diplomacy

Here is a question. Obama recently visited Japan and bowed down to the emperor there. while our First Diplomat is visiting other countries, how far should he/she go in respecting the other country's customers at the expense of our own?

Post from Nathan

I would have posted this for open post monday but this will have to due. Its a politically related sort of hypothetical: if we remove the issue of slavery (so that ethical considerations don't play as much of a role here) would you rather live under the USA or the Confederacy?

CA v. TX

This artilce is long but it is worth the read. Please read it and tell me what you think. It is comparing CA to TX, but more importantly it is comparing high-tax states to low-tax states.
I'm very interested in your thoughts.

http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=5433

Bigger is Better?!?!

Read an article about expanding the size of congress. Congress has 435 people in it as of right now and that has been the case since 1929. (the us population at that time was 121,700,000 which meant for every one congressmen there were 280,000 people.) Today, on average, for every one congressmen there are 689,600 people. In places like Montana there is only one congressmen for 900,000 people, but two in Rhode Island which is about 400,000 per a congressmen. This means Montanans are underrepresented.

Should we expand the US congress?

At the beginning of the nation, we had 67 congressmen each representing only 30,000. But for today's sake, why not we make it 300,000 or some where around there. That would mean we need to add about 1,000 more congressmen.

What do you think?

two sides of annoying

There are two presidents that I am really beginning to hate (it's a strong word but I will go with it). It's not really the presidents themselves or their adminstrations (although i do enjoy debating them), but more of my hate is towards the people that love, embrace, worship the presidents.

The first president is FDR.
people talk about him as if he is the greatest man that ever was. they forget about the facts and just assume everything he touched he turned it to gold and that he was so moral and good. The hero worship has to stop.

The second president is Reagan.
The worship of this guy is so out of control. He defeated communism! not really, and i have proof of that. His economics were amazing! his spending wasn't, that's for sure.

both presidents have become the lords of the parties. From the left people are hoping Obama will be the next FDR, and people on the right are searching for the next Reagan. What's funny is that both sides have made these two men into gods, which they never were, so when they are hoping and looking for the next FDR, or Reagan they are really looking for the next god of their party. I'm laughing because that day will never come.

however, worship of public figures is very interesting. Is it healthy for a Republic? Is it something to worry about? Is it a good thing to have examples, even if they are false ones?

paying health-care

I'm not a huge fan of health-care but I would like to pretend that we do have health-care, just for a little bit. Many people proposing for the health-care plan say this about our current health-care system,

"President Barack Obama praised their work, saying it will “begin the process of fixing what’s broken” in the system.
“We can’t continue to put more and more money into health care,” said Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who runs the House Energy and Commerce Committee."

The threat is that in a few years the cost of the current system would be somewhere around 12% of the GDP of america, or even more. I understand that number is very high and i don't like it either, but here is my question. What if the health-care reform is past and within a few years or so, maybe 10 or 15, the cost of the program reaches 12% of GDP, would we then scrap that program and look for another or would the government continue to run the state-run health-care? I know this question is a "what if" question, and i would rather stay with the facts, but it is highly likely that the cost could reach 12% of GDP or somewhere near that. If it does, then under the rationalization of those who proposed the bill, we should discard that system and find another.

Here is another topic of concern,

"The 1,018-page House Democratic plan builds on a June 19 draft and for the first time includes details on how to pay for the measure. In addition to the levy on millionaire households, the House would place surtaxes of 1.5 percent on couples with incomes of $500,000 to $1 million and 1 percent on those with incomes of more than $350,000.
In 2012, the White House budget office would review the estimated savings from the health-care overhaul. If the savings are $150 billion more than expected, then the government would scrap a planned second set of increases for those making between $350,000 and $1 million. If the extra savings top $175 billion, the surcharge for those incomes would be eliminated altogether.
The surtax on wealthier Americans would be imposed based on adjusted gross income, meaning it would also apply to capital gains and dividends, which are currently taxed at a 15 percent rate. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said lawmakers targeted high earners because it “causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people.”

