournalist's visits to Irag prior to the historic vote in January.
It's worth a long look.
It's worth a long look.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
The Filibuster: Should it Stay or Should it Go?
Long-time political reporter/columnist Robert Novak wrote an excellent piece about the history of the filibuster, and how it has been alternatively praised and reviled by many. I have been undecided about the whether Senate Republicans should 'go nuclear' by using a parliamentary procedure to change Senate rules to require only a majority vote on judicial appointments, but now am leaning in support of such a change.
For sure, changing the filibuster rules would favor the majority party over the minority, and over time will enable whichever party is in control to "pack the courts" with judges they feel are best suited for the job, regardless of what the minority party thinks about it. But I think that the Constitution is pretty clear about when a so-called "super majority" vote should be used, and judicial appointments aren't one of them. In fact, if one is to use that argument, that only super majority votes specifically called for in the Constitution should be observed, then the filibuster should be done away with altogether, not just for judicial appointments.
Novak's comments about Robert Byrd's use of parliamentary procedures to change or amend Senate rules when it suited his purposes certainly brings a new angle to the argument currently being used by Democrats in the Senate who oppose the rule change regarding the filibuster. They argue that elimination of the filibuster would impose 'tyranny of the majority', yet to my thinking, the USE of the filibuster imposes the tyranny of the minority.
Elimination of the filibuster rule poses risks both to both parties, but it is a risk I am reluctantly willing to take. It simply means that attaining and holding a majority in both houses of Congress will be even more critical than it ever was.
For sure, changing the filibuster rules would favor the majority party over the minority, and over time will enable whichever party is in control to "pack the courts" with judges they feel are best suited for the job, regardless of what the minority party thinks about it. But I think that the Constitution is pretty clear about when a so-called "super majority" vote should be used, and judicial appointments aren't one of them. In fact, if one is to use that argument, that only super majority votes specifically called for in the Constitution should be observed, then the filibuster should be done away with altogether, not just for judicial appointments.
Novak's comments about Robert Byrd's use of parliamentary procedures to change or amend Senate rules when it suited his purposes certainly brings a new angle to the argument currently being used by Democrats in the Senate who oppose the rule change regarding the filibuster. They argue that elimination of the filibuster would impose 'tyranny of the majority', yet to my thinking, the USE of the filibuster imposes the tyranny of the minority.
Elimination of the filibuster rule poses risks both to both parties, but it is a risk I am reluctantly willing to take. It simply means that attaining and holding a majority in both houses of Congress will be even more critical than it ever was.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Is Abortion Murder?
As discussed in this earlier post, a large percent of those opposed to abortion consider it the murder of an unborn person. However, many of those who support abortion rights argue that until birth, the unborn is simply a fetus with only the potential to become a person—if it survives until birth.
The latter position has seen a steady undermining of support as medical science continues to push back the viability of premature babies, suggesting to this author that the only valid question about fetal viability is one regarding the viability of the flesh. If the flesh is sustained by either the mother's body or by the continued advances and application of medical science, then the ultimate viability of the baby is no longer in question. For those us of who believe that each human is made up of a physical body and a soul—the latter of Devine origins—it would appear, therefore, that in the case of fetal viability, the soul is willing if the body is able. In other words, the earlier we are able to ensure the viability of a human fetus through the intervention of medical science, the earlier we can continue to claim viability of an unborn person.
Logic therefore suggests that in time, medical science will make fetal viability from conception to be the norm. It may not happen next year, or in ten years, or even a hundred years, but if history is any guide, that day will come.
Frankly, we could even consider a more rudimentary argument: Like in the Shiavo case, a newborn baby cannot feed itself. Without the constant care and feeding of it's mother, a newborn will die of starvation. If the baby is neglected by it's mother, she is held liable for it's death. How is it that a one day old baby different from one three days BEFORE birth, or three MONTHS before birth?
Given the seemingly apparent eventuality that medical science will continue to expand fetal viability, can anyone honestly argue that human life begins at birth? If all it takes to assure the viability of a fetus is better and better science, then how can anyone believe that the deliberate ending of a pregnancy is anything short of murder? If the baby could have survived to cry for his mother, wet himself, slobbered strained carrots all over his face, crawled over to pet his family dog, laughed with his dad, played baseball, read books, rode his bike, skinned his knee, and all the other things humans can and should expect to do, then how can we as a society accept as a mother's constitutional right the ability to end that pregnancy?
