Today Glenn Beck held his "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Of course, the loons who do not like Mr. Beck railed against his rally, especially the choice of date. Fifty-seven years ago today, Martin Luther King, Jr, gave his famous "I have a dream" speech. You can make your own determination about the choice of date. I will use these loons' message to make my own.
Even if you disagree with Glenn Beck's political views or his choice of venue and date, you should at least agree with his message today. At least I hope you do. "Restoring Honor" is a message many people need to hear and to understand. Too often nowadays, people are not treating others with any honor. We need to restore honor to our society and to our Country.
The last year we have seen a myriad of issues thrust into the national spotlight. The illegal immigration debate, the proposed Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, and healthcare are some of issues which have divided the nation. Some of the words utilized by people on both sides of the issues call into question the honor of the people who have spoken those words.
One of the principles our Country was founded on was principle that the people should be allowed to speak freely about their government. The concept of free speech is included four times in the First Amendment. First, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Second, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Third, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Lastly, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Four different statements which affirm the right of the people to speak their mind about the government. This fact should resonate loudly how important the principle was to the Founding Fathers. Yet, everyday, someone tries to stifle the speech of someone else. And the manner of doing so is very nefarious.
This past week I saw some pictures from demonstrations over the proposed Muslim Community Center in Manhattan. Some of the signs called those who oppose the building are "racists." The demonstrations over illegal immigration included the same signs. Rep. Grayson (how anyone could vote for this guy is beyond me) said the Republicans who opposed President Obama's takeover of healthcare wanted those who are sick to "die quickly."
This rhetoric of labeling opponents as "haters" or "racists" or whatever other despicable term can be chosen needs to stop. Healthy debate over topics, even decisive ones, is needed. The airing of opposition based on facts and viable opinions is needed. Defaming the opponent is not needed.
It should be viewed as dishonorable to label your opponents for disagreeing with you, especially when the labels of "hater" and "racist" are utilized. These labels do not add to the debate. As far as I'm concerned, the labels are a covert method of abridging free speech. I think it is reasonable to expect, the reasonable person might not speak up if the person is afraid of being labeled something despicable. This is no different than the fear of speaking up because there is a law against it.
Bringing emotion into the debate has only one purpose - to incite violence. Loathe the person who decides to label an opponent so that violence happens in the hopes the person's viewpoint wins. The labeling of opponents with spiteful words needs to end!
We need to view honor in the same light as trust and integrity. When someone loses trust or violates his or her integrity, that person does not get those attributes restored for a long time, if at all. The Japanese used to commit suicide over losing honor. I don't think we need to go to those extremes, but it would behoove us to have a similar view - losing honor is not desirable. If someone violates honor, that person should not be treated like someone who possesses honor. We should shun them and treat them different.
America needs to restore Her Honor. We need to respect the viewpoint of each other and not rely on name calling to make our point. Glenn Beck is right. Take the honorable route.....
Mike
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Wizard, the President, and the Mosque
Last Friday, 8/13, President Obama spoke at a Ramadan dinner. During his speech he did what most politicians love to do: state the obvious. On Saturday, he had to clarify what he meant when he spoke the obvious. Of course, since Friday, the talking-heads have been having a field day with the topic. The constant barrage about this subject can be nauseating. Now I am going to wade into the muck.
For some time there has been debate on the proposed cultural center and mosque to be built in lower Manhattan. The news media (including FOX) likes to spin the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque." This three word phrase, at least to me, seems to imply that a mosque is to be built in the very location where the Twin Towers and other buildings once stood prior to their destruction in a cowardly terrorist attack 9 years ago. Of course, the fact is that the mosque is to be built on property two blocks away from the location known as "ground zero." Using Google Maps, one can see that when one walks some steps from the building, one can look down the street and view the hole which is ground zero. The mosque is not planned to be built at Ground Zero; therefore, the news media should not refer to the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque."
Another misnomer is that the building is not a mosque per se. The building will contain a mosque. However, most of the building will consist of a cultural center which will encompass most of the building. So in reality, the building should be considered a Muslim Cultural Center. When I was young, I attended church in a converted grocery store. I don't think people not associated with the church called the shopping center, "the Church." Therefore, we should not call the cultural center a mosque.
The President on Friday expressed the fact that the people who desire to build the cultural center have every right under the Constitution to do so. This is a fact. No one, not even those against the project, has ever suggested otherwise. Of course, the talking heads began ranting that because the President did not object to the center's location, his comment was support for
"a mosque at ground zero."
The ranting resulted in a clarification which only further muddled the issue. The President said that he was only commenting on the right not the "wisdom" to build the mosque. Here the President weighed in on an issue with a statement of fact not in question without actually taking a stance. Some could argue this is wise because he is allowing the issue to be handled at the local level where it should be handled. Others could argue that his statement without his opinion is not wise because he only fuels the political fire without offering any support.
I like what Charles Krauthammer on FOX said yesterday. He called the actions of the President "cowardly." Just like the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, the President runs from confrontation. Of course, the President does not have any trouble stoking the fire while he does so.
First, the President, in front of Muslims, says they have a right to build a mosque on private property. But he does not address the apparent "wisdom" of the decision. Second, a day later and hundreds of miles from the Muslims he spoke with on Friday, while speaking to someone who just might not support the plan, he asserts the "right" without commenting on the "wisdom." Cowardly on both fronts.
Muslims have every right to build their cultural center with a mosque wherever they choose, INCLUDING ON THE VERY CENTER OF "GROUND ZERO." Our Constitutional principles state as such. However, to build the cultural center anywhere near "ground zero" is not a very wise decision.
One can argue all day long that Islam does not play a part in the opposition. That would be a fallacy. Let's face the facts: the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers were Muslims who believed in Islam. The terrorists who attacked the US on that day did so in the belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions. This belief comes directly from their religion. Thus Islam played a major role in the attacks which occurred on 9/11.
Now the viewpoints of the terrorists are not shared by all Islamic followers - one hopes the the views aren't shared by most either. The fact remains though that Islam played a role and the Muslims who desire to build the cultural center should take that into account. If they want to be blind to this fact, then they, themselves, are not very wise. It would the same as saying the Catholic and Protestant faiths did not play a factor in the conflict surrounding Northern Ireland's political state. The Catholics desired independence, the Protestants did not. However, the underlying reason was that the Protestants desired to remain with Protestant England vice self-rule or merging with Catholic Ireland. Politics drove the issue, religion underlined the issue. Same with the Twin Towers. The politics of US-Israel drove the attacks. Islam underlined the attacks. An acknowledgement upon the part of the supporters would go a long way to healing the wounds of the families involved in the attacks of 9/11.
Yesterday, I told my girlfriend that it would behoove the opponents of the cultural center to provide a counter-proposal. It is not enough for the opponents to stand on the sidelines and whine and moan about the atrocities of the decision to build the cultural center so close to "ground zero." The opponents need to show they are willing to support the right to build the mosque by helping the proponents choose another site. I was taught as a young Sailor not to go whining to the Chief about a problem unless I had some solutions. The opponents would do well for their side to provide alternative locations, with incentives, to the proponents so that the cultural center is built elsewhere. I applaud Governor Patterson for opening such a door.
Of course, the question is now begged, "how far away is enough?" The answer is simple. Such that anyone in the building or leaving the building cannot see "Ground Zero" from a window or other vantage point from or within one block of the building. I think that would satisfy the opponents.
