We must cease this senseless war on marijuana and this unconscionable undermining of marriage law. The opposition (primarily) comes from the religious sector who attempts to make the morality argument. In both cases the proposal set forth is that both activities are moral evils and as such any measure to prevent (including willful law breaking not civil disobedience) them is considered heroic. The fault lies in that the arguments are based on appeals to emotion and authority, not logically rational discussion. Indeed on these issues it would appear that there are gross gaps and severe lacking of any rational reason for prohibition and mountains of impartial evidence on why both activities, under the social contract theory law is based on, should be permitted. It is the willingness of the populace to buy into the fallacies of the prohibitionists and the willful blindness of the consequences inherent in allowing those arguments to hold sway at the ballot box. We must, to progress socially and individually, see past these scam arguments to the facts and reason and carry that into the voting booth. Thoughts or comments?
Tag Archives: Constitution
For Discussion:
Here is a recent article and the discussion I contributed. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts (insightful and intelligent discussion please):
James Bianco ·
The military offers themselves in defense of their country as patriots and they are well compensated for it. My family is composed of nothing but veterans and anyone who serves this country expecting laud, or special treatment or for any reason other than a humble desire to protect freedom is not a patriot, just a mercenary who doesn’t deserve to wear the uniform. Sailors who quibble because they couldn’t get into a club and then demand additional freebies because of it are no different than the mafia offering protection for a price. True patriots fight because America and her freedoms are worth fighting for, not for glory and gold. Thank you for those who don’t need fleet week, only their conviction. To the rest, please learn real service or get out. I doubt General Washington, General Lee, General Grant or even General Eisenhower cared about fleet week or any bar turning them down.
An aside, Dress Blues are only appropriate in certain situations, this being one of them, and currently the formal tuxedo and ball gown are the highest form of dress according to civilian etiquette viz Emily Post. The bouncer was in the wrong but the sailor’s cousin was even more so. Dishonoring the uniform with a petty squabble trumps a guy doing his job who was simply misinformed.
As to the navy officer suing, under what area would she sue? She was not discriminated against, it was a universal dress code. Hurt feelings don’t fall under tort. And there is no precedence or statute entitling the military to get into any civilian establishment without permission, there’s even an amendment prohibiting quartering. It was just a misunderstanding that if the bouncer were fired or suspended for HE could sue for wrongful termination. Get over it, the hotel has already done more than it should have. An apology would have sufficed. Serve to protect, expecting praise is serving only yourself. To those who truly serve out of dedication, I am eternally grateful. I will not thank extortionates or their apparently abundant supporters.
Feel free to call me the names I anticipate, though I would rather hear well thought arguments if you disagree. After all, intelligent discourse is the only way I can evaluate and correct my ideas as necessary.
Biff S.-
The sailor probably had to wear the uniform for fleet week – it’s a big PR thing for the Navy – believe me, most don’t like having to wear their uniforms in public outside of duty as the uniforms get dirty easily, especially the whites and they aren’t that easy to properly maintain -I don’t think they wanted freebies, they just wanted to go where any other civilian could go – I don’t think most military members except special treatment, they just want equal treatment, they don’t want to be penalized by the Country they serve for wearing the uniform – there are those who only signed up for the education benefits, etc, but usually those people drop out when they find out they have to be deployed to a war zone – you don’t know how many people popped positive on drug tests once a deployment was announced – As far as true patriots of the past – if we had lived during those times, it would be different – Grant was called a butcher of his own men and was accused of being a drunk, a subaltern, and worse – Lee owned Slaves as did Washington -in fact he used teeth from his slaves to construct his dentures (he tried ivory, and many other things) – Eisenhower had a mistress during the war and was never a combat soldier, he was always a desk jockey – but time makes heroes, saints and patriots of many. But you do make a point about true patriotism vs self interest. As a retired military member myself, sometimes I fall into the trap of being bitter about the chronic unemployment and homelessness of vets while at the same time, many of the same people who deny entry to a military person in uniform or refuse to hire veterans will still self righteously say “thank you for your service” That is the kind of thing I am against – but well meaning people that say it is fine – I should have made that more clear.
Reply · Unlike · 1 · 19 hours ago
Jake W. High School Student
jimmie – AND how Well do you think that our military members are Compensated?
Research the Top Pay for a Top Admiral or General.