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
The latter position has seen a steady undermining of support as medical science continues to push back the viability of premature babies, suggesting to this author that the only valid question about fetal viability is one regarding the viability of the flesh. If the flesh is sustained by either the mother's body or by the continued advances and application of medical science, then the ultimate viability of the baby is no longer in question. For those us of who believe that each human is made up of a physical body and a soul—the latter of Devine origins—it would appear, therefore, that in the case of fetal viability, the soul is willing if the body is able. In other words, the earlier we are able to ensure the viability of a human fetus through the intervention of medical science, the earlier we can continue to claim viability of an unborn person.
Logic therefore suggests that in time, medical science will make fetal viability from conception to be the norm. It may not happen next year, or in ten years, or even a hundred years, but if history is any guide, that day will come.
Frankly, we could even consider a more rudimentary argument: Like in the Shiavo case, a newborn baby cannot feed itself. Without the constant care and feeding of it's mother, a newborn will die of starvation. If the baby is neglected by it's mother, she is held liable for it's death. How is it that a one day old baby different from one three days BEFORE birth, or three MONTHS before birth?
Given the seemingly apparent eventuality that medical science will continue to expand fetal viability, can anyone honestly argue that human life begins at birth? If all it takes to assure the viability of a fetus is better and better science, then how can anyone believe that the deliberate ending of a pregnancy is anything short of murder? If the baby could have survived to cry for his mother, wet himself, slobbered strained carrots all over his face, crawled over to pet his family dog, laughed with his dad, played baseball, read books, rode his bike, skinned his knee, and all the other things humans can and should expect to do, then how can we as a society accept as a mother's constitutional right the ability to end that pregnancy?
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Friday, April 08, 2005
What is the Meaning of Life?
The recent deaths of Terri Schiavo and of Pope John Paul II have brought into focus once again the debate over human life; when does it begin, and when should it end? It is a very difficult and complex subject and one that requires a thorough look into the soul of mankind. What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Does God exist?
These are all deeply personal questions and one that we each must answer not only for ourselves, but also for society as a whole. On the one hand, we want to reserve unto ourselves the right to make such decisions, at least when our own lives hinge upon the outcome. The Schiavo case makes that clear. On the other hand, we must together as a society arrive at consensus on these questions, especially as it relates to questions of capital punishment and abortion.
Abortion is perhaps the most important of these questions. In deciding the Roe v. Wade case, the US Supreme Court essentially held that there is an implied right to privacy in the US Constitution, and that the right of a woman to decide whether to abort her child is hers, and hers alone. However, those opposed to abortion the murder of an innocent baby. They believe that society has an obligation to protect that baby’s life while in the womb just as society would protect it after birth. Fortunately, almost everyone on both sides of the debate believe that abortion is should be a last resort.
The interesting thing about the Roe v. Wade decision is that if it is ever reversed, it would not make abortion illegal; it would simply return to the states the power to regulate, ban, or allow abortion. Some states would ban it altogether, while some would allow it.
As a libertarian-leaning Republican, I support the right of a woman to choose whether to abort a pregnancy. Since medical science has given us safe abortion procedures (for the mother), then the question becomes ‘who shall make the choice’? Shall it be the state, or the individual? That we have a choice is not in question. Science has given us the choice. The only relevant question is ‘who makes the choice’. The libertarian in me makes that an easy answer.
However, if the unborn is considered a person, as it is by those opposed to abortion, should not society step in to protect that person? If the unborn are, indeed, people with the same rights as those us outside the womb, then shouldn’t ALL abortions be banned, including those “cases of rape or incest” that many opposed to abortion cite as exceptions to abortion bans?
In the case of capital punishment, the question society must answer is whether to apply the death penalty to those among us who have been convicted of capital crimes. Does a society have the right to protect itself from these violent criminals? I think everyone would answer yes to that question, but do we also have the right to administer the death penalty? Nationwide polls consistently have shown that the American people support the death penalty for capital crimes. In fact, given the tragic Jessica Lunsford case, I believe that many Americans would support expanding the death penalty to include those convicted molesting children.
It is strangely ironic that those who typically support abortion rights usually also oppose war and capital punishment, and that those who are typically opposed to abortion also usually support capital punishment and war. To put it another way, there are people who believe it’s OK to kill unborn children, but wrong to kill murderers or our enemies in war. And there are people who believe it is wrong to kill unborn children, but OK to kill murderers and wartime enemies.
Another way to look at it, however, would be to say that most people agree that killing human beings under certain circumstances is OK, we just don’t agree on the circumstances in which killing is acceptable.