I am not one against taxing the rich, they can afford it. But there does come a time when you can tax the rich too much. In addition, the rich can afford tax experts, and they can find fun and easy ways to get around the tax code. Just look at the 7 people Obama nominated, i'm sure some of bush's guys too but they just didn't get caught. But I want to draw to the last quote by Charles Rangel, "causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people". I find this quote to be horrifically in bad taste. Yes, they are the rich, but they are still people and to single them out is discriminatory. I'm going to go to the extreme here, but only to prove my point, Let's say some american in 1805 said that slavery of africans "causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people". He should be shot! but at the time africans were a small minority and there was really no pain for most of the rest of the americans. Or what about today and gay marriage, not allowing gays to marry "causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people". I'm not sticking up for the rich, but shouldn't we be careful not to single out any group that is a minority? That's what republics do? Is economics a way to categorize people?

the Two parties and spending

I read this from an article that talks about how much taxes need to be raised to balance the budget in 2020. it's kind of crazy how much.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/13/the_consequences_of_big_government.html

here is a quote from it that i think sums up really well how the two parties work when it comes to spending and taxes. "Everyone favors benefits and opposes burdens (taxes). Republicans want to cut taxes without cutting spending. Democrats want to increase spending without increasing taxes, except on the rich. The differences between the parties are shades of gray."
I think that is right on.
Can we think of any other subjects that the two parties are just different shades of gray?

Atheism and foriegn policy

I found this article on huffington post about atheism and foreign policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-wright/why-the-new-atheists-are_b_230448.html

He talks about how new atheists are very hawkish in their ideas of foreign policy. He brings up an interesting point, that i would like to talk about. because new atheism believes religion is one of (if not the most) problems the world faces, they have essentially declared war on religion. So their world view is seen through the glasses that if one just eliminates religion the problems of the world would go away, or dramatically decline. Is this view constructive in dealing with foreign policy? Is this idea of eliminating religion a good and constructive goal to uphold?

Pope and economics

I feel like i'm in the middle ages all over again. The pope had this to say about the economic situation,

"...every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for "forms of redistribution" of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.
"...there is an urgent need of a true world political authority" whose task would be "to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result."
Such an authority would have to be "regulated by law" and "would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

wow, didn't think that kind of talk would come out from the pope. I nominate the Catholic Church.

should the church be talking about such secular consepts such as the economy? Is this the indorsment that many people, like PM Brown (England), were looking for?

(A side note, there is always a war going on between security and LIBERTY. so everytime I see the word security, red flags fly up. When the word security is tied to the phrase 'security for all' i get in panic mode.)

cost of caring

The purpose of the government is to protect the people. healthcare, as some say, falls under the role of the government. But what happens when the government and the nation can't afford it? Right now in the last year Bush and Obama have spent about 1.8 trillion. There is no plan on how to pay for the spending, other than obama saying the economy in the next 5 years is going to grow 4% which will then pay for the spending. That sounds like a lot of hope there. So how can the government write a bill that will cost 1 trillion in the next 10 years?

Should the government just say, "nope, we can't afford healthcare right now"? It seems to me that is the only reasonable option, and it really isn't a very good one.

How much is too much for a government to spend? This is going way past even what Kenyes was thinking. Can the US handle this debt?

Who and what can we tax and cut to afford all this?

Sarah Palin

I have to say this, I'm really enjoying watching all the "experts" on TV and in the paper trying to figure out why she left. They have no idea and it just shows you how stupid their jobs are.

I also find this disheartening. Today everyone in the news is going to be covering Michael Jackson, while in China there are the biggest protest in 20 years. Isn't that a huge topic! Iran's protests had a few people arrested (I'm sure more), but China has arrested almost 1,500 people (which means more). That is huge! The media once again has failed us.

sorry for the rants

health-care

This is my thoughts on health-care and this is how I would try to fix the very complicated problem of expensive health-care.

First I would make health insurance like how we have car insurance. by law you have to have health insurance, because it costs the community way too much if those who don't have it get hurt and go to the ER. If you don't have a health insurance card or id with you when you go to the ER then you will not get help.

