This post is a comment on another post from 'Living In An Individualistic Culture'.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Gay/lesbian couples should be allowed to marry and receive all the same protections and benefits that heterosexual couples are afforded. Your statements about the separation of church and state are spot-on. Every argument I have heard against homosexual couples is founded on religious beliefs stating that homosexuality is sinful and will erode the moral fiber of our nation. Is that Christian moral fiber? Muslim moral fiber? Atheist moral fiber? (Do atheists have moral fiber? I hope so) I was under the impression that moral fiber in this country rested in your respect for and compassionate treatment of others and not in your beliefs. Other arguments claim that a child who is raised by homosexual parents will turn out damaged or sinful. I want to know how. Does the simple act of two men or two women declaring love for each other and establishing a household together create a sin-storm that shoots bolts of evil into the world? I haven't seen it. I know for a fact though that many terrible criminals considered to be of the lowest moral fiber came from homes with heterosexual parents. And many of them considered themselves to be Christian. So obviously an individual's beliefs and the sexual orientation of their parents are not the key determining factors of their character and their value to society. Would the devout people out there please succumb to reason and at least consider some common sense in regards to this topic?
Friday, August 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Campaign Reform: Blog Stage 7
Campaign and Party reform is a controversial issue on many levels. I will spell out just a couple of the downsides to our current system and offer some thoughts on how to fix it.
First: Partisanship. The division between Democrat and Republican is so limiting. It often reduces legislative voting and discussion to a two-sided shouting match rather than a debate with several voices of input all communing until accord is reached. We should not shortchange ourselves by relying on just two major Parties. A candidate should not have to identify with any party to be considered for office. The purpose of elected officials is supposed to be the interests of their constituency, not their Party agenda. We need to effect change on that front.
Second: Campaign spending. The steady trend is that the candidate who spends the most money nearly always wins the election. This does not ensure that the most qualified candidate wins the seat, just the richest or most well-connected. Then, when elected, that candidate often rewards the interests who donated the money that won them the election. Again, an elected official’s interests ought to be those of their constituency, not who gave them the most money during the campaign.
So how do we fix these problems? In a blog on the New York Times and this TIME article from 1974, public financing is discussed. It would seem, based on these two sources that public financing is something the public is interested in. It would also seem that incumbents, particularly conservative incumbents shy away from public financing because they fear that it would give an advantage to progressive, liberal challengers who can motivate a larger voter population. What I gather from that is that the US as a nation desires change but is too comfortable with the status quo to put forth the effort and effect some change. And since at least 1974, relying on that complacency has allowed the two party system to survive with private financing, favoring the incumbent and wealthier candidates heavily. The call goes out then for the voting population to speak out and force reform. If we truly want to eliminate the two party system, then we need to replace it. And that’s where things get difficult. That’s a lot of work to change an entire political system, especially one as deeply entrenched as our current one.
What would a new system look like with public financing? If all private financing were banned? I think it would level the playing field tremendously, with each candidate being forced to rely on their convictions and their abilities rather than their Party to support them. With equal time and money devoted to each candidate, merit would be evaluated in a much more equitable fashion and we would certainly achieve a much closer approximation of the public opinion. There should even be a standardized set of information, dossiers of each candidate published and distributed through all the media channels. Voting records should be made public, for the population at large to see. Expose the candidates in all their glory, or infamy, as the case may be. Let their reputations and records speak for them.
The one large drawback I can see, and I wish I had an answer to, is candidate selection. It’s the process of candidate selection where there will certainly be some Party-mongering and interest group involvement. I don’t know of a way to regulate the candidate selection. Perhaps a presidential tournament. Start with say, 64 candidates, and those who have the most votes move on to the round of 32, then the sweet 16, and so on. Such an approach might motivate voters and keep them engaged. Coupled with a publicly regulated and financed campaign process, it might be one of the most educated elections yet. Or it could yield incredible voter fatigue. There are certainly large kinks to be worked out in order to build a successful publicly financed campaign system, but I think the benefit would outweigh the cost in the long run.
First: Partisanship. The division between Democrat and Republican is so limiting. It often reduces legislative voting and discussion to a two-sided shouting match rather than a debate with several voices of input all communing until accord is reached. We should not shortchange ourselves by relying on just two major Parties. A candidate should not have to identify with any party to be considered for office. The purpose of elected officials is supposed to be the interests of their constituency, not their Party agenda. We need to effect change on that front.
Second: Campaign spending. The steady trend is that the candidate who spends the most money nearly always wins the election. This does not ensure that the most qualified candidate wins the seat, just the richest or most well-connected. Then, when elected, that candidate often rewards the interests who donated the money that won them the election. Again, an elected official’s interests ought to be those of their constituency, not who gave them the most money during the campaign.
