The Media

The press is very important to a Republic. So I thought it would be great to get an idea of what you all read to get your information. Plus, with major city newspapers hurting, should the government help? And do you think the internet is better or worse for the media?

Open-Posts Monday

Open posts monday

Divisive Politics

Here is a blog post from the economist.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496418

The last two presidents have split the country. I think most people would agree with that. Bush was undoubtedly polarizing (pre-911 with stem-cells launched that) and Obama, by the polls is really polarizing. The tea parties this past April 15th had close to 200,000 plus people marching in every corner of the country, and they were angry just like the Bush protests. People have said that this country is the most divided it has ever been. I always pointed out, jokingly and with seriousness, that the Civil War was more divided. But I've begun to rethink this. Issues like abortion, gay-marriage, health-care, and government spending are beginning to become divisive issues like slavery was in the 1840s-1860s. The country is divided. In addition there is a lack of faith in Washington to fix the problems. I think this is why dan has a desire to have some leader or party that has some mandate, so that the at least ideas of solutions can be attempted to fix the problems. This is a serious issue, because stark divisions cause radicalization. I even find this with myself. "A house divided cannot stand."

To what extent do you see division in america? What are the main dividing issues and people? What can be done with closing this divisional gab?

Global Warming Sacrifices

This is about the individual vs. the common good.

I read an article today in The Oregonian titled "Climate Change: the sacrifices we face". http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/climate_change_the_sacrifices.html

It's really not that great of an article, but it touches on something about the issue of climate change. I don't want to talk about if global warming is happening. This is about sacrificing and if it is constitutional and in the best interest of the government.

In the article Mr. Robert Everhart talks about how their is a need for everyone to sacrifice in the fight to stop global warming. "Indeed, in the long term, both the economy and the environment will demand genuine sacrifices." also he writes,

"Yes, we need an economy that supports every citizen, but we cannot return it to a level that desecrates the very planet within which all economies exist.
Our lives, and especially the lives of those who follow us, depend upon an Earth in balance, an Earth wherein we have a sustainable economy that enhances rather than strips the Earth. All of us need to think this through, then loudly and forcefully tell our leaders that we will not accept a return to the economy of the past at the expense of the home of all living things."

He doesn't go into the specifics of what kind of sacrifices that need to be made, just that sacrifices are to be made. Granted the article is more about not losing focus on the issue of global warming, than it is to explain what needs to be done.

Here is my issue with this sacrificing. Mr. Everhart is saying that we can no longer live at the same standard-of-living that we used to. We must cut back on everything or most things for the safety of the environment. I get it, but is it legal to force someone to change their life-style? The global warming issue has turned into a battle between the individual and the common good, and that is where I draw a problem.

Example: Mark likes to buy coffee at starbucks every morning to wake him up and to calm his nerves about the arriving day. He puts some half/half in and some sugar to give it a nice sweet taste to go along with the acidic taste of the coffee. He goes up-stairs to his desk and has a good 15 minutes before he has to start work. He enjoys his coffee. However, for every 1 liter of coffee brewed, it takes 1,110 litters of water (from growing the crop to roasting to brewing). So the production of coffee is very hard on the already drying planet. (a side note 1 litter of beer takes I think only 6 litters of water, beer is always better) (got the stats from The Econmist) In addition to the water, coffee is not grown in New York City, nor the United States. So the coffee has to come from Asia, Africa or South America. That takes energy to get it to NYC. In addition to his coffee he puts milk in it. He is only one guy, but for starbucks its a few million and the demand for milk is through the roof. Cows, livestock in general, is by far the worst for the planet. Cars emit CO2, while livestock emit methane, which is 10 times worse of a greenhouse gas. There are no cows in NYC so they have to move the milk from the surrounding area. One has to keep milk cold so that takes energy. Mark also puts sugar in his coffee. NYC doesn't grow sugar. So again sugar must be grown somewhere else and then shipped to NYC, which takes energy. I know this is a long story, but I hope you get the point.

Coffee is a luxury, and if consumed on a mass scale can be harmful to the environment. Should Mark be forced to give up coffee? Along with other things that today seem like they are normal everyday items? Does Mark, if money providing, have the right to buy whatever he wants? Should items be illegal if they damage the earth? In Australia one representative proposed a child tax on families that have more than two children. But doesn't this go against the right of the parents along with the right to life? These sacrifices that have to be made infringe on peoples' rights. Should the government even tax items based on the sole fact that they damage the earth or emit CO2? I find people don't really know what they are saying when they say we need to sacrifice. That might mean giving up that banana you eat everyday or that SUV you drive or eating meat 3 times a week, or having only one child, or being denied distant goods or travel.

I'm against global warming legislation because it attacks the individual. Individual rights before the nation's and before the earth's. Does this mean not doing anything and having the earth warm up? How important are the rights of the individual?

Taxes (second post of the day)

How should the people be taxed? What should be taxed? (vices, goods, services, income, property, travel, ect.)

The Definition of the word Liberal

Call me splitting hairs, but I believe there needs to be a clarification on the word Liberal.

Let me go back in time, backwards. (I think that makes sense)

Definition of Liberal:
Today: means a progressive in favor of large government, the common good is greater than the individual good.
1930s: Communists, socialists, and although they were on the right side of things fascism was considered liberal.
1900-1930: Progressives, believed in large government and strong nationalism (border-line racists...no, they were racists.
1860s: Republicans, Lincoln. believed national government was more important than state governments. a growth in government overall.
1776-1790: Liberal meant small government, a republic. limited government. individual rights.

This brings up another issue I have. It is a little off the subject. I don't believe humans are progressing into a better being, and have really not changed much at all from the time we were cavemen (caveperson, sorry). But many people believe that humans are evolving into something better. You can see it in pop culture with movies about the future. You can read it in science texts and so on. If humans are evolving into something better, when will we get to be the best? Will there always be room for improvement? I bring this up, because I believe the idea of a Republic is the best form of government and there is really no need to improve upon it. But even if we do progress into something better, would we find ourselves in a few years or so progressing into some other form of society that is a better system? When does this progressiveness end? I guess is my question.

Kant's Democracy

Immanuel Kant explains, that democracy (direct democracy) is really a dictatorship of the majority over the individual. This is really a interesting way of looking at majority style governments; democracy, communism, populism.

What are your thoughts about majority rule?

A good topic about this issue is gay marriage. California is dealing with this issue right now with Prop 8.