Second, for those who are poor and can't afford health-care, then they get the basic kind of insurance with an addition of help from the state governments. The national government gives X amount of money to the states, but it is the states who decided how much they will help pay for the insurance for those who can't afford it. This may mean 10% help of pay or even all, if that state wants that. But it is out of the hands of the national government. If a state can't afford to even help the poor pay for health-care than thats really not that great of state and the poor should leave to a state that does.

Third, i have noticed alot of the costs in health-care come from doctors doing too much unneeded tests. It is because their pay is based on how many tests and exams they do on each patient. I would look into paying doctors just a salary as they have done in some places already with good results. A basic doctor gets paid X, a surgeon Y and a specialist Z. In theory this would make the doctors more worried about treating the patient instead of trying to make some money.

Those are just ideas...

politics in every part of our lives

I was talking with a friend today and he brought up an interesting thought. The idea is that almost everything in our everyday lives has become political. Example, someone who ones an ipod is more liberal than someone who bought their mp3 player at walmart. Where you drink your coffee, or where you eat. if you eat here you are this and if you eat that you are something else.
so is this really true? is this really going on? and if so is it healthy or unhealthy for a society?

Obama and Fox news

This is what obama said about fox news on an cnbc show, “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front,” However, is that not what the press is suppose to do? I'm not one for saying fox news is the greatest. In fact they failed to do their job when bush was in office. But the press is suppose to ask the tough questions and look at everything the government does with a questionable eye. And for a president to attack a whole news network seems a little odd to me. obama added this saying, "I think that actually the reason people have been generally positive about what we’ve been trying to do is people feel as if I’m available and willing to answer questions and we haven’t been trying to hide the ball.” Really? obama won't even go on the fox news, so that's really not open. Plus the press asked if they could see the visitor list of the white house, but obama said no, just like bush did. Even obama believes the press has been "generally positive" towards him. I understand that maybe he doesn't want to give any credit to fox news, so that is why he doesn't want to be on their network. But one has to stop and think for a second, bush wasn't doing a very good job so he could stand the press, because the press was all over him. so if the government doesn't like the press then that means the press must be doing something right.
I grow nervous about hos the president believes the press is "generally positive" towards him. that makes me think the press isn't doing their job.

ABC is a tool

ABC news on June 24 is doing a medical care special at the white house. AT the white house. The press is there to question and to investigate the government for the People, not to be used as a launch pad for the president's agenda. This is bad, this is very bad.

"ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: President Obama’s health care push will continue next week with a primetime event at the White House, with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer".

Noticed how it says "Obama's health care PUSH". It is clear that ABC is letting obama use their airwaves and their time to push his agenda. That isn't freedom of press, that is a president in control of the press.

"The special edition of “Primetime” will air from the White House on Wednesday, June 24, at 10 pm ET. “Good Morning America,” “World News,” “Nightline,” and ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda."

All these "special programming" will be on the "president's AGENDA". The special edition at night is not the only outlet ABC is giving obama that day. Obama is going to be interviewed on GMA,

"Wednesday morning’s “Good Morning America” will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an exclusive interview with President Obama. He sits down with Diane Sawyer to discuss healthcare and other issues on the nation’s agenda. Wednesday’s program will also feature portions of Robin Roberts’ exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama."

This is insane! How could ABC sell itself out to the government when it is supposed to be watching the government. That is why I propose a boycott of ABC on Wednesday, June 24! this isn't an attack on ABC or an attack on obama or even against the debate of medical care, this is about the idea of freedom of press. We must not let Our press be run by the government.

nationalism v. internationalism

Linda Milazzo wrote this in a blog post from huffinton post, "This evening at a Washington DC fundraiser, in a statement that can best be described as regressive American exceptionalism, former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich said of himself:
"I am not a citizen of the world. I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous!" She then goes on to say, "Mr. Gingrich's...defines in two simple sentences the elitism, racism and egotism that have destroyed his Republican Party".

I don't see the racism in the statement by Gingrich? The reason she said that, I believe, is she thinks that calling yourself a citizen not of the world but of a country is racist to other nations. But that's not racism, that's nationalism.