The 6th Commandment from the Bible’s Old Testament is most commonly translated as “Thou Shall Not Kill”, but many Biblical scholars say the correct translation should be, “Thou Shall Not Commit Murder”, based on the meaning of the Hebrew word, “Ratsach”. Given this translation, I believe that murder, especially premeditated murder is prohibited, but that capital punishment, killing in war, and other selected circumstances it is acceptable.
So the debate clearly comes down to one of morality, and more specifically who’s morality. Who gets to decide? Since we all live in society with one another, then we must come to concensus as a society on many of these questions. We might not all agree with the decisions, but we must, as a society be able to support the decision.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
These are all deeply personal questions and one that we each must answer not only for ourselves, but also for society as a whole. On the one hand, we want to reserve unto ourselves the right to make such decisions, at least when our own lives hinge upon the outcome. The Schiavo case makes that clear. On the other hand, we must together as a society arrive at consensus on these questions, especially as it relates to questions of capital punishment and abortion.
Abortion is perhaps the most important of these questions. In deciding the Roe v. Wade case, the US Supreme Court essentially held that there is an implied right to privacy in the US Constitution, and that the right of a woman to decide whether to abort her child is hers, and hers alone. However, those opposed to abortion the murder of an innocent baby. They believe that society has an obligation to protect that baby’s life while in the womb just as society would protect it after birth. Fortunately, almost everyone on both sides of the debate believe that abortion is should be a last resort.
The interesting thing about the Roe v. Wade decision is that if it is ever reversed, it would not make abortion illegal; it would simply return to the states the power to regulate, ban, or allow abortion. Some states would ban it altogether, while some would allow it.
As a libertarian-leaning Republican, I support the right of a woman to choose whether to abort a pregnancy. Since medical science has given us safe abortion procedures (for the mother), then the question becomes ‘who shall make the choice’? Shall it be the state, or the individual? That we have a choice is not in question. Science has given us the choice. The only relevant question is ‘who makes the choice’. The libertarian in me makes that an easy answer.
However, if the unborn is considered a person, as it is by those opposed to abortion, should not society step in to protect that person? If the unborn are, indeed, people with the same rights as those us outside the womb, then shouldn’t ALL abortions be banned, including those “cases of rape or incest” that many opposed to abortion cite as exceptions to abortion bans?
In the case of capital punishment, the question society must answer is whether to apply the death penalty to those among us who have been convicted of capital crimes. Does a society have the right to protect itself from these violent criminals? I think everyone would answer yes to that question, but do we also have the right to administer the death penalty? Nationwide polls consistently have shown that the American people support the death penalty for capital crimes. In fact, given the tragic Jessica Lunsford case, I believe that many Americans would support expanding the death penalty to include those convicted molesting children.
It is strangely ironic that those who typically support abortion rights usually also oppose war and capital punishment, and that those who are typically opposed to abortion also usually support capital punishment and war. To put it another way, there are people who believe it’s OK to kill unborn children, but wrong to kill murderers or our enemies in war. And there are people who believe it is wrong to kill unborn children, but OK to kill murderers and wartime enemies.
Another way to look at it, however, would be to say that most people agree that killing human beings under certain circumstances is OK, we just don’t agree on the circumstances in which killing is acceptable.
The 6th Commandment from the Bible’s Old Testament is most commonly translated as “Thou Shall Not Kill”, but many Biblical scholars say the correct translation should be, “Thou Shall Not Commit Murder”, based on the meaning of the Hebrew word, “Ratsach”. Given this translation, I believe that murder, especially premeditated murder is prohibited, but that capital punishment, killing in war, and other selected circumstances it is acceptable.
So the debate clearly comes down to one of morality, and more specifically who’s morality. Who gets to decide? Since we all live in society with one another, then we must come to concensus as a society on many of these questions. We might not all agree with the decisions, but we must, as a society be able to support the decision.
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Carranza
This is a photo of Venustiano Carranza, the former president of the Republic of Mexico, and the author of the Mexican constitution in effect today.
(I am testing new photo upload software... let me know if you like the idea of photo blogs)
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Irony of the Schiavo Debate
The debate over Terri Schiavo's fate has illustrated the strange irony of the two primary perspectives. Those who support Michael Schiavo's decision to remove her feeding tube—I'll call them "A"'s— are generally the same people who are pro-abortion. Those who want her feeding tube replaced—"B"'s— are generally anti-abortion. That part is not very ironic, but the fact that A's are also usually anti-death penalty, and the B's usually pro-death penalty IS ironic.