James Bianco ·
Biff S. Excellent points and this incident probably did not initially involve self-interest, but due to its escalation and the posting of this article it shows a demand for more than what was due and will inspire less scrupulous members of the forces to take advantage of a uniform that should symbolize patriotism but will become a tool of capitalism at its worst. You are correct about both the arrogant self-righteousness of those who can’t appreciate sacrifice and duty but claim to know what service was really provided as well as the horrible way we treat our vets. That change must come from the people but too few of them know or care (when I research an article it can take me days to find sufficient info on vets and previous engagements that were not popular, just to write and try to raise awareness and educate on how many people are living in squalor and who gave decades of their life in service), and even less active duty know or care because they are young and are not thinking of the future. I think we are on the same page for the most part, though I know this story will only serve to divide and no real conversation will come of it. Though many things have changed over the centuries, one truth remains- avarice will reign until real conversation and real action happens. I pray it doesn’t happen to my parents, but my father was a Senior Master Sergeant in the Air Force and he was an Aircraft Mechanic-it is still difficult to find a job. You’d think 30yrs of service would mean something at least in education and experience. Again, change has to come from the citizenry. My concern is that this one escalation will divide people even more and self-interest will override patriotism. Thank you for your points, it’s nice to hear a good argument that is well-thought out and not just some bigot assuming I hate America!
James Bianco ·
Just a reminder to everyone, Memorial Day does NOT remember active duty, it only commemorates those who died while in service. Please quit using Memorial Day as a reason for any action, good or bad, at, from, towards, or near those who are still alive and currently serving. We honor them to honor them, not because it’s Memorial Day.
Andy P. University of Florida Professor
James, that is by far the best first paragraph I have ever read in any comment section.
The “humble desire to protect freedom” is honor enough in itself. Thank you.
I am sooo tired of the fake patriotism (thank you for your service) tossed like cheap confetti at airports.
If you’re so thankful, go volunteer at the local VA or homeless shelter.
James Bianco ·
Jake W. I have, and when one adds in exchange discounts, value of Tricare compared to market insurance, access to facilities and the cost of similar access for a private citizen, value of retirement, quality of actual healthcare available versus quality of average citizen healthcare, educational opportunities, death benefits to families, availability of base housing, training, etc. you can come up with a real compensation value (compensation is the value of average pay plus the value of any and all benefits both actual and in-kind). Compared to a police officer or national guard member (the DOL’s comparative occupations) the compensation of most NCOs is far above. Take in to consideration the current average compensation of the citizens the military is designed to protect and even a private looks comparatively wealthy. That is not to say they are but at least a private can live on their salary, someone who works even overtime on minimum wage can not. Ultimately it boils down to members of the military volunteer to serve to protect freedom, the compensation should reflect the danger they are put in relative to the degree of danger (and based on need) others experience (physical, psychological, and social). It should also reflect the public’s perception of their value. FYI pay for any member of the military will vary by allowances, special skills, hardship, combat pay, and any number of other factors. The only “military” (he’s a civilian) pay that is set is the Commander-in-Chief who receives roughly $569,000 directly from the tax coffers, he is not the highest paid, as you requested.
So the short answer is, given all known factors, the average pay and benefits of the military is a reflection of the public’s value, can sustain a family during service, provides more than comparable occupations, and is more than the public’s value on itself. Active duty is well compensated for the task of being a patriot, poorly for a mercenary, and the question misses the point of the entire conversation. The sarcasm was nicely done though.
James Bianco ·
Spot on Andy, personally I like Habitat for Humanity as my volunteering of choice. We see a lot of young vets struggling to make it but with that military grit to never say die. I am always impressed with how they keep their heads up despite circumstances that would crush the rest of us.
PLEASE COMMENT:
The Neighbors
So to create art I just need to do what, in the writing world, would amount to at best plagiarism and at worst/most current series (i.e. random photos in black and white and the infamous “The Neighbors” series) lacking in any semblance of creativity, method (apart from post-production apologies), or even remote interest (apart from those who would call anything “art” without distinguishing Rembrandt from an amateur photographer who learned photoshop and random camera settings and got lucky enough to find an attorney who believes ALL photos are speech, presumably even child pornography). Not everything is art, not everyone with a camera is an artist, and even if he had produced either, not all art or any type of speech is supposed to be protected without some common sense restrictions (which unfortunately the court failed to provide).
Thus no crying “FIRE” in a crowded theater or producing work that is neither original or ethically created (e.g. he could have easily walked across the road and asked for permission, the fact that he avoided even thinking this way, i.e. that his “subjects” were people with their own rights and that he was surprised there was controversy over a man peeping through his window to take photos without so much as the common decency to talk to these Neighbors he was purportedly so “fascinated” by, is indicative of his knowledge that he could not get permission so he would just take what he wanted and call it art, AKA theft with a nice big loophole). Even his most “creative” series, “Faggots”, is inconsistent with his thought process in that he DID feel the need to get permission for these photos but not from the families of the criminals he reproduced (presumably a delightful experience for them to have this family history republished in the digital age, so it can now be accessible to all).
In short, when you can be easily classified as a peeping tom, your most labor intensive work is photographing what other people actually DID create (i.e. photographing other people’s forensic work, which were it possible to copyright such work would be illegal plagiarism; as it stands it is simply clearly plagiarized work) or even photographing men in suits (save the money, Walmart will do the same thing cheaper), you are surprised people objected to you doing what you had the courtesy to do in a couple of previous works that were relevant, and you have the remarkable ability to convince people that third rate amateur photography of things that require no special skills, equipment (using a $20 camera I was able to produce a black and white photo of a man in a suit that gave more clarity than his displayed work, in under 10 seconds), conveys no meaning at all on its face (look at “Madonna and Child” and the meaning is clear instantly), or are even interesting until you are told why you SHOULD be impressed, you are indeed an artist. A Con Artist.