But I think she has it all flipped around. An internationalist from America, who says things like, "To me being a citizen of the World means that I put the well-being of all peoples (regardless of Nationality) above my selfish desires. I think their beliefs are that our morality is more important than material posessions", and "I don't think that we who call ourselves World Citizens mean that we want to be subject to an oppressive World Government. We mean that the tribal connections that we feel are to all the peoples in the world, and not those born into a certain geographical area", (got these from two posted comments of the blog) are missing the political implications of their position. I do not doubt that they care about other nations and want to help them, but the tools that are in place are controlled by a few, meaning the United States and Europe (but not as much anymore in the case of Europe). Comments by internationalists, I think, need to be careful not to cross over to "The White Man's Burden" syndrome. Because we are the most powerful nation in the world, we should be careful not to force our way of life upon weaker nations. By claiming we are all citizens of the world, what perception of a citizen should be pushed? Should the American style of citizen and American style of democracy be the model for which we impose upon other nations. In other words should we be American missionaries going off to other countries to spread the good word of Americanism (or even more to the point humanism, secularism, and universalism) By sending money to some foreign country to bring them our food and our medicine, and also our style of farming and our style of economics, do we not deteriorate their way of life? Are we not then egotistic and arrogant, thinking our way is better than their way (whoever they are)?

After WWII (sorry bringing up more history) The united states and allies, believed what went wrong in germany was that the people didn't really know how to run a democracy correctly, so the allies and the united states took it upon themselves to show them. the ussr did the same in east germany. through time you had west germany looking like the us and east germany looking like the ussr, but neither of them looked like germany (whatever that may have been, good or bad). Both the us and ussr were imperialistic, egotistic and arrogant that it was their system that was better, splitting up another nation and people. Should we do the same to nations in Africa? or china? of nations in South America? places that have had different histories, and different languages, and different beliefs, and different societies will create different governments and different customs. By claiming to be helping the world, we could be eliminating the peoples we claim to be helping.

Forgive my long rant and sermon (sorry about that, I found that this blog is a great way to get my thoughts down and also to hear your points-of-view. by hearing your thoughts it makes me keep checking my views and making sure they are more based on reason than opinion.) I am not for not helping other people in the world, don't get me wrong. (I said "not" three times in that sentence, sorry) But the tools we use (such as the UN, peace corp, military, G8-g20 summit hearings, world bank) are Western-American tools which can seem more like imposing our ways than helping. I think we should focus on helping the basic Natural Rights of every human, that is life, LIBERTY, and property. But even then our definitions of life, LIBERTY, and property should keep in mind the traditions of the individual peoples. This really is kind of hard. Do we go as far as to not help women, who have little to no rights (would we be imposing our views upon another culture?) before you jump and say, no; what if it was syria instead of the us that was the dominate force in the world, and syria opposed abortions and they sent their people to the us to stop abortion. An issue here in the us where we believe abortion is a right of the woman. To them they would be thinking they are helping our society. We don't want to fall into "the US knows best" mentality. I lean more towards, if there is something that is allowed in a culture that physically hurts a person without their consent then we should step in. But I would be very much interested in hearing what you think should be the limits (if any) on building this idea of We are all of the World? Am I missing the point here, in grouping World Citizen with American imperialism? How much should the US get involved in other nations? What issues do you see that surpass the national level and should reach no matter what to every human? the bold is there so if you don't want to read the whole super long post you still can see the questions asked.

education

i know we are in an economic problem, and there are wars all over the place, but what is congress and obama doing about education? Isn't education a huge issue and one that through time could solve a few of the issues of today? i just think education should kind of be a big issue that is always on the table.

I'm at a low...

I have no faith in our government.

open monday posts....

anything can be said...

thoughts about sotomayor...

this is open to whatever you want to talk about of sotomayor.

and so it begins...