The President waded into the muck of this situation. He did so in a cowardly manner again showing his total lack of leadership skills. The advice he gets from behind the curtain is not doing well for his performance for the masses. The President needs to learn that a leader does not need to take the middle of the road. Why he is so afraid to say whether the decision for the cultural center is wise or not is beyond me. It is also beyond me how he could say one thing to one group and then allude something else to another. When someone, especially a leader, does this, they begin to lose the confidence of the people they lead and the people around them. (I speak from experience.)
The Cowardly Lion was awarded a medal for bravery in the movie. I think the President needs to drink the potion (book version). He might do a better job at addressing the issues and talking frankly with those around him; instead of doing what he so accustomed to doing: being a pitch man. Oh my, the President is the Wizard.....
Mike
On another note, I recommend everyone look up Ramadan and learn about this holy month for Islam and Muslims who practice Islam. Understanding other's belief systems can go a long way to bridging any gap....
For some time there has been debate on the proposed cultural center and mosque to be built in lower Manhattan. The news media (including FOX) likes to spin the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque." This three word phrase, at least to me, seems to imply that a mosque is to be built in the very location where the Twin Towers and other buildings once stood prior to their destruction in a cowardly terrorist attack 9 years ago. Of course, the fact is that the mosque is to be built on property two blocks away from the location known as "ground zero." Using Google Maps, one can see that when one walks some steps from the building, one can look down the street and view the hole which is ground zero. The mosque is not planned to be built at Ground Zero; therefore, the news media should not refer to the mosque as the "Ground Zero Mosque."
Another misnomer is that the building is not a mosque per se. The building will contain a mosque. However, most of the building will consist of a cultural center which will encompass most of the building. So in reality, the building should be considered a Muslim Cultural Center. When I was young, I attended church in a converted grocery store. I don't think people not associated with the church called the shopping center, "the Church." Therefore, we should not call the cultural center a mosque.
The President on Friday expressed the fact that the people who desire to build the cultural center have every right under the Constitution to do so. This is a fact. No one, not even those against the project, has ever suggested otherwise. Of course, the talking heads began ranting that because the President did not object to the center's location, his comment was support for
"a mosque at ground zero."
The ranting resulted in a clarification which only further muddled the issue. The President said that he was only commenting on the right not the "wisdom" to build the mosque. Here the President weighed in on an issue with a statement of fact not in question without actually taking a stance. Some could argue this is wise because he is allowing the issue to be handled at the local level where it should be handled. Others could argue that his statement without his opinion is not wise because he only fuels the political fire without offering any support.
I like what Charles Krauthammer on FOX said yesterday. He called the actions of the President "cowardly." Just like the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz, the President runs from confrontation. Of course, the President does not have any trouble stoking the fire while he does so.
First, the President, in front of Muslims, says they have a right to build a mosque on private property. But he does not address the apparent "wisdom" of the decision. Second, a day later and hundreds of miles from the Muslims he spoke with on Friday, while speaking to someone who just might not support the plan, he asserts the "right" without commenting on the "wisdom." Cowardly on both fronts.
Muslims have every right to build their cultural center with a mosque wherever they choose, INCLUDING ON THE VERY CENTER OF "GROUND ZERO." Our Constitutional principles state as such. However, to build the cultural center anywhere near "ground zero" is not a very wise decision.
One can argue all day long that Islam does not play a part in the opposition. That would be a fallacy. Let's face the facts: the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers were Muslims who believed in Islam. The terrorists who attacked the US on that day did so in the belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions. This belief comes directly from their religion. Thus Islam played a major role in the attacks which occurred on 9/11.
Now the viewpoints of the terrorists are not shared by all Islamic followers - one hopes the the views aren't shared by most either. The fact remains though that Islam played a role and the Muslims who desire to build the cultural center should take that into account. If they want to be blind to this fact, then they, themselves, are not very wise. It would the same as saying the Catholic and Protestant faiths did not play a factor in the conflict surrounding Northern Ireland's political state. The Catholics desired independence, the Protestants did not. However, the underlying reason was that the Protestants desired to remain with Protestant England vice self-rule or merging with Catholic Ireland. Politics drove the issue, religion underlined the issue. Same with the Twin Towers. The politics of US-Israel drove the attacks. Islam underlined the attacks. An acknowledgement upon the part of the supporters would go a long way to healing the wounds of the families involved in the attacks of 9/11.
Yesterday, I told my girlfriend that it would behoove the opponents of the cultural center to provide a counter-proposal. It is not enough for the opponents to stand on the sidelines and whine and moan about the atrocities of the decision to build the cultural center so close to "ground zero." The opponents need to show they are willing to support the right to build the mosque by helping the proponents choose another site. I was taught as a young Sailor not to go whining to the Chief about a problem unless I had some solutions. The opponents would do well for their side to provide alternative locations, with incentives, to the proponents so that the cultural center is built elsewhere. I applaud Governor Patterson for opening such a door.
Of course, the question is now begged, "how far away is enough?" The answer is simple. Such that anyone in the building or leaving the building cannot see "Ground Zero" from a window or other vantage point from or within one block of the building. I think that would satisfy the opponents.
The President waded into the muck of this situation. He did so in a cowardly manner again showing his total lack of leadership skills. The advice he gets from behind the curtain is not doing well for his performance for the masses. The President needs to learn that a leader does not need to take the middle of the road. Why he is so afraid to say whether the decision for the cultural center is wise or not is beyond me. It is also beyond me how he could say one thing to one group and then allude something else to another. When someone, especially a leader, does this, they begin to lose the confidence of the people they lead and the people around them. (I speak from experience.)
The Cowardly Lion was awarded a medal for bravery in the movie. I think the President needs to drink the potion (book version). He might do a better job at addressing the issues and talking frankly with those around him; instead of doing what he so accustomed to doing: being a pitch man. Oh my, the President is the Wizard.....
Mike
On another note, I recommend everyone look up Ramadan and learn about this holy month for Islam and Muslims who practice Islam. Understanding other's belief systems can go a long way to bridging any gap....
Friday, August 13, 2010
Electoral College: Essential to Our Governmental System
A friend of mine asked me to write about the Electoral College. Of the many items I wish to write about this is actually one of those topics on my list. A few years ago as I moved out west, I had a conversation with one of my Aunts discussing the importance of the Electoral College. She had never though about the purpose behind the college and was appreciative of my explanation. I hope you are too.
As usual, I've researched this topic to expand my knowledge of the process and the reason behind the process. I don't remember being taught about the Electoral College specifics during any class while in high school or in my US History college class. This does not mean I wasn't taught the subject; it does mean, though, that the emphasize placed upon the topic, if taught, was not significant enough to be retained by my memory cells.
Every election year, one group or another proposes ending the Electoral College system of electing the President and the Vice President. One of those is a bastion of liberty ideals, one Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who in 2004 proposed an end to the "out-dated" system of electing the heads of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. The problem these people have with the system is that the populous does not actually vote for the President and the Vice President of the United States. (If you thought you did, I'm sorry but you do not.)
Under the Electoral College, on November 4 of the every 4th year election year, when the citizens of the Country vote for President and Vice President, they are actually voting for the electors of their state. The electors then in December will cast their vote for President and Vice President. Only the electors actually vote for a President and a Vice President; the citizens do not. Thus when you look at our system, the citizens of a state vote for the electors who will represent them in the vote for the President and the Vice President. Thus a majority of a state's voters will decide the allocation of a state's electors. The majority of state's then decide who are the President and the Vice President.