So the A's support a mother's right to kill her unborn child. And they support the right of one individual to kill another through medical decisions when the wishes of that second individual are not known. [As argued yesterday, I would support the withdrawl of a feeding tube if the wishes were known by more than one person and documented clearly.] However, the A's don't support the killing of convicted murderers.
B's, on the other hand, support the right of the unborn child to life, and they support the right of people in Terri Schiavo's condition to food and water through a feeding tube, at least if no clear record exists of that person's end-of-life wishes are known. B's also support the right of society to rid itself of dangerous criminals who have committed murder or other serious offenses as determined by law.
So the irony is that the A's are all for death as long as it's not a criminal, and the B's are all for life except for those same criminals. In fairness, however, the A's think that they are on the side of individual choice. They believe that the mother's right to choose is more important than the child's right to life, and certainly don't approve of what they see as government intrusion into what they prefer to be only the decision of the mother. And in the case of the criminal, they see the criminal's involuntary death as government intrusion. I have trouble squaring those convergent views.
The B's, on the other hand are willing to accept more government intrusion if it means that a life can be saved. Even if that is a preemptive life saved by the death of a murderer. Consider the recent rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford by a convicted sexual predator.
Is it possible that the A's value choice over life?
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
So the A's support a mother's right to kill her unborn child. And they support the right of one individual to kill another through medical decisions when the wishes of that second individual are not known. [As argued yesterday, I would support the withdrawl of a feeding tube if the wishes were known by more than one person and documented clearly.] However, the A's don't support the killing of convicted murderers.
B's, on the other hand, support the right of the unborn child to life, and they support the right of people in Terri Schiavo's condition to food and water through a feeding tube, at least if no clear record exists of that person's end-of-life wishes are known. B's also support the right of society to rid itself of dangerous criminals who have committed murder or other serious offenses as determined by law.
So the irony is that the A's are all for death as long as it's not a criminal, and the B's are all for life except for those same criminals. In fairness, however, the A's think that they are on the side of individual choice. They believe that the mother's right to choose is more important than the child's right to life, and certainly don't approve of what they see as government intrusion into what they prefer to be only the decision of the mother. And in the case of the criminal, they see the criminal's involuntary death as government intrusion. I have trouble squaring those convergent views.
The B's, on the other hand are willing to accept more government intrusion if it means that a life can be saved. Even if that is a preemptive life saved by the death of a murderer. Consider the recent rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford by a convicted sexual predator.
Is it possible that the A's value choice over life?
This post also appears on Blogger News Network.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Shiavo
One of the few good things to come out the Shiavo situation is the recognition by many that preparing a personal Health Care Directive for everyone is crucial. Had Ms. Schiavo prepared such a document, we would not be in the mess we find ourselves today. If she had decided that she would not want a feeding tube installed ever, and so stated in a written document such as a HCD, then I would have no issues with her passing as a result. Many people have made such a choice as have I in my own HCD.
I will also add that I believe that the federal government made a mistake in getting involved in what has traditionally been a state and local matter. I believe that we need less federal government involvment in our lives, not more. For the same reason I don't support the No Child Left Behind Act, despite it's good intentions. My father used to say that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Unfortunately, the federal government laid down some asphalt in this matter.
It would also be good to remember these words of Ronald Reagan: "When government expands, liberty contracts."
May God bless Terri Schiavo and her family.
I will also add that I believe that the federal government made a mistake in getting involved in what has traditionally been a state and local matter. I believe that we need less federal government involvment in our lives, not more. For the same reason I don't support the No Child Left Behind Act, despite it's good intentions. My father used to say that "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Unfortunately, the federal government laid down some asphalt in this matter.
It would also be good to remember these words of Ronald Reagan: "When government expands, liberty contracts."
May God bless Terri Schiavo and her family.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Iraqi Troops in Rout Insurgents
In another stunning defeat for the Iraqi insurgents, Iraqi armed forces backed up by US firepower routed a large group of insurgents, reportedly killing 84 insurgents in the battle. The insurgents had apparently set up an al-Qaeda style training base in a remote area outside of Tikrit.
This cannot be good news for the left.
This cannot be good news for the left.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Baghdad Shop Keepers Take Matters Into Their Own Hands
Shopkeepers in Baghdad have decided that enough is enough, or at least that is what appeared to happen today. According to the Traci Carl of the Associate Press (as reported on MyWay.com), shopkeepers took up arms against insurgents who had just shot up cars and people, reportedly injuring three people, including a woman and a child.