VAT- values add on tax (or sales tax) read this section from the washington post about Geithner thinking about it, "A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. (this is my favorite part) But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families. " We tax the poor to bring down their standard of living, but hey we will give you health-care. Bull. I also find it funny, how they (the government from both administrations, have increased spending and now they need money so they will tax the poor. Didn't king louis XVI do that, right before his head was cut off?
here is another section of the article, "The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem". Did no one see this coming? This is how they (the government) want to pay for health-care by, "Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol " (who has those drinks; the poor. yet another tax of the poor for the poor.)
Do they (the experts and government) think we are stupid. This paragraph makes me so mad! "The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits." (that has to be the stupidest idea ever. ) "I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz (a yale professor) said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious." And was it the People that have caused this unsustainable system or the government? It was the government who put us in two wars, and it was the government who signed a 787 billion bill to help the economy. (so wait a second, a bill that was to get us out of this downturn, now needs to be bailed-out with sales tax and other taxes. That makes no sense, why didn't they just tax us in the first place? oh that's right because the People don't like taxes.) I smell something and it stinks so bad I'm about to vomit. This is only a rant, besides the national sales tax is only being talked about nothing more. as a side show, it will be interesting if it does go to congress and the senate to see if the senators from Oregon and other non-sales tax states vote against the bill since it is clear that the People they represent don't want a sales tax.
forgive me for my rant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html

17th amendment

Interestingly there have been 16 amendments to the constitution since it was signed. 6 of those amendments happened between 1900-1933 (which is considered the progressive era). ((double interesting is even within that period they repealed one amendment with another; 18th and 21st.)) There are really two amendments in that period that i don't like, but i want to focus on the 17th. The 17th states,

AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

I bolded the change in the constitution. before senators were elected by the state legislators and not by popular vote. The thought behind having the state legislators appointing the senator is that the senator would be more loyal to the state. The the thought behind the change was to stop corruption and give the power to the People. Now, normally i am for giving more power to the People, however my disdain towards the national government is stronger. What has happened, and really its true intent, was the senators became more loyal to the national government than to their state. example, chris dodd (d-ct) received far more money from his campaign from people outside his state than from people inside his state. If a state has a senator in the senate for a long time, like so many senators, the senator losses the touch with the People from his/her state. Second, you have people from other states that fly into a certain state (because of x y and z) and win the race but have very little loyalty to the People of the state.
what if we did go back to the state legislators appointing the senators (now congress would still be popular vote within their district)? Would this then pull the senate closer to the states and further away from washington? the argument that the old system caused corruption is over, since now we have many cases of corruption from this 'new' system. by having the senators closer to their states, would this then give power back to the People of each state?

open post monday

its open for everyone.

War on Terror Trials

This is a subject that I really haven't thought about. It just really hasn't interested me. I read another blog by Big Tent Democrat (its long just to warn you) http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/5/22/112959/706 and it kind of put some thoughts into my head about the detainees of the war on terror.

First thought, putting the detainees on trial in the US court system. What came to my mind was during the French Revolution robespierre set up a court called the committee of public safety. This court was set up to place on trial people who were counter-revolutionaries. It was this court that took the heads off of a few tens of thousands of people. What happened to the civilian court was that it placed too much power in the hands of a few. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that the people on the court, including the founder robespierre, were executed. Another "civilian" court was the court system in soviet union. This court was set up to find out if there was anyone plotting against the soviet union. The court was set up to attack political incorrectness. It got out of hand. It got so much out of hand that if you took a trip to France and came back, they would arrest you, put you on trial, judge you as an enemy of the state, and then send you to the gulag. It got to the point where everyone citizen of the ussr knew someone that had gone to or was in the gulag. Why explain all this boring history stuff? it goes to show you that even within civilian courts things can get out of hand. Those who demand that the detainees be on trial in the federal court system are placing a lot of power in the hands of the courts. Now civilian courts could decide what was terrorism, and therefore could expand upon the definition and put on trial american citizens who hint at anti-americanism. (worse-case scenario, i know. but it has happened. Even during McCarthy years in the united states). We have to be careful who we place in power to decide who should go to trial. By keeping the detainees in a more military setting I feel it would keep the temptation to charge united states citizens. (I maybe wrong) Civilian courts are not necessarily the ideal setting for such a case as terrorism. It was in fact robespierre who in some way is the grandfather of terrorism, through the use of civilian courts. In addtion, courts can be set up to act like they are really doing something, but infact they are just going thourgh the motions. The courts in the ussr convicted almost every person that went to them, but the officials in government could point to the court saying it was legitimate sentences. united states citizens must always go through the court system that we have now. if there is any new court system put in place to judge the war on terrorism we should be weary of its intent.