There are pros and cons to both sides of the issue. (I will include several links at the end of my blog for your leisurely review. The most informative link will be the pdf file from a FEC administrator.) One of the loudest arguments against the system is that a person could win the Presidency without a majority of the popular vote - which has occurred four times in our history: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and most recently, George W. Bush (2000) (Downey, pg E-96). This aspect is crucial to the system and my arguments. I will only discuss my thoughts on why the electoral college is important and why it should remain in place. I will admit up front, I believe the majority of those who wish to change the system are progressives who wish to destroy the US - see the link above, Sen. Feinstein is a liberal and a progressive.
My arguments for why the electoral college is important rely on the name of our Country and the substance found in Article II of the US Constitution. I do not rely on any of the arguments which state the populous is not informed enough to vote (although it might be biased in its vote). I do not believe in that aspect of the Electoral College. I hope to sway you to my side.
First, what is the name of our Country? Is it America? No. Although we are incorrectly, I believe, referred to as Americans, we do not belong to the Country of America. We belong to the United States of America. Our Country is actually, the United States. We each are citizens of our respective states which then belong to a union of said states to form our Country, the United States. Every four years, the country gets together to elect a President who represents the UNITED STATES. This is the key to the argument. The President does not represent the citizens of the country; instead, the President represents the union of the States. Thus the President (and the Vice President) should be elected by a majority of the States and not by a majority of the citizens. This is what the electoral college accomplishes.
As already stated, the majority of the populous could vote for a single person who actually will not become President. The essence of the electoral college ensures that the most populous states do not then elect the President and the Vice President. For example, Texas, California, and New York account for 26% of the total population of the country. This means that 1/16th of the total number of states has 1/4th of the population of the country. If you add in the next 6 states for a total of 9 states, the percent of the total population reaches 51%. This means that if those 9 states ALL voted for the same candidate and the rest of the country voted for the opposite candidate, 1/10th of the states would choose the President. (Granted this argument relies on the fact that the approximate number of voters in each state is directly related to the total number of people in that state and that everyone of the voters in each state votes the same. Realize, this is for the argument.) However, by the electoral college method, those nine states would amass only 241 electoral college votes which is an insufficient number (270 is needed) for President. Instead, the other 41 states (plus DC) would have chosen the President. Again, the President is the President of the United States; not the President of the people of the United States.
(It should be noted, that if two more states all do the same as the nine states above, the President would be decided by 11 of 50 states. However, in the reality of the situation, most states seem to be united by different factors. For example, the South has usually been referred to the "Bible Belt" and tend to vote Republicans. The West and the Northeast tend to be more liberal and usually votes Democratic. When you look at the populous of Florida, it is 50/50 with respect to ideology between the two parties. Thus their vote can sway from one party to another as evidenced by their vote for Republicans in 2000 and for Democrats in 2008. The Electoral College allows the little States to join together to have their voice heard in the election of the President vice having the larger States always dominating the election results.)
Second, we look to the Constitution. Section 2 and 3 of Article II list the duties and responsibilities of the President. One of those responsibilities is the power to make treaties with other nations. Another the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States. The President appoints Ambassadors and Judges. Every appointment is for the benefit of the United States. Each of the duties and responsibilities in some way benefits the country as a whole. Additionally, the President is the person who is selected to interact with other countries.
Some might argue these also benefit the citizens as much as they do the states. However, the benefit bestowed on the states is more substantial to the union than any benefit which may or may not be bestowed on the citizens. Think of bestowing benefits on a company. The company benefits more than the individual employees of the company. The President represents the States to the world for benefit to the States which will then be indirectly beneficial to the people.
We stand alone in the world with this form of election. However, we stand alone in many aspects of our government. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I think not. Argentina elects their leader by popular vote. Russia elects their leader by popular vote. Iran elects their leader by popular vote. They are "democracies." We are a Republic. China elects their leader by a selection process which relies on a lower level of bureaucracy to elect the members of the next higher bureaucracy until you have an overall leader. It would be the same as if the Congress elected the President (one of the original proposals for election of the President). Which would you prefer, our system or the system of any of the countries mentioned?
I will offer a disadvantage to the system which is near and dear to my heart: political parties. I am disenfranchised with the ideologies of the two big political parties. The Electoral College maintains the two-party system making it difficult, actually out-right impossible, for a third political party to win the Presidency. However, the need for the voice for the President to be the States vice the populous overrides this disadvantage in my opinion.
We are the United States. As such, we elect our leader by ensuring that the individual states have a say in the leader vice a majority of the population. The Electoral College is essential to our Republic form of government and should continue to exist....
Mike
References not linked above:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Kimberling, William. (1992). The electoral college. Retrieved 12 Aug 2010 from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf (This is a well written dissertation on the Electoral College!)
National Archives and Records Administration website: http://archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html
Wikipedia for how nations mentioned elected their leaders.
US Census Bureau for population numbers: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
US Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/
As usual, I've researched this topic to expand my knowledge of the process and the reason behind the process. I don't remember being taught about the Electoral College specifics during any class while in high school or in my US History college class. This does not mean I wasn't taught the subject; it does mean, though, that the emphasize placed upon the topic, if taught, was not significant enough to be retained by my memory cells.
Every election year, one group or another proposes ending the Electoral College system of electing the President and the Vice President. One of those is a bastion of liberty ideals, one Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who in 2004 proposed an end to the "out-dated" system of electing the heads of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. The problem these people have with the system is that the populous does not actually vote for the President and the Vice President of the United States. (If you thought you did, I'm sorry but you do not.)
Under the Electoral College, on November 4 of the every 4th year election year, when the citizens of the Country vote for President and Vice President, they are actually voting for the electors of their state. The electors then in December will cast their vote for President and Vice President. Only the electors actually vote for a President and a Vice President; the citizens do not. Thus when you look at our system, the citizens of a state vote for the electors who will represent them in the vote for the President and the Vice President. Thus a majority of a state's voters will decide the allocation of a state's electors. The majority of state's then decide who are the President and the Vice President.
There are pros and cons to both sides of the issue. (I will include several links at the end of my blog for your leisurely review. The most informative link will be the pdf file from a FEC administrator.) One of the loudest arguments against the system is that a person could win the Presidency without a majority of the popular vote - which has occurred four times in our history: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and most recently, George W. Bush (2000) (Downey, pg E-96). This aspect is crucial to the system and my arguments. I will only discuss my thoughts on why the electoral college is important and why it should remain in place. I will admit up front, I believe the majority of those who wish to change the system are progressives who wish to destroy the US - see the link above, Sen. Feinstein is a liberal and a progressive.
My arguments for why the electoral college is important rely on the name of our Country and the substance found in Article II of the US Constitution. I do not rely on any of the arguments which state the populous is not informed enough to vote (although it might be biased in its vote). I do not believe in that aspect of the Electoral College. I hope to sway you to my side.
First, what is the name of our Country? Is it America? No. Although we are incorrectly, I believe, referred to as Americans, we do not belong to the Country of America. We belong to the United States of America. Our Country is actually, the United States. We each are citizens of our respective states which then belong to a union of said states to form our Country, the United States. Every four years, the country gets together to elect a President who represents the UNITED STATES. This is the key to the argument. The President does not represent the citizens of the country; instead, the President represents the union of the States. Thus the President (and the Vice President) should be elected by a majority of the States and not by a majority of the citizens. This is what the electoral college accomplishes.
