Blog Stage 8

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?

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.

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.

Partisanship and Iron Triangles: Not for the public at large

Partisanship, or more precisely our current two-party system of partisanship, is flawed and needs to be changed. Other practices of Congress are also causing problems. Let me elaborate. Partisanship is definitely not what the founding fathers of this country wanted when they wrote the Constitution. As we learned in our textbooks, James Madison exhorted in his Federalist Paper #10 the principles of factionalism as fundamental to and inherent in human nature but also detrimental to the formation of a true and successful democratic system. Woodrow Wilson even proclaimed the Office of The President to be “above parochial or partisan interest”, AMGOV 2010 edition, pg. 300.


So how can we possibly be following the founding fathers wishes and be practicing a true and successful democracy when we have two leading parties (factions) rather than the multitude that Madison called for, deciding the fate of our nation’s politics? To answer truthfully: we can’t. Party lines and commitment to the party often call for members of Congress, at both national and state level, to vote against the wishes of their people. The fact that a legislator must be more concerned with whether or not to vote as he is directed by his party leaders rather than by what is truly in the best interests of his constituency is one example of the deficiencies in our current system.

Lobbying and the revolving door practices are another big issue. The iron triangle concept that links economic and political aims directly, while leaving the general population out of consideration, is terrible. The companies who have the money pay for campaigns to obtain a firm hold on the coattails of key legislators. Legislators who often feel inclined to repay the favor by enacting legislation in favor of the same industry or business interest. Some of these legislators even own business interests in the area they write the legislation for. It is necessary for these legislators to have knowledge of the industry they write laws for so that they don’t hurt that division of the economy, but a personal interest in it? That would leave the most responsible and dedicated public servant tempted to work in their own favor, by passing laws that allow for them to make the most money in their private lives let alone someone of weaker convictions.

Together with higher business interests, and powered by partisan goals, legislators have formed a wealthy elite that is corrupted by personal interest in many of the laws they make, disconnected from the common citizen, and showing less than due regard for the public interest.

Blog Stage 4: Another Critique

This critique is in line with participation topic #2 regarding the decline of newspapers. Apparently the FTC, in a bid to support the waning media, put forth proposals for levying fees on some blogs, other online news services, and taxing a number of electronic devices which can be used to access the internet and consume media. The revenue generated form these proposed fees and taxes would be distributed to the media companies as a means of supporting them. This speaks not just to the media industry but also to the issue of government involvement in the economy and where the line should be drawn on such matters. There is an editorial on the blog Free Republic that discusses this proposed media rescue measure.


The author is obviously trying to connect with a more conservative audience. The entire article carries a tone that is disapproving of government involvement in economic affairs. In this particular instance, I think the author has a good point. The media industry (at least circulated, printed medium) is declining because there is not enough demand to support the supply. It doesn’t need to be upheld, it should be allowed to follow the course that technological advances and changing US culture have destined for it: Diminution. There is no need for government agencies to step in and rescue it.

The evidence the author uses to support his/her point, however, is a bit sketchy. It’s circumstantial, and the author interprets it incorrectly in my opinion. This proposal was not a bill that was nearly passed on the Congressional Floor. This appears to be a product of one government agency (the FTC) exploring the possibility and feasibility of instituting such fees and taxes as a means of advising a Senate Judiciary Committee. This is a proposal in its’ infancy, being put forth by a tiny group. It would have to pass through committee, make it to the Senate Floor, pass the Floor, go to the House, pass through House committee, pass the House Floor, make it through almost certain conference committee if it even made it that far, and then also survive Presidential approval. I think it’s ridiculous to feel threatened by a proposal so far away from becoming reality and so obviously likely to be struck down by many others in Congress.

I do agree that this proposal is reaching too far. A poll, in the Washington Times article this editorial is linked to, shows that ¾ of people questioned also disagreed with this proposal. The fact is, we have the Congressional system set up to negate (at least hopefully negate) such single-minded and narrow-interest bills. If such a proposal actually reached the President’s desk, I would be greatly concerned, but not until then. While I appreciate the fervor with which this conservative author proclaims their indignation at such a proposal, he/she also blows the magnitude of it up to absurd levels as if to say: “look at me!” Further consideration of the entire situation could have resulted in a more respectful and mature disagreement with the issue.

Blog Stage 3: A critique

Have you heard of the mosque proposed to be built on the site of the Trade Towers? It has caused quite a controversy. Robert Wright put together an opinion piece in the New York Times about it.