Could this be the beginning of the end for the insurgency? I certainly think it marks an important turning point in this campaign. Just the fact that it was reported in the MSM is important. Of course, or illustrious senator Boxer happened to be in Iraq as part a delegation of US dignitaries, and still managed to downplay the success the world has witnessed in Iraq.
The problem for the left is that there are more and more signs that GWB was right and they were wrong. It will be a very interesting future that unfolds throughout the Arab world, and equally interesting how the left responds. Stay tuned.
Could this be the beginning of the end for the insurgency? I certainly think it marks an important turning point in this campaign. Just the fact that it was reported in the MSM is important. Of course, or illustrious senator Boxer happened to be in Iraq as part a delegation of US dignitaries, and still managed to downplay the success the world has witnessed in Iraq.
The problem for the left is that there are more and more signs that GWB was right and they were wrong. It will be a very interesting future that unfolds throughout the Arab world, and equally interesting how the left responds. Stay tuned.
Monday, March 21, 2005
An Update on the Terri Schiavo Case
It occurred to me today while listening to news reports on the Schiavo case that besides the feeding of a baby analogy used in this space yesterday, that there are likely many other people who for one reason or another cannot feed themselves.
Consider a quadraplegic patient, or perhaps someone who has lost their arms or just the use of their arms from injury. How about an elderly patient who has dimentia and cannot be counted on to remember to eat? How about an elderly person who has severe arthritis and cannot even hold a spoon or a straw? Do we withdraw all feeding support in those cases as well?
Consider a quadraplegic patient, or perhaps someone who has lost their arms or just the use of their arms from injury. How about an elderly patient who has dimentia and cannot be counted on to remember to eat? How about an elderly person who has severe arthritis and cannot even hold a spoon or a straw? Do we withdraw all feeding support in those cases as well?
Sunday, March 20, 2005
The Fate of Terri Schiavo
The Terri Schiavo case is a wrenching moral issue. According to several reports I have seen, her condition is one from which she is unlikely to recover, though the remote possibility does exist. The story now revolves around the question of withdrawing a feeding tube that is her sole source of nutrition, as her condition prevents her from feeding herself. Indeed, her condition is called "Persistent Vegetative State", wherein all her cognitive functions, awareness, emotion, etc. have ceased. It is sometimes called "brain-dead", and typically patients in this condition do not recover.
The ethical and moral question of her feeding tube is a difficult one to answer, and for many it is a religious question. Who is to know what she might want in these circumstances were she able to make the decision hereself? Her husband, as I understand it, says that he and she discussed such a situation before she was afflicted and said she would not want to live under these conditions. Her sister and friends, however, argue that she was only 20-something years old when this happened and would never have even discussed death or near-death circumstances.
The fight has pitted her husband against her birth family. He wants to end her 'suffering', though based on what I have recently learned about her condition she really can't be suffering; her brain function isn't capable of feeling pain or awareness. Her birth family has apparently offered to grant him a divorce so he can move on with his life, and would take-on the responsibility of her care completely.
The question of removing her feeding tube is really one that should be stated like this: Since her condition is unlikely to improve, should we stop feeding her and allow her to starve to death? If it was a question about machines keeping her heart beating, or breathing, this would be easier. To remove life support from a heart that otherwise would not beat is morally acceptable to most people. But to stop feeding her is something else completely.
If parents stop feeding their babies, they will die just as surely as Ms. Schiavo will die after her feeding tube is removed. What would happen to parents if they stopped feeding their babies? They would rightly be prosecuted on charges of murder and/or neglect.
If Ms. Schiavo is not suffering—and the medical experts say she cannot—and her birth family says they will bear the entire cost and responsibility of her continued care, how can we as society starve her to death simply because her life has little quality and there little hope of recovery? We can't be certain she won't recover, and we also can't be certain that she doesn't have some sort of awareness, and society should not deny those willing to accept the burden of her care the opportunity to do so. It's the only moral and ethical choice.
The ethical and moral question of her feeding tube is a difficult one to answer, and for many it is a religious question. Who is to know what she might want in these circumstances were she able to make the decision hereself? Her husband, as I understand it, says that he and she discussed such a situation before she was afflicted and said she would not want to live under these conditions. Her sister and friends, however, argue that she was only 20-something years old when this happened and would never have even discussed death or near-death circumstances.
The fight has pitted her husband against her birth family. He wants to end her 'suffering', though based on what I have recently learned about her condition she really can't be suffering; her brain function isn't capable of feeling pain or awareness. Her birth family has apparently offered to grant him a divorce so he can move on with his life, and would take-on the responsibility of her care completely.