As already stated, the majority of the populous could vote for a single person who actually will not become President. The essence of the electoral college ensures that the most populous states do not then elect the President and the Vice President. For example, Texas, California, and New York account for 26% of the total population of the country. This means that 1/16th of the total number of states has 1/4th of the population of the country. If you add in the next 6 states for a total of 9 states, the percent of the total population reaches 51%. This means that if those 9 states ALL voted for the same candidate and the rest of the country voted for the opposite candidate, 1/10th of the states would choose the President. (Granted this argument relies on the fact that the approximate number of voters in each state is directly related to the total number of people in that state and that everyone of the voters in each state votes the same. Realize, this is for the argument.) However, by the electoral college method, those nine states would amass only 241 electoral college votes which is an insufficient number (270 is needed) for President. Instead, the other 41 states (plus DC) would have chosen the President. Again, the President is the President of the United States; not the President of the people of the United States.
(It should be noted, that if two more states all do the same as the nine states above, the President would be decided by 11 of 50 states. However, in the reality of the situation, most states seem to be united by different factors. For example, the South has usually been referred to the "Bible Belt" and tend to vote Republicans. The West and the Northeast tend to be more liberal and usually votes Democratic. When you look at the populous of Florida, it is 50/50 with respect to ideology between the two parties. Thus their vote can sway from one party to another as evidenced by their vote for Republicans in 2000 and for Democrats in 2008. The Electoral College allows the little States to join together to have their voice heard in the election of the President vice having the larger States always dominating the election results.)
Second, we look to the Constitution. Section 2 and 3 of Article II list the duties and responsibilities of the President. One of those responsibilities is the power to make treaties with other nations. Another the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States. The President appoints Ambassadors and Judges. Every appointment is for the benefit of the United States. Each of the duties and responsibilities in some way benefits the country as a whole. Additionally, the President is the person who is selected to interact with other countries.
Some might argue these also benefit the citizens as much as they do the states. However, the benefit bestowed on the states is more substantial to the union than any benefit which may or may not be bestowed on the citizens. Think of bestowing benefits on a company. The company benefits more than the individual employees of the company. The President represents the States to the world for benefit to the States which will then be indirectly beneficial to the people.
We stand alone in the world with this form of election. However, we stand alone in many aspects of our government. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I think not. Argentina elects their leader by popular vote. Russia elects their leader by popular vote. Iran elects their leader by popular vote. They are "democracies." We are a Republic. China elects their leader by a selection process which relies on a lower level of bureaucracy to elect the members of the next higher bureaucracy until you have an overall leader. It would be the same as if the Congress elected the President (one of the original proposals for election of the President). Which would you prefer, our system or the system of any of the countries mentioned?
I will offer a disadvantage to the system which is near and dear to my heart: political parties. I am disenfranchised with the ideologies of the two big political parties. The Electoral College maintains the two-party system making it difficult, actually out-right impossible, for a third political party to win the Presidency. However, the need for the voice for the President to be the States vice the populous overrides this disadvantage in my opinion.
We are the United States. As such, we elect our leader by ensuring that the individual states have a say in the leader vice a majority of the population. The Electoral College is essential to our Republic form of government and should continue to exist....
Mike
References not linked above:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Kimberling, William. (1992). The electoral college. Retrieved 12 Aug 2010 from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf (This is a well written dissertation on the Electoral College!)
National Archives and Records Administration website: http://archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html
Wikipedia for how nations mentioned elected their leaders.
US Census Bureau for population numbers: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
US Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/
Monday, August 9, 2010
Marriage Is Not a Fundamental Right
On Aug 4 a Federal Judge for the Ninth Circuit ruled California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was a state initiative to add to the State Constitution the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. The proposition passed by a slight majority vote of 52%.
It was amusing to listen to the talking heads scream about how one judge overruled the decision of millions of voters. Do they (the talking heads) not realize this is how our system of government is supposed to work? Under our system of government, the wolves and a lone sheep sit down to dinner together and decide what's for dinner. And it won't be the sheep. If majority ruled every time, the rights and privileges of the few would be trampled upon every time. This is not a principle upon which our Country was founded. There will be, no there has be, that one person who stands up for the minority when they are being over run by the majority. In other words, there must be a balance between what the majority wants and the rights of the minority. As long as what the majority wants does not infringe on the rights of the minority, then what the majority wants they'll get. Only when the rights of the minority are infringed will the majority's will get pushed back. This is the reason for judicial review. As I've stated before, even when we don't agree with the ruling, we must support the ruling; to do otherwise would be to fail the principles of our Country.
The ruling is an interesting read. The judge was very thorough in his ruling and at the same time, he was very strategic and very intelligent in the manner in which he rules Prop 8 unconstitutional. The issue before the court was whether a proposition which defined marriage as between a man and a woman infringed upon a same-sex couple's right to marriage under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
When confronted with a constitutional right question, the court must first decide if the right is a fundamental right. In this case, the court ruled that it is. His ruling, though, is not a stand-alone ruling. This right has been decided by several past court cases. One of the cases not cited by the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (I do not know if this is how the case will be known, but, by convention, this is the most likely name) is Skinner v. Oklahoma, a 1942 case I've written about in a previous blog.
In Skinner, Justice Douglas said, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Unfortunately, he did not explain his reasoning for the marriage portion. Procreation, logically, can be seen as a fundamental right. If we were to limit the procreation of a race or group of people, the limitation could spell the end of said group or race. Marriage on the other hand is not necessarily a fundamental right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not ruled this way.
Once a right falls into the "fundamental" category, it must satisfy strict scrutiny. As stated in an earlier blog, to pass strict scrutiny, a law or regulation must fulfill a compelling State interest and must be narrowly drawn to satisfy that interest. In this case, Judge Walker did not review Prop 8 under strict scrutiny. This is his strategic and intelligent ploy used in his decision. Instead, he used the rational basis test.
Under the rational basis test, a law or regulation only has to fulfill a legitimate state interest and be rationally based to do so. Judge Walker failed Prop 8 under this test, the lower of the two tests. Thus, on appeal, a higher court will be less likely to overrule his decision because he utilized a lesser test to fail a law aimed at a right the Supreme Court has ruled fundamental. Brilliant!
So the question now is how is marriage not a legitimate state interest? Marriage is a legitimate state interest. The advocacy of stable families and households aids in the promotion of stable societies. Thus the real question is how is preventing gay marriage related to a legitimate state interest? Unfortunately, it is not. And this is where the defendants (Prop 8 supporters) fell awry of the law.
The defendants' arguments in every aspect of the case were weak and ill-formed premises and conclusions. The plaintiffs' arguments were far superior. For example, the defendants argued that studies show children raised by a mother and a father are more apt to be productive members of society than children not raised in that situation. The flaw in the defendants argument is that the studies they relied on compared families to single-parent households. If you compare a child raised in a same-sex family to a child raised in an opposite-sex family, the results are very similar. Thus, the defendants' argument fails. I'd like to point out, that a child raised by a couple not married is apt to follow the trend of the children of two parent households also. So what does that do to the defendants' argument?
Another argument utilized by the defendants was that marriage is supposed to promote procreation which obviously a same-sex couple cannot do together. This is another severely flawed argument. If you say that marriage is for procreation thus we will not allow same-sex marriages because they cannot procreate, then you MUST ALSO force those opposite-sex couples to DIVORCE (if married) or NOT TO MARRY when one of the pair is found to be sterile. Additionally, you would not be able to allow the marriage of the elderly as their child production days are either numbered or finished. Be careful of the unintended consequences of decisions!
So just what is marriage? To answer this question, you have to look to history. When communities first formed, a man took a woman and they lived together to form a family. The fact that the couple was together was enough to satisfy the marriage aspect. In other words, the basic right of everyone is a right to co-habitate with a person of their choosing. This is the fundamental right. Marriage is only a societal recognition of the basic right of co-habitation. (At the end of my blog will be links to three websites on the history of marriage. It is highly recommended to review this websites. Marriage rituals have changed over the years based on the interjection of religion into the customs of society and also on the changing of the customs of a society.)