Second thought, is the value of the united states citizenship. Another history talk sorry (but i'm just going off what i know and that is just history; a very limited amount) During the fall of the roman empire they began to give out roman citizenship like it was day old bread. At the beginning and peak of roman power, roman citizenship was a high prize and granted only to a few. With it was certain privileges that made the citizenship special. One of those privileges was you went to a different court than non-roman citizens. In this court no matter what you could not be executed. You were held with higher esteem, even if you committed a horrible crime. During the british peak of empire, british citizens had special perks too. It was a valuable citizenship to have, but towards the end the british started giving out the privileges of the british citizenship to more and more people which devalued the citizenship. So by holding the detainees with the same rights as an american citizen we therefore devalue the american citizenship. There have been some us citizens charged with terrorism and they should go through our courts and get a lawyer and all that. But those that are not citizens of the united states should get no privilege that us americans get. What is the point of the us citizenship if you get nothing out of it except to pay taxes? There needs to be a separation, a clear one, between a citizen and a non-citizen. The more perks of being a citizen of a nation the more value the citizenship is. I fear that the value of an american citizenship has fallen. This is a nationalistic view, i know. But what's great about america is citizenship is not based on race (like it is in europe) or religion or anything. It is only based on you moving to the country and swearing allegiance to the idea of america, you don't even have to swear allegiance to the president or congress or any man or woman.

sorry for the long post.

Religion and Health

In recent news there has been a case of a boy who is rejecting medicine to cure himself, saying that he believes in natural healing. The boy is mentally handicapped and is of the age of 13. The courts decided that he must and will be forced to take the medicine even if it is against his religion. Just today the boy and the mother are missing and no one knows where they are.

Upon reading this, at first I sided with the mother and boy, on the belief that the boy is old enough to know what is right or wrong. However, knowing that the boy is mentally handicapped that changed my mind on the subject. Not that my mind switched to the other side of the issue, but more that it became harder to come up with a correct decision.

In some states people are proposing that girls as young as 13 can get an abortion without their parents knowledge. This is a surgery, which I think is weird that you have to be 18 to get a tattoo but they think a 13 year old can decided to have surgery or not. What the question for this topic about the sick boy is, is he old enough to make his own decisions and under the separation of church and state does the state have a right to force someone to take medical treatments? Another question is, being mentally handicap place you in a different category with different rules?

Minnesota, where the boy is from, statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough. Who decides what is "neccessary medical care".

I guess out of all this, the main poltical question is do parents have the complete right over their children? and if so at what age does it not apply? and if not, what rights do parents not have the right over their children?

Righteousness or Peace

I worked at natural history museum today and there was a quote carved in the wall by Teddy Roosevelt. He asks the question

If you had to choose between righteousness or peace, what would you choose?

I found the question interesting. And would like to hear your thoughts.

open post monday

say what you will...

Current Affairs: Attack of the kings

For quite some time, I have noticed that there seems to be a change within our nation and globally. The change is really a restructuring of our current system; the Republic. I have at times, said it is the shift to more centralized government, which i still believe it is. I have also thought, that it could be the promise of Marx of the communist revolution, which now I don't think so. But I haven't been able to wrap my mind around who and what were their motives for a change of Republics. It wasn't until I read the words from Maurice Strong. "Maurice F. Strong, (born April 29, 1929, in Oak Lake, Manitoba) is one of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations' involvement in world affairs. Supporters consider him one of the world's leading environmentalists. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit and first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Strong has played a critical role in globalizing the environmental movement." This is just a background of who the guy is. This is what he said at the Rio Conference in 1992 that industrial countries have

"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."