The question of removing her feeding tube is really one that should be stated like this: Since her condition is unlikely to improve, should we stop feeding her and allow her to starve to death? If it was a question about machines keeping her heart beating, or breathing, this would be easier. To remove life support from a heart that otherwise would not beat is morally acceptable to most people. But to stop feeding her is something else completely.
If parents stop feeding their babies, they will die just as surely as Ms. Schiavo will die after her feeding tube is removed. What would happen to parents if they stopped feeding their babies? They would rightly be prosecuted on charges of murder and/or neglect.
If Ms. Schiavo is not suffering—and the medical experts say she cannot—and her birth family says they will bear the entire cost and responsibility of her continued care, how can we as society starve her to death simply because her life has little quality and there little hope of recovery? We can't be certain she won't recover, and we also can't be certain that she doesn't have some sort of awareness, and society should not deny those willing to accept the burden of her care the opportunity to do so. It's the only moral and ethical choice.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Global Warming and The Psychology of Leftists
According to Dr. John Ray, a psychometrician from Brisbane, Australia, Leftists are people who are “motivated by strong ego needs -- needs for power, attention, praise and fame. And in the USA and other developed countries they satisfy this need by advocating large changes in the society around them -- thus drawing attention to themselves and hopefully causing themselves to be seen as wise, innovative, caring etc.” Given that analysis, the debate over global warming takes on a wholly new shape.
Those who are the most ardent promoters of the theory of human-induced global warming are Leftists. As a skeptic of global warming, at least the human-induced part of the debate, I have argued elsewhere and passionately that the real objective of global warming believers is to define capitalism and the spread of the pursuit of corporate profits as evil and of destroying our natural resources. However, when viewed through Dr. Ray’s perspective on the motivations and psychology of Leftists, it would seem that their real aim is to create this ‘crisis’ of global warming, and then to come to the rescue of Mankind by banning SUV’s, logging, and other forms of capitalist pursuits. That way, they can be seen as, “wise, innovative, caring etc.” Dr. Ray has also written extensively on this phenomena.
The reasons I remain a skeptic on global warming are many and complex. First, while there is almost no rational person who is arguing that the atmosphere is not currently warming, there is real debate—among scientists—on the cause of the warming. It’s only since 1979 that we have been able to analyze temperature data on a truly global scale using satellite measurements. All previous data relies on surface measurements on land or by ships at sea, or, since 1954 from balloon-measured temperatures. The "reliable" temperature record is usually viewed as being from about 1850, though measurement devices, locations, times, and techniques have varied widely over the decades. As a result, the historical temperature record, the very foundation of global warming theory, is still in dispute.
Second, one of the pillars of the global warming belief is the so-called “Hockey-Stick” temperature analysis cited in the 2nd Assessment Report of the IPCC, (summary) which eventually led to the Kyoto Protocol that recently went into effect. Two Canadian statisticians have analyzed the data and found that the original study used a statistical model that would find a “hockey stick” (the shape of the graph of rising temperatures) in almost any group of random data. The Hockey Stick debate rages on, with the authors of the original study now claiming that it mostly relied on tree ring data from ancient Bristlecone pines in the high deserts of California. If so, then it certainly would seem to me that they are basing their entire argument on the temperature around a few small trees in one very small and remote (even today) area.
OK, so there are other data points to support the position of the global warming believer. They claim that the ice caps are melting at an increasing rate, and that many of the glaciers on mountains such as Kilimanjaro in Africa and Fuji in Japan are retreating in alarming ways. They cite the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere as evidence of human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. They cite evidence of warming oceans and ozone holes, and offer evidence that human activity as the cause. I won't reference these things here since they are readily available in the MSM.
However, there are also competing claims by other scientists who say that all these things can be explained by natural processes. The icecaps have been retreating since at least the end of the last ice age, and an acceleration of the rate of retreat seems to me to be entirely logical given a warming climate, just as ice in your soft drink melts slowly at first, the last few cubes disappear rapidly as the temperature in the glass rises over time. And the retreating glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro, at least, have also been explained as having local causes related to deforestation, not a change in climate.
The undisputed rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, despite claims by global warming believers as evidence of the burning of fossil fuels, has been shown to follow rising ocean temperatures rather than precede them. Since water has a much higher thermal inertia than does the atmosphere, it takes a tremendous amount of “forcing” to change up or down the temperature of water. I am no scientist, but I am pretty sure that for the atmosphere to be warming the oceans, the atmosphere would need to be very, very, hot, for a very, very long time. The Earth’s surface, remember, is 70% water, and that’s just the top of it. The average depth of the ocean is about 3.2 km (2 miles). That’s a lot of water, and it is constantly churning, upwelling, etc., so to see any change in temperature of the oceans by a warming of the atmosphere seems unlikely to me.