The defendants in the Prop 8 debate contend that they cannot tell homosexuals not to co-habitate. The State of California went so far as to allow "domestic partnerships" which recognize the same legal rights as a marriage. The only exception is the use of the word marriage. So, if the Prop 8 defendants acknowledge that homosexuals can life together, and that the same may have the legal rights that a married couple possess, why are they so opposed to the word marriage for same-sex couples? (This was the essence of Prop 8: a fight over the use of a word!)
Many of the opponents of same-sex marriages are religions. The religious people point to the religious doctrine which governs their religion. For example, in the Bible, Leviticus 18:13 states "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that." Additionally, in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death." This is the basis behind the shunning of homosexual couples. I would like to point out that both of those passages relate to MAN and not to WOMAN. In the book of Romans, which is a letter by Paul, there is a reference to female homosexuality but it is not as strong as the passages from the old testament. Thus, the Bible is against male homosexuality and not necessarily female homosexuality. (The Qur'an a similar passage exists, 7:81 "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather you are a transgressing people.")
The pro-religion people will argue that the passage in the New Testament is an extension or acknowledgment of sin to female homosexuality. They will say that all homosexuality is a sin. To which I retort: 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, "In the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with immoral people. Now I did not mean pagans who are immoral or greedy or are thieves, or who worship idols. To avoid them you would have to get out of the world completely. What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a brother but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or is a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don't even sit down to eat with a person." This is another letter by Paul, except this time to the Corinthians. Look closely at that passage. God is acknowledging the existence of homosexual people along with other nefarious people and is also acknowledging you CANNOT ESCAPE THEM. Paul is also saying that as long as they don't purport themselves to believe in God the Christian way you can associate with them. Just don't associate with homosexuals who say they believe what is in the Bible.
The right of association is a fundamental right. The First Amendment gives us this right, "Congress shall make no law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble." This right is explicit in the Constitution. Thus religions do not have to admit homosexuals or assemble with homosexuals. It is their right. So, homosexuality is a sin in most religions. Granted. However, most religions are tolerant of the sins of others. If you are religious and you don't like homosexuality, don't associate with homosexuals. This does not give you any power to tell the rest of society who they can associate with!
Another argument by the religious groups is that by acknowledging marriage can be between same-sex couples means that in public schools this will be taught as an alternative to opposite-sex marriage. To which I retort, so what? Even if that happens, you cannot teach homosexuality into a heterosexual person. I, for one, have known I like girls (I'm a boy) since puberty. This was not taught to me. This attraction I feel for females I have no control over. It's instinctual. Thus, you cannot say that by teaching an alternative lifestyle as normal will turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. I'm sure there is a small probability that it could happen but the percentage will be so small as to be inconsequential to the argument. I can acknowledge that some homosexuals are instinctively heterosexual but choose to be homosexual but I cannot support the argument that ALL homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. That argument fails logic.
History shows us that marriage is nothing more than the recognition of a couple's commitment to one another. Is that such a bad thing, even if you find homosexuality repulsive, to acknowledge that two people want to be committed to each other when they are of the same sex? If society is willing to allow same-sex couples to co-habitate, why not extend the word marriage to that relationship?
I was against using marriage for homosexual couples. As a matter of fact, my proposition was to only use the word marriage for couples joined together in a church and to use "civil unions" for couples, including same-sex couples, joined together by a Justice-of-the-Peace or court. After researching marriage and reading the ruling in the Prop 8 case, I changed my mind. In our Country, at one time, some States refused to acknowledge interracial marriages because of the same faulty logic used to not acknowledge same-sex marriages. To not extend the recognition of marriages to all couples who are devoted to each other violates logic. If we are to do that (not recognize a devoted same-sex couple), why don't we all become like the Sneetches in the Dr. Seuss book?
Marriage is not a fundamental right, but maybe to protect a class of people from unwanted vilification by State power, it should be. Which is what the Supreme Court has ruled......
Mike
(Note: I spent four days researching and contemplating this subject. I do not intend to insult anyone so if I did, that was not my intention. For those against same-sex marriages, I hope to show you a line of thinking you might not have thought about.)
References not linked:
Google answers: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=468306 (Homosexuality and the Bible)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/gay/long.html (Homosexuality and the Qur'an)
History of Marriage:
about.com: http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
psychologytoday.com: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history
essortment.com: http://www.essortment.com/all/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
It was amusing to listen to the talking heads scream about how one judge overruled the decision of millions of voters. Do they (the talking heads) not realize this is how our system of government is supposed to work? Under our system of government, the wolves and a lone sheep sit down to dinner together and decide what's for dinner. And it won't be the sheep. If majority ruled every time, the rights and privileges of the few would be trampled upon every time. This is not a principle upon which our Country was founded. There will be, no there has be, that one person who stands up for the minority when they are being over run by the majority. In other words, there must be a balance between what the majority wants and the rights of the minority. As long as what the majority wants does not infringe on the rights of the minority, then what the majority wants they'll get. Only when the rights of the minority are infringed will the majority's will get pushed back. This is the reason for judicial review. As I've stated before, even when we don't agree with the ruling, we must support the ruling; to do otherwise would be to fail the principles of our Country.
The ruling is an interesting read. The judge was very thorough in his ruling and at the same time, he was very strategic and very intelligent in the manner in which he rules Prop 8 unconstitutional. The issue before the court was whether a proposition which defined marriage as between a man and a woman infringed upon a same-sex couple's right to marriage under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
When confronted with a constitutional right question, the court must first decide if the right is a fundamental right. In this case, the court ruled that it is. His ruling, though, is not a stand-alone ruling. This right has been decided by several past court cases. One of the cases not cited by the judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (I do not know if this is how the case will be known, but, by convention, this is the most likely name) is Skinner v. Oklahoma, a 1942 case I've written about in a previous blog.
In Skinner, Justice Douglas said, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Unfortunately, he did not explain his reasoning for the marriage portion. Procreation, logically, can be seen as a fundamental right. If we were to limit the procreation of a race or group of people, the limitation could spell the end of said group or race. Marriage on the other hand is not necessarily a fundamental right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not ruled this way.
Once a right falls into the "fundamental" category, it must satisfy strict scrutiny. As stated in an earlier blog, to pass strict scrutiny, a law or regulation must fulfill a compelling State interest and must be narrowly drawn to satisfy that interest. In this case, Judge Walker did not review Prop 8 under strict scrutiny. This is his strategic and intelligent ploy used in his decision. Instead, he used the rational basis test.
Under the rational basis test, a law or regulation only has to fulfill a legitimate state interest and be rationally based to do so. Judge Walker failed Prop 8 under this test, the lower of the two tests. Thus, on appeal, a higher court will be less likely to overrule his decision because he utilized a lesser test to fail a law aimed at a right the Supreme Court has ruled fundamental. Brilliant!
So the question now is how is marriage not a legitimate state interest? Marriage is a legitimate state interest. The advocacy of stable families and households aids in the promotion of stable societies. Thus the real question is how is preventing gay marriage related to a legitimate state interest? Unfortunately, it is not. And this is where the defendants (Prop 8 supporters) fell awry of the law.