So how do we fix these problems? In a blog on the New York Times and this TIME article from 1974, public financing is discussed. It would seem, based on these two sources that public financing is something the public is interested in. It would also seem that incumbents, particularly conservative incumbents shy away from public financing because they fear that it would give an advantage to progressive, liberal challengers who can motivate a larger voter population. What I gather from that is that the US as a nation desires change but is too comfortable with the status quo to put forth the effort and effect some change. And since at least 1974, relying on that complacency has allowed the two party system to survive with private financing, favoring the incumbent and wealthier candidates heavily. The call goes out then for the voting population to speak out and force reform. If we truly want to eliminate the two party system, then we need to replace it. And that’s where things get difficult. That’s a lot of work to change an entire political system, especially one as deeply entrenched as our current one.
What would a new system look like with public financing? If all private financing were banned? I think it would level the playing field tremendously, with each candidate being forced to rely on their convictions and their abilities rather than their Party to support them. With equal time and money devoted to each candidate, merit would be evaluated in a much more equitable fashion and we would certainly achieve a much closer approximation of the public opinion. There should even be a standardized set of information, dossiers of each candidate published and distributed through all the media channels. Voting records should be made public, for the population at large to see. Expose the candidates in all their glory, or infamy, as the case may be. Let their reputations and records speak for them.
The one large drawback I can see, and I wish I had an answer to, is candidate selection. It’s the process of candidate selection where there will certainly be some Party-mongering and interest group involvement. I don’t know of a way to regulate the candidate selection. Perhaps a presidential tournament. Start with say, 64 candidates, and those who have the most votes move on to the round of 32, then the sweet 16, and so on. Such an approach might motivate voters and keep them engaged. Coupled with a publicly regulated and financed campaign process, it might be one of the most educated elections yet. Or it could yield incredible voter fatigue. There are certainly large kinks to be worked out in order to build a successful publicly financed campaign system, but I think the benefit would outweigh the cost in the long run.
Monday, August 9, 2010
My Comments: Marijuana
This is a comment I left on our colleague's blog "Read My Lips"
I believe that we should simply legalize and tax marijuana nation-wide. My personal preference as a non-smoker would be for marijuana and cigarettes and cigars and pipes to just disappear altogether. However, I don't live in an ideal world, I live in a real world. Realistically, marijuana is no worse for you than alcohol. Probably safer in most regards. Yet alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. It truly makes no sense. The reality is that people like their poisons. If you're familiar with how successful Prohibition wasn't, and to what incredible lengths people went to produce and smuggle alcohol into the country illegally, then you know how effective the ban on marijuana is right now. In fact, I would even make the claim that the illegalization of marijuana fosters an environment of crime which compounds the issue rather than mitigates it. Legal marijuana would grow a large crop of economic development and a considerable stream of tax revenue for the federal government while putting many criminal distributors out of business. According to this CNBC article, marijuana is an industry in it's own right. Conservative estimates put the marijuana industry at $10 billion dollars. That's 10,000,000,000 dollars. On the low end. Currently, the US government spends millions of dollars fighting marijuana traffic. According to this article, the popular consensus is that the US government could stand to earn 20 billion dollars in tax revenue in a legal marijuana market. Given that we already have legal alcohol and tobacco, why fight the legalization of marijuana so hard? Let's capitalize on it. We're hurting. We could use the stimulus to our economy.
I believe that we should simply legalize and tax marijuana nation-wide. My personal preference as a non-smoker would be for marijuana and cigarettes and cigars and pipes to just disappear altogether. However, I don't live in an ideal world, I live in a real world. Realistically, marijuana is no worse for you than alcohol. Probably safer in most regards. Yet alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. It truly makes no sense. The reality is that people like their poisons. If you're familiar with how successful Prohibition wasn't, and to what incredible lengths people went to produce and smuggle alcohol into the country illegally, then you know how effective the ban on marijuana is right now. In fact, I would even make the claim that the illegalization of marijuana fosters an environment of crime which compounds the issue rather than mitigates it. Legal marijuana would grow a large crop of economic development and a considerable stream of tax revenue for the federal government while putting many criminal distributors out of business. According to this CNBC article, marijuana is an industry in it's own right. Conservative estimates put the marijuana industry at $10 billion dollars. That's 10,000,000,000 dollars. On the low end. Currently, the US government spends millions of dollars fighting marijuana traffic. According to this article, the popular consensus is that the US government could stand to earn 20 billion dollars in tax revenue in a legal marijuana market. Given that we already have legal alcohol and tobacco, why fight the legalization of marijuana so hard? Let's capitalize on it. We're hurting. We could use the stimulus to our economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)