But the oceans do appear to be warming, as some scientists supporting global warming have recently reported. But could there be an alternative to human-induced global warming? Of course! I read recently of increased volcanic activity on the ocean floor as being a strong contender for the cause. That is certainly a more believable alternative, since the thermal inertia of highly dense molten rock at upwards of 1,200ºC (2,192ºF) is much higher than that of our atmosphere.
In addition to the above, there has been lots of scientific work recently on fluctuations in solar output and how that affects atmospheric temperatures. I am no scientist, and all I know is what I read, but I find these competing theories fascinating and, frankly, compelling.
But to get back to the premise of this article, since to me—once again, a non-scientist—the science on global warming is in dispute, I have to wonder about the unusually strong motivations behind those to whom global warming has become almost a religious experience, hence the reference to Dr. Ray’s analysis of Leftists.
Viewing the debate about global warming from this perspective, it seems clear that to the average Leftist, this debate is about much more than global warming. It is about power, control, and ego, and the insatiable need of the Leftist to acquire such things. They are so passionate about their views on this because it not only feeds their addiction, it also comports nicely with their views on capitalism, democracy, socialism, and central control.
Leftists despise capitalism and democracy because these concepts are founded in liberty. Liberty, despite the Leftist’s most fervent claims to the contrary, runs completely counter to everything the Leftist stands for. To achieve their goals of controlling everyone and everything, they must work to eliminate liberty. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “When government expands, liberty contracts.” They have discovered global warming as a very effective weapon in their pursuit of power and influence, and will let nothing and no one get in their way. Those who dare challenge the popular notions of human-induced global warming are held out as heretics and charlatans on the payroll of evil and corrupt corporations who are trashing our environment and impoverishing most of the people of the world.
The debate over global warming has become a great struggle between those who favor liberty and those who favor regulation and central control. We must return the debate to the simple pursuit of scientific truth, regardless of which side of the debate the facts come down on.
If I haven’t mentioned it before, I am not a scientist, but as I have just laid out, the science is not yet settled on global warming, and it probably will not be for years or decades to come. At the same time, I strongly favor careful review of what things we are doing that could adversely affect the environment. We should strengthen environmental laws that are effective and useful, and discard those that have little or no value, or are actually counterproductive. Those regulations that have a significant dollar cost should be carefully evaluated against benefit. I welcome a debate over pollution, as I, like most reasonable people, am strongly in favor of improving our environment and cleaning up polluted areas and protecting most areas that have yet to show much human influence.
Many of the proponents of global warming theory have a much larger agenda than one as simple as ‘saving the planet’. Keep that in mind as you read and hear more on this subject.
[Special thanks to Greenie Watch for so much research into this subject]
This post can also be seen on Blogger News Network.
Those who are the most ardent promoters of the theory of human-induced global warming are Leftists. As a skeptic of global warming, at least the human-induced part of the debate, I have argued elsewhere and passionately that the real objective of global warming believers is to define capitalism and the spread of the pursuit of corporate profits as evil and of destroying our natural resources. However, when viewed through Dr. Ray’s perspective on the motivations and psychology of Leftists, it would seem that their real aim is to create this ‘crisis’ of global warming, and then to come to the rescue of Mankind by banning SUV’s, logging, and other forms of capitalist pursuits. That way, they can be seen as, “wise, innovative, caring etc.” Dr. Ray has also written extensively on this phenomena.
The reasons I remain a skeptic on global warming are many and complex. First, while there is almost no rational person who is arguing that the atmosphere is not currently warming, there is real debate—among scientists—on the cause of the warming. It’s only since 1979 that we have been able to analyze temperature data on a truly global scale using satellite measurements. All previous data relies on surface measurements on land or by ships at sea, or, since 1954 from balloon-measured temperatures. The "reliable" temperature record is usually viewed as being from about 1850, though measurement devices, locations, times, and techniques have varied widely over the decades. As a result, the historical temperature record, the very foundation of global warming theory, is still in dispute.
Second, one of the pillars of the global warming belief is the so-called “Hockey-Stick” temperature analysis cited in the 2nd Assessment Report of the IPCC, (summary) which eventually led to the Kyoto Protocol that recently went into effect. Two Canadian statisticians have analyzed the data and found that the original study used a statistical model that would find a “hockey stick” (the shape of the graph of rising temperatures) in almost any group of random data. The Hockey Stick debate rages on, with the authors of the original study now claiming that it mostly relied on tree ring data from ancient Bristlecone pines in the high deserts of California. If so, then it certainly would seem to me that they are basing their entire argument on the temperature around a few small trees in one very small and remote (even today) area.