The defendants' arguments in every aspect of the case were weak and ill-formed premises and conclusions. The plaintiffs' arguments were far superior. For example, the defendants argued that studies show children raised by a mother and a father are more apt to be productive members of society than children not raised in that situation. The flaw in the defendants argument is that the studies they relied on compared families to single-parent households. If you compare a child raised in a same-sex family to a child raised in an opposite-sex family, the results are very similar. Thus, the defendants' argument fails. I'd like to point out, that a child raised by a couple not married is apt to follow the trend of the children of two parent households also. So what does that do to the defendants' argument?
Another argument utilized by the defendants was that marriage is supposed to promote procreation which obviously a same-sex couple cannot do together. This is another severely flawed argument. If you say that marriage is for procreation thus we will not allow same-sex marriages because they cannot procreate, then you MUST ALSO force those opposite-sex couples to DIVORCE (if married) or NOT TO MARRY when one of the pair is found to be sterile. Additionally, you would not be able to allow the marriage of the elderly as their child production days are either numbered or finished. Be careful of the unintended consequences of decisions!
So just what is marriage? To answer this question, you have to look to history. When communities first formed, a man took a woman and they lived together to form a family. The fact that the couple was together was enough to satisfy the marriage aspect. In other words, the basic right of everyone is a right to co-habitate with a person of their choosing. This is the fundamental right. Marriage is only a societal recognition of the basic right of co-habitation. (At the end of my blog will be links to three websites on the history of marriage. It is highly recommended to review this websites. Marriage rituals have changed over the years based on the interjection of religion into the customs of society and also on the changing of the customs of a society.)
The defendants in the Prop 8 debate contend that they cannot tell homosexuals not to co-habitate. The State of California went so far as to allow "domestic partnerships" which recognize the same legal rights as a marriage. The only exception is the use of the word marriage. So, if the Prop 8 defendants acknowledge that homosexuals can life together, and that the same may have the legal rights that a married couple possess, why are they so opposed to the word marriage for same-sex couples? (This was the essence of Prop 8: a fight over the use of a word!)
Many of the opponents of same-sex marriages are religions. The religious people point to the religious doctrine which governs their religion. For example, in the Bible, Leviticus 18:13 states "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that." Additionally, in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death." This is the basis behind the shunning of homosexual couples. I would like to point out that both of those passages relate to MAN and not to WOMAN. In the book of Romans, which is a letter by Paul, there is a reference to female homosexuality but it is not as strong as the passages from the old testament. Thus, the Bible is against male homosexuality and not necessarily female homosexuality. (The Qur'an a similar passage exists, 7:81 "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather you are a transgressing people.")
The pro-religion people will argue that the passage in the New Testament is an extension or acknowledgment of sin to female homosexuality. They will say that all homosexuality is a sin. To which I retort: 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, "In the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with immoral people. Now I did not mean pagans who are immoral or greedy or are thieves, or who worship idols. To avoid them you would have to get out of the world completely. What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a brother but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or is a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don't even sit down to eat with a person." This is another letter by Paul, except this time to the Corinthians. Look closely at that passage. God is acknowledging the existence of homosexual people along with other nefarious people and is also acknowledging you CANNOT ESCAPE THEM. Paul is also saying that as long as they don't purport themselves to believe in God the Christian way you can associate with them. Just don't associate with homosexuals who say they believe what is in the Bible.
The right of association is a fundamental right. The First Amendment gives us this right, "Congress shall make no law...abridging..the right of the people peaceably to assemble." This right is explicit in the Constitution. Thus religions do not have to admit homosexuals or assemble with homosexuals. It is their right. So, homosexuality is a sin in most religions. Granted. However, most religions are tolerant of the sins of others. If you are religious and you don't like homosexuality, don't associate with homosexuals. This does not give you any power to tell the rest of society who they can associate with!
Another argument by the religious groups is that by acknowledging marriage can be between same-sex couples means that in public schools this will be taught as an alternative to opposite-sex marriage. To which I retort, so what? Even if that happens, you cannot teach homosexuality into a heterosexual person. I, for one, have known I like girls (I'm a boy) since puberty. This was not taught to me. This attraction I feel for females I have no control over. It's instinctual. Thus, you cannot say that by teaching an alternative lifestyle as normal will turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. I'm sure there is a small probability that it could happen but the percentage will be so small as to be inconsequential to the argument. I can acknowledge that some homosexuals are instinctively heterosexual but choose to be homosexual but I cannot support the argument that ALL homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. That argument fails logic.
History shows us that marriage is nothing more than the recognition of a couple's commitment to one another. Is that such a bad thing, even if you find homosexuality repulsive, to acknowledge that two people want to be committed to each other when they are of the same sex? If society is willing to allow same-sex couples to co-habitate, why not extend the word marriage to that relationship?
I was against using marriage for homosexual couples. As a matter of fact, my proposition was to only use the word marriage for couples joined together in a church and to use "civil unions" for couples, including same-sex couples, joined together by a Justice-of-the-Peace or court. After researching marriage and reading the ruling in the Prop 8 case, I changed my mind. In our Country, at one time, some States refused to acknowledge interracial marriages because of the same faulty logic used to not acknowledge same-sex marriages. To not extend the recognition of marriages to all couples who are devoted to each other violates logic. If we are to do that (not recognize a devoted same-sex couple), why don't we all become like the Sneetches in the Dr. Seuss book?
Marriage is not a fundamental right, but maybe to protect a class of people from unwanted vilification by State power, it should be. Which is what the Supreme Court has ruled......
Mike
(Note: I spent four days researching and contemplating this subject. I do not intend to insult anyone so if I did, that was not my intention. For those against same-sex marriages, I hope to show you a line of thinking you might not have thought about.)
References not linked:
The Good News Bible: Today's English version. (1976). NY: American Bible Society
The Qur'an: Arabic text with corresponding English meanings. (1997). Saudia Arabia: Abulqasim Publishing House
Google answers: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=468306 (Homosexuality and the Bible)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/gay/long.html (Homosexuality and the Qur'an)
History of Marriage:
about.com: http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
psychologytoday.com: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history
essortment.com: http://www.essortment.com/all/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
Friday, August 6, 2010
Today We Remember the Destruction of Hiroshima
In reality, yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the day we, the United States, dropped one of the most destructive weapons in the history of man on the city of Hiroshima - Japan is 16 hours ahead of Pacific Standard Time. At about 08:15 in the morning of Aug 6, 1945, "Little Boy", the nickname of the first atomic bomb dropped in a war, was released from the B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay. President Truman had made the ultimate decision to wipe out a semi-strategic city. Death toll numbers are varied based on the source. Anywhere from 68,000 to 200,000 died in the blast along with the destruction of most of the city (Downey, pg H-179).
There is much debate about whether we needed to drop the bomb in the first place. Those who are in favor of the decision believe the bombs hastened the end of the war thus saving more lives than those lost in the two atomic bombs (Nagasaki was bombed Aug 9 with "Fat Man"). Those who oppose the decision believe the war was coming to an end anyway and Japan would've surrendered; they call attention to the dissenters in our own government. Obviously there are counter-arguments to both sides of the issue.
On July 26, 1945, the "Potsdam Declaration" was issued. This declaration was, in effect, a "surrender or face utter destruction" ultimatum. The problem with the declaration, from the Japanese standpoint, is that the declaration did not address the status of the emperor. Many Japanese wanted to retain their emperor and were afraid a surrender would end the emperor. (Even today, Japan has an emperor.) On July 29, 1945, the Japanese officially rejected the declaration. Eight days later the Japanese lost one of their cities along with many women and children as collateral damage.