For the most part, I agree with his point of view. He is very cirtical of the officials in New York and their snap reactions to the mosque. He paints them in a very judgmental and narrow-minded light. I think there is a larger emotional picture that he has failed to take into account though. If the Islamic world wants to show that it is in large part a peaceful group of people, that's fantastic. Outreach from Islam to Christianity and vice versa would be a huge step to resolving global issues. Putting a mosque on the site of the Trade Towers however, is the wrong answer. The intent may be (and in all likelihood is) good, but that would be like pouring salt into an exposed, gaping wound then washing it out with alcohol. It's too large and ambitious a step with 9/11 only 9 years behind us and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still costing the lives of US citizens on foreign soil. I agree with the New York officials as far as the construction of the mosque. Don't do it. Not right now.

Still, Mr. Wright is correct in his critique of those same officials' reactions and opinions and their reasoning for them. I would like to point out a few facts regarding Christianity and Islamic faiths. Islam has more followers than Christianity, followers who believe just as strongly as devout Christians that what they believe is correct. Absolutely and undeniably correct beyond any question or doubt whatsoever. So if we base our views of what is right and wrong on majority vote (a core American tenet), then Islam carries the day. Secondly, there are as many radical, even terrorist Christian cells as there are Islamic. Just this year, raids were carried out in 3 different states on Christian extremist groups who were planning attacks on Islamic people. The existence of these groups and their goals are eerily reminiscent of the ideology of the Trade Tower attackers albeit on a much smaller scale. The KKK is also a Christian group, and they committed atrocities for decades without reprisal on US territory even. My point is that we should not blanket Islam as an evil religion. 99 percent of the Muslim/Islamic world is peaceful and wants it to stay that way. It's the extremist groups we need to concern ourselves with. Both Islamic and Christian.

In summary, I believe the officials in New York absolutely have the right to disallow the construction of the mosque on the Trade Towers site and should do so. It would do them well, however, to step back from their anger and narrow views and reconsider their conception of Islam. Mr. Wright does an excellent job of exposing the ridiculousness of some of their reasoning and points out the need for deep cultural change within our nation, especially it's Christian culture.

The Cost Of War

The US has channeled hundreds of billions of dollars into both Iraq and Afghanistan, with a combined total of over 1 trillion dollars. The notion of rebuilding the nations we have invaded and leaving them with a government that can protect and sustain itself is noble. Perhaps one of the noblest. Granted, such an undertaking is self-serving to the United States. Nevertheless, it yields the potential to do the populace at large of those countries some great good in the long run. It's not an easy job though. It's not going to be over for a long time. It's going to cost more giant sums of money in the years ahead. Is the spending of all that money to accomplish that good deed worth the social cost in the United States? Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC, makes the case that it's not even feasible. All the money that has been poured into Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent at home. We could be rebuilding and repairing our infrastructure that has been crumbling, tending to some of our own social issues and urban distress. Our economy is frayed, China holds enough bonds against the US that if they cashed them in all at once, we would be toppled, our national debt is astronomical. If my personal finances were in such a mess, I would cut back my extracurricular activities and take care of my family first. At least until my checkbook balanced. What do you think? Is our national safety at such a large risk that we need to jeopardize our way of life by spending more time and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or should we pull back, defend our borders, and let some parts of the world tend to themselves for a while? Rachel Maddow states her case plainly, and the other link will take you to an article in Time which outlines some areas where the Obama administration could, and possibly SHOULD spend 1 trillion dollars. Both give some good insight and provoke some critical thinking.

The Declaration & The Constitution...

Were written by individuals who were profoundly influenced by the works of individuals such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Both Locke and Hobbes were philosophers, amongst other professions, who believed strongly in the use of reason and logic. Though their views differed in several ways, neither believed in blind faith. They did agree that there is a "Creator", an unknown entity, unknown force, unknown cause that brought our reality into existence. The "God of Nature". They did not, however, believe in religion - of any kind. They promoted the acceptance and acknowledgement of that which we do not, and perhaps cannot, know. They promoted critical thinking and the formation of social institutions not based on religion. Knowing that our founding fathers were heavily influenced by these beliefs, are we actually a Christian nation? Is that what the founding fathers wanted? Would it be appropriate to declare an official national religion? Or would that go against the intentions of our founding fathers and subvert the entire premise of freedom that we pride ourselves on here in the United States?