OK, so there are other data points to support the position of the global warming believer. They claim that the ice caps are melting at an increasing rate, and that many of the glaciers on mountains such as Kilimanjaro in Africa and Fuji in Japan are retreating in alarming ways. They cite the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere as evidence of human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. They cite evidence of warming oceans and ozone holes, and offer evidence that human activity as the cause. I won't reference these things here since they are readily available in the MSM.
However, there are also competing claims by other scientists who say that all these things can be explained by natural processes. The icecaps have been retreating since at least the end of the last ice age, and an acceleration of the rate of retreat seems to me to be entirely logical given a warming climate, just as ice in your soft drink melts slowly at first, the last few cubes disappear rapidly as the temperature in the glass rises over time. And the retreating glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro, at least, have also been explained as having local causes related to deforestation, not a change in climate.
The undisputed rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, despite claims by global warming believers as evidence of the burning of fossil fuels, has been shown to follow rising ocean temperatures rather than precede them. Since water has a much higher thermal inertia than does the atmosphere, it takes a tremendous amount of “forcing” to change up or down the temperature of water. I am no scientist, but I am pretty sure that for the atmosphere to be warming the oceans, the atmosphere would need to be very, very, hot, for a very, very long time. The Earth’s surface, remember, is 70% water, and that’s just the top of it. The average depth of the ocean is about 3.2 km (2 miles). That’s a lot of water, and it is constantly churning, upwelling, etc., so to see any change in temperature of the oceans by a warming of the atmosphere seems unlikely to me.
But the oceans do appear to be warming, as some scientists supporting global warming have recently reported. But could there be an alternative to human-induced global warming? Of course! I read recently of increased volcanic activity on the ocean floor as being a strong contender for the cause. That is certainly a more believable alternative, since the thermal inertia of highly dense molten rock at upwards of 1,200ºC (2,192ºF) is much higher than that of our atmosphere.
In addition to the above, there has been lots of scientific work recently on fluctuations in solar output and how that affects atmospheric temperatures. I am no scientist, and all I know is what I read, but I find these competing theories fascinating and, frankly, compelling.
But to get back to the premise of this article, since to me—once again, a non-scientist—the science on global warming is in dispute, I have to wonder about the unusually strong motivations behind those to whom global warming has become almost a religious experience, hence the reference to Dr. Ray’s analysis of Leftists.
Viewing the debate about global warming from this perspective, it seems clear that to the average Leftist, this debate is about much more than global warming. It is about power, control, and ego, and the insatiable need of the Leftist to acquire such things. They are so passionate about their views on this because it not only feeds their addiction, it also comports nicely with their views on capitalism, democracy, socialism, and central control.
Leftists despise capitalism and democracy because these concepts are founded in liberty. Liberty, despite the Leftist’s most fervent claims to the contrary, runs completely counter to everything the Leftist stands for. To achieve their goals of controlling everyone and everything, they must work to eliminate liberty. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “When government expands, liberty contracts.” They have discovered global warming as a very effective weapon in their pursuit of power and influence, and will let nothing and no one get in their way. Those who dare challenge the popular notions of human-induced global warming are held out as heretics and charlatans on the payroll of evil and corrupt corporations who are trashing our environment and impoverishing most of the people of the world.
The debate over global warming has become a great struggle between those who favor liberty and those who favor regulation and central control. We must return the debate to the simple pursuit of scientific truth, regardless of which side of the debate the facts come down on.
If I haven’t mentioned it before, I am not a scientist, but as I have just laid out, the science is not yet settled on global warming, and it probably will not be for years or decades to come. At the same time, I strongly favor careful review of what things we are doing that could adversely affect the environment. We should strengthen environmental laws that are effective and useful, and discard those that have little or no value, or are actually counterproductive. Those regulations that have a significant dollar cost should be carefully evaluated against benefit. I welcome a debate over pollution, as I, like most reasonable people, am strongly in favor of improving our environment and cleaning up polluted areas and protecting most areas that have yet to show much human influence.
Many of the proponents of global warming theory have a much larger agenda than one as simple as ‘saving the planet’. Keep that in mind as you read and hear more on this subject.
[Special thanks to Greenie Watch for so much research into this subject]
This post can also be seen on Blogger News Network.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