For years the Japanese have been holding a memorial ceremony on this date, Aug 6, to remember those who died in the bombing and to call for total nuclear disarmament of the world. Today, or yesterday for them, was no exception. However, for the first time America sent a delegate to the ceremony. U.S. Ambassador John Rios attended the ceremony as the American representative.
There has been talk that we should apologize for the bombing. Of course, many Americans see this as ridiculous. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor first, and without provocation. Additionally, they have never officially apologized for the attack. Japan came close in 1991 when they released a statement saying they had meant to declare war on the US just prior to the attack.
I, for one, have never subscribed to the theory of apologizing for events or actions from the past with which one did not have direct involvement. I find it a ludicrous premise. How can anyone apologize for the actions of another? No one in our government today played a role in the decisions of 1945. Why should we apologize? I think it silly.
However, as I was contemplating my position on this matter, a strange concept came to mind. When we were growing up, anytime we got into an argument or a fight or a scuffle with someone else, what did our parents do to solve the situation? They made us apologize, even when we weren't really sorry. We apologized not because we were sorry; instead, we apologized to begin the road to atonement, to offer that hand of friendship to begin a conciliation. Maybe, just maybe, our parents were onto something.
Some might say we don't have to apologize because we helped rebuild what we destroyed. Some might say we will apologize only after Japan officially apologizes. Some might say we shouldn't apologize because it is a sign of weakness. However, how often have we ever said, "boy Mom and Dad were right" when recollecting some episode from our youth?
Well, maybe Mom and Dad were right. Maybe it's time for us to be the upstanding one and extend a hand in friendship and forgiveness vice a hand connected to the blunt end of a weapon or poised to push a button.....
Mike
References not linked:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
There is much debate about whether we needed to drop the bomb in the first place. Those who are in favor of the decision believe the bombs hastened the end of the war thus saving more lives than those lost in the two atomic bombs (Nagasaki was bombed Aug 9 with "Fat Man"). Those who oppose the decision believe the war was coming to an end anyway and Japan would've surrendered; they call attention to the dissenters in our own government. Obviously there are counter-arguments to both sides of the issue.
On July 26, 1945, the "Potsdam Declaration" was issued. This declaration was, in effect, a "surrender or face utter destruction" ultimatum. The problem with the declaration, from the Japanese standpoint, is that the declaration did not address the status of the emperor. Many Japanese wanted to retain their emperor and were afraid a surrender would end the emperor. (Even today, Japan has an emperor.) On July 29, 1945, the Japanese officially rejected the declaration. Eight days later the Japanese lost one of their cities along with many women and children as collateral damage.
For years the Japanese have been holding a memorial ceremony on this date, Aug 6, to remember those who died in the bombing and to call for total nuclear disarmament of the world. Today, or yesterday for them, was no exception. However, for the first time America sent a delegate to the ceremony. U.S. Ambassador John Rios attended the ceremony as the American representative.
There has been talk that we should apologize for the bombing. Of course, many Americans see this as ridiculous. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor first, and without provocation. Additionally, they have never officially apologized for the attack. Japan came close in 1991 when they released a statement saying they had meant to declare war on the US just prior to the attack.
I, for one, have never subscribed to the theory of apologizing for events or actions from the past with which one did not have direct involvement. I find it a ludicrous premise. How can anyone apologize for the actions of another? No one in our government today played a role in the decisions of 1945. Why should we apologize? I think it silly.
However, as I was contemplating my position on this matter, a strange concept came to mind. When we were growing up, anytime we got into an argument or a fight or a scuffle with someone else, what did our parents do to solve the situation? They made us apologize, even when we weren't really sorry. We apologized not because we were sorry; instead, we apologized to begin the road to atonement, to offer that hand of friendship to begin a conciliation. Maybe, just maybe, our parents were onto something.
Some might say we don't have to apologize because we helped rebuild what we destroyed. Some might say we will apologize only after Japan officially apologizes. Some might say we shouldn't apologize because it is a sign of weakness. However, how often have we ever said, "boy Mom and Dad were right" when recollecting some episode from our youth?
Well, maybe Mom and Dad were right. Maybe it's time for us to be the upstanding one and extend a hand in friendship and forgiveness vice a hand connected to the blunt end of a weapon or poised to push a button.....
Mike
References not linked:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Time for a Constitutional Amendment to Oust the Congress
In the Declaration of Independence the words "all men are created equal" are written. There has been much debate on the meaning of these words. Even Vice President Joe Biden once told a gathering of like-minded democrats that they should all remember they are equal. Not sure what "equality" he was squawking about, but, we should all be clear about what the words in the Declaration of Independence don't mean which is what he was hinting at: we are all equal in ability or we are equal such that we should be paid the same, or any of those other ridiculous social justice issues he and his ilk use to seduce the electorate.
I can catch a football. I can run rather fast. Does this mean I have the same ability as Chad Ochocinco? Of course not. Chad and I are not equal in ability. He will best me every time. No matter what practice I may undergo, I will never be on the same level as Chad. Also, if I was his age, I, even with extensive coaching, would not be on his level. We are not equal.
The question becomes then, should we be treated differently as human beings based on this difference? No. To quote Temple Grandin, "different but not less." These are powerful words. We are all different from each other, but from a human being standpoint, we are all "equal." Each of us are not less than the other because of our strengths and weaknesses.
This is what the Founders were saying in the Declaration of Independence. They were railing against the "nobility" concept of European law - a concept which declared some people were some how better than others and therefore are entitled to make the rules, to make decisions regarding everyone else. Nobility is based on birthright and the Founders did not believe people were born with a right to rule others. Instead, the Founders said we are all equal. They believed that together we could make laws which respected others. No one is entitled to rule - it must be earned. And thus was born our Country and our Constitution.
But, the Founders left something out of the Constitution. The populous realized what was missing and passed Amendment XXII in 1951. Unfortunately, the 22nd Amendment only fixed one half of the problem. We should now stand together and fix the Constitution for good.
The 22nd Amendment limited the President of the United States to two terms. After FDR had been elected to a fourth term, the people realized that someone in power too long was not a good idea in accordance with our Country's principles. A person could, theoretically, be elected for life unless term limits were set. Even with the balances of power in our Constitution, someone in power is corrupted by power. A President for life is too akin to a King. This is not what we want or need in this country. It is now time to extend that same philosophy to the Congress.
Two months ago, Senator Robert Byrd passed away. He had served from 1958 until his passing. He served 52 years at our expense. In 2003, Senator Strom Thurmond passed away after serving in the Senate since 1956. He served 47 years at our expense. In the Congress there are numerous professional politicians who are reelected, not because they are good at their job; they are reelected because they spend all of their time trying to get reelected. Instead of doing the job description found in the Constitution, they worry more about what they have to do stay in a job at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, there are people who do not vote with intelligence. Too many people vote in the hopes they get something in return. Hmm, a vote for something in return is that not an element of corruption? Instead of voting who will or could do the best job in the Congress, the electorate continue to vote the same people into the Congress and then complain about the rules and laws which come from those people. And instead of voting them out of office, which is a principle of our Republic, they make the "easy vote."
Should not the same premise to limit the President's term in office (corruption of power, King thinking, etc) also apply to those in Congress? Should they not be limited to serve in the Congress? Should they not be returned to the populous so that they can live like the rest of us under the rules they set up? This is not a strange premise - we only have to go back to the beginning of our country to find it in writing.
The Virginia Bill of Rights , which were based on the English Declaration of Rights and were used to write our Bill of Rights, has a provision which eludes to this premise. "That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct."