After reading this, it then clicked for me. The recent movements and changes in our government since the beginning of the 20th century have been the actions of the upper-class. Strong attacks the middle class as the main cause of global warming. We talked about this unsustainable life-style before and both dan and nathan believe there needs to be sacrifices. To take on a marxist point-of-view, the major issues like global warming, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on poverty are tools used in the over all struggle between the upper and middle classes. But it isn't between the poor and upper-classes. Since 1789 the middle-class has controlled the major governments. It has been the middle-class that has built-up europe and america and suppressed the upper-class. And it is now the rockerfellers and louis XVIs of this age that are trying to regain their power. Interestingly the poor have been left out of this, again.

By taxation, the upper-class can push the middle-class down while keeping the poor still poor. Higher energy costs would hurt only the middle and lower classes. By adding regulations on development it hurts those with less capital to begin with and therefore creating a road block for starter companies; only the wealthy could afford the risk. By creating boarderless nations, the elites can then higher lower-wage workers or take their business elsewhere without the worry of tariffs and trade regulations. By this shift in power from the Republics to centralized governments the middle-class and lower-class would be left out of the process.
This kind of sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I really don't think it is. For the longest time I have been trying to put my finger on what is going on in the world. There is a change going on. Something different than a Republic is moving.
To continue with Strong, although there are many in his position that feel the same way, he writes this in an Essay titled, Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation,

"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."

The last sentence lays out the battle plan.
This post is a little different from the others, but I feel it is the attack of the old kings on our sacred and holy Republic. I'm interested in your thoughts. Maybe you can calm my nerves. Again this post is not a debate about global warming, it is a debate on the struggle between the classes and who is winning and who is losing.

Social Issues in Government

Nathan brought up the topic of discrimination the other day and it led me to thinking. In regards to government involovment, should the government be involved in social issues?
Now, I would say the government should make sure that everyone's rights are protected and secured. But about social issues, such as marriage, births, deaths, religions, clubs, orginizations, boy scouts and girl scouts, and all else that are social issues, should the government be involoved in these matters? Are there some social issues that you think should be and others not, and why?

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.

Nature's Rights (Part Two)

Liberty is the most important right each and every human has. Some people say Liberty is another way of saying freedom, but i find Liberty carries more weight than just freedom. Liberty encompasses freedom but it is also the right to exercise your freedom.

Liberty, now thinking about it, may be the defense against the problem Mr. Brown brought up in his comment from the last post.

Liberty has two enemies and must always fight a two-front attack. The first enemy is people that forcefully try to take away Liberty. A thief, a murder, a rapist, a dictator, a banker and many more. The second enemy is security. In the name of protecting Liberty, security takes away the very Liberty it has sworn to protect. Both enemies are dangerous and must be watched with a careful distrustful eye.

Nature's Rights (Part One)

There are three rights given to us humans that can not and shall not be taken away from us.

The first right is life. This means the government or anyone else for that matter cannot take my life away. Murder is illegal. This even goes for the government. The government can never kill me. I think we can all agree on this one. However, this right to life does not mean the right to a "fair life" or a "healthy life". This should be left to the individual. In all honesty life isn't fair. We all want a beautiful house on the beach, but there is only a limited amount of space for that. If you find yourself in a large group and you need to find a place to eat, try finding a place where everyone can be happy and feel like the place was fair. (I understand everyone loves Taco Bell and would love to go there, but you get the point) I've found myself in just a group of 5 and have a tough time finding a place to eat for everyone. Especially if you throw in a vegetarian or someone like that in the mix. In addition we should not expect to be giving a healthly life. Since the beginning of humans the poor usually die earlier than the rich. It's just not fair, but its reality. It's a very said story to see a person without health insurance get hit by a car and not be able to pay for the medicine. It's very sad. But the issue is if that person has a natural Right to that medicine. And for that I must say no. Others may disagree. And I welcome the comments, but I can't see a healthy life as a natural right.

Size of Government

When has there been a time when small government failed?

When has there been a time when big government failed?

Nature's Liberty

What do you think are the natural rights of humans? Rights that can never be taken away from each and ever human.