I repeat, "that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station." Unfortunately, we do not reduce to a private station the members of Congress such that they feel the burdens with which they have bestowed upon us. It is time for this to occur.
The other day, Glenn Beck showed footage of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). This guy feels he is better than everyone. He is in Congress, not because we gave him that honor, but because he is a great man who should rule the rest of us. His pompous and elitist attitude is prevalent in everything he says. Just visit to see for yourself: http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/pete-stark-raving-mad-strikes-again/.
Rep. Pete Stark has served since 1973. He is up for re-election this year. Something tells me, that even though many of the people in the videos are against Stark, he will get reelected because there are more voters who have no clue about the meaning of their vote and they'll vote him back into Congress.
It is time to remove the Pete Starks and the Barbara "I worked hard to be a Senator so could you please call me Senator vice ma'am?" Boxers and the Nancy Pelosis of the Congress and return them to the populous. It is time to amend the Constitution. We need term limits in the Congress much like what we have for the President.
Now some might argue that some in Congress are good leaders and might be replaced with bad leaders. Uh, that happens under a Republic. We then vote them out. Our government is of the people, BY THE PEOPLE. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should have a go at government. But I will agree with those who argue against term limits that we should balance the term limits such that our good politicians can still provide sound leadership.
With the balancing in mind, I propose the following:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to:
a. The Senate of the United States for more than two consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Senate seat for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected shall be elected more than once.
b. The House of Representatives for more than four consecutive terms.
c. Either House of Congress if they have served at least one term in the other House of Congress such that the terms they would serve in both Houses would be consecutive terms with each other.
Section 2. For anyone who has fulfilled the term limits of Section 1 of this article, after having not served in the Congress for an amount of time equal to 1/2 of the total time they served consecutively, may be elected to either House of the Congress to again to be subject to the limits of Section 1 as if they had not served previously.
The essence of this amendment would be to:
a) limit Senators to 12 years of consecutive service followed by a 6 year break before they could serve again.
b) limit House of Representatives to 8 years of consecutive service followed by a 4 year break before they could serve again.
c) ensure no one could jump Houses of Congress in an attempt to avoid the consecutive term limits.
This amendment would ensure those in government are returned to the populous such that they live under the very rules which they have passed. Additionally, the taxpayers could save money by ensuring not a single member of Congress gets a pension for their service to the people.
I like my proposed amendment to the Constitution. It's time for term limits. I hope you agree....
Mike
I can catch a football. I can run rather fast. Does this mean I have the same ability as Chad Ochocinco? Of course not. Chad and I are not equal in ability. He will best me every time. No matter what practice I may undergo, I will never be on the same level as Chad. Also, if I was his age, I, even with extensive coaching, would not be on his level. We are not equal.
The question becomes then, should we be treated differently as human beings based on this difference? No. To quote Temple Grandin, "different but not less." These are powerful words. We are all different from each other, but from a human being standpoint, we are all "equal." Each of us are not less than the other because of our strengths and weaknesses.
This is what the Founders were saying in the Declaration of Independence. They were railing against the "nobility" concept of European law - a concept which declared some people were some how better than others and therefore are entitled to make the rules, to make decisions regarding everyone else. Nobility is based on birthright and the Founders did not believe people were born with a right to rule others. Instead, the Founders said we are all equal. They believed that together we could make laws which respected others. No one is entitled to rule - it must be earned. And thus was born our Country and our Constitution.
But, the Founders left something out of the Constitution. The populous realized what was missing and passed Amendment XXII in 1951. Unfortunately, the 22nd Amendment only fixed one half of the problem. We should now stand together and fix the Constitution for good.
The 22nd Amendment limited the President of the United States to two terms. After FDR had been elected to a fourth term, the people realized that someone in power too long was not a good idea in accordance with our Country's principles. A person could, theoretically, be elected for life unless term limits were set. Even with the balances of power in our Constitution, someone in power is corrupted by power. A President for life is too akin to a King. This is not what we want or need in this country. It is now time to extend that same philosophy to the Congress.
Two months ago, Senator Robert Byrd passed away. He had served from 1958 until his passing. He served 52 years at our expense. In 2003, Senator Strom Thurmond passed away after serving in the Senate since 1956. He served 47 years at our expense. In the Congress there are numerous professional politicians who are reelected, not because they are good at their job; they are reelected because they spend all of their time trying to get reelected. Instead of doing the job description found in the Constitution, they worry more about what they have to do stay in a job at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, there are people who do not vote with intelligence. Too many people vote in the hopes they get something in return. Hmm, a vote for something in return is that not an element of corruption? Instead of voting who will or could do the best job in the Congress, the electorate continue to vote the same people into the Congress and then complain about the rules and laws which come from those people. And instead of voting them out of office, which is a principle of our Republic, they make the "easy vote."
Should not the same premise to limit the President's term in office (corruption of power, King thinking, etc) also apply to those in Congress? Should they not be limited to serve in the Congress? Should they not be returned to the populous so that they can live like the rest of us under the rules they set up? This is not a strange premise - we only have to go back to the beginning of our country to find it in writing.
The Virginia Bill of Rights , which were based on the English Declaration of Rights and were used to write our Bill of Rights, has a provision which eludes to this premise. "That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct."
I repeat, "that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station." Unfortunately, we do not reduce to a private station the members of Congress such that they feel the burdens with which they have bestowed upon us. It is time for this to occur.
The other day, Glenn Beck showed footage of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). This guy feels he is better than everyone. He is in Congress, not because we gave him that honor, but because he is a great man who should rule the rest of us. His pompous and elitist attitude is prevalent in everything he says. Just visit to see for yourself: http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/pete-stark-raving-mad-strikes-again/.
Rep. Pete Stark has served since 1973. He is up for re-election this year. Something tells me, that even though many of the people in the videos are against Stark, he will get reelected because there are more voters who have no clue about the meaning of their vote and they'll vote him back into Congress.
It is time to remove the Pete Starks and the Barbara "I worked hard to be a Senator so could you please call me Senator vice ma'am?" Boxers and the Nancy Pelosis of the Congress and return them to the populous. It is time to amend the Constitution. We need term limits in the Congress much like what we have for the President.
Now some might argue that some in Congress are good leaders and might be replaced with bad leaders. Uh, that happens under a Republic. We then vote them out. Our government is of the people, BY THE PEOPLE. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should have a go at government. But I will agree with those who argue against term limits that we should balance the term limits such that our good politicians can still provide sound leadership.
With the balancing in mind, I propose the following:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to:
a. The Senate of the United States for more than two consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Senate seat for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected shall be elected more than once.
b. The House of Representatives for more than four consecutive terms.
c. Either House of Congress if they have served at least one term in the other House of Congress such that the terms they would serve in both Houses would be consecutive terms with each other.
Section 2. For anyone who has fulfilled the term limits of Section 1 of this article, after having not served in the Congress for an amount of time equal to 1/2 of the total time they served consecutively, may be elected to either House of the Congress to again to be subject to the limits of Section 1 as if they had not served previously.
The essence of this amendment would be to:
a) limit Senators to 12 years of consecutive service followed by a 6 year break before they could serve again.
b) limit House of Representatives to 8 years of consecutive service followed by a 4 year break before they could serve again.
c) ensure no one could jump Houses of Congress in an attempt to avoid the consecutive term limits.
This amendment would ensure those in government are returned to the populous such that they live under the very rules which they have passed. Additionally, the taxpayers could save money by ensuring not a single member of Congress gets a pension for their service to the people.
I like my proposed amendment to the Constitution. It's time for term limits. I hope you agree....
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)