An Aside- The attorney and her arguments in court for Svenson are as equally artistic as his work (i.e. she weaseled her way around he law by solely utilizing the loophole of a lack of a clear definition of what “art” is and ensuring her arguments relied solely on the letter, not both the letter and spirit of the law, AKA she got paid quite a bit to fight against those who desire some at least partial privacy, misconstrued words in both case law where she was losing due to the Supreme Court’s rulings against most of her arguments, and statutory tort law which is so ambiguous as to be laughable, a practical joke can be considered a tort). Come on people, not EVERYTHING is art and photography has to be pretty unique to ever qualify as art (the viewer interprets, the artist should never have to explain beyond basic principles of what style used, not meaning. No sane person would fathom a world where the artist, not the participant, defines what is and what isn’t art. The alternative is to equate the people that produce child pornography, this article (cute how the interview gives little in way of useful information, is extremely biased, and requires the reader to investigate every swath of this man’s work), and the poems of every 3rd grader as art, just as meaningful and artistic as Michelangelo, John Locke, and Robert Frost.
“hdc77494” you are absolutely right. Street Photography CAN be artistic; his work was neither Street Photography nor could any rational person (“Faggots” apparently was an amateur and vastly useless, unless producing the Sears or JCPenny catalogue, piece of sociological pseudo-experiment which he was neither qualified to perform or draw ANY conclusions from) think he is an artist unless they have been swayed by his claims and his attorney’s assertion that he really is an artist, so he should be allowed to take pictures which any corporation would have mountains of paperwork to fill out just to look at regular people, with no restrictions, no retractions, no apologies, not even a nod that he had done anything wrong by doing “Neighbors”, just a well-funded lawyer against a family that, because they don’t print pictures of random objects and have no flowery words to describe it as “art” when they photograph other people’s work (in black and white, and for some reason it’s art?) while reaping the monetary benefits thereof, are only modestly represented. Clean and simple, this is not art, it took no skill (by his own admission), it violated privacy unnecessarily and continued to do so, most of it is plagiarism, and his hiring of an attorney who doesn’t have the legal knowledge to make a statement that doesn’t patently say, “I support any photography as art, even highly unethical and/or illegal photography. Oh, and by the way I intend to use this case to make no distinction between Picasso and John Wayne Gayce’s work.” to the press and all of America. So good show both of you, you have taken freedom of speech and turned it into an absolute right, no matter who it infringes upon or who it hurts! By the way, a decent artist would have gotten permission from his NEIGHBORS or at least removed the photos when he found out that his unethical action was causing severe distress due not to morality, but a common set of decent human standards.
Addendum- the argument has been raised that no identifiable faces were shown. The entire exhibit does show profile faces but faces aren’t the ONLY way we identify people. Clothing, the clear picture of the dog, the general knowledge of Svenson’s apartment location, the photos of the particular style of apartment, precedence (Supreme Court ruled numerous times that what happens in one’s own apartment/house/trailer is afforded to the occupant and that invasion by any means, without probable cause or a warrant, is a violation of one’s right to privacy. Reading through the court documents, it is clear that Svenson could afford a more well known and better quality attorney due to his higher income. In other words, the “Neighbors” never really stood a chance against him, thus no further appeal, they cost money!), furnishings, actions commonly performed and the familiarity of the neighborhood (apart from Svenson), and many other factors can easily identify without a face. The names of the neighbors are also a matter of public record due to the suit (minor) and the Svenson generated media attention (major source). Besides, reason would say that one should never capture another’s image, voice, writing, etc. without permission. ALL of that is Intellectual Property and just as one would not want their car used without permission (physical property) and it is a crime to do so; so to would someone want to protect what they and they alone can produce (Intellectual Property). The difference is the laws governing Intellectual property and modern technology are several decades behind the laws governing physical property.
Ref: Svenson Interview
The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
These past few weeks have been rather eventful though hardly novel. A quick review of the best and worst moments might add a little perspective to the pulse of the United States and the world.
The Good: Not unexpectedly the good comes from a change to once dearly treasured (though not backed by solid research) traditions. Oregon, that great trail of a state (sorry, couldn’t resist the old game reference), has elected a bisexual woman to the highest office of the state, Governor. Though the election has long since past, this woman is preparing to enter her first term as the Honorable Governor of the State of Oregon. Whether this is her only term is debatable, but one thing is sure, she is the first person to open up to the press about this highly personal issue (odd how heterosexual people don’t have to justify their qualifications for office with detailed descriptions of their bedroom activities) and to stand behind her clear beliefs (her platform is well-defined, somewhat partisan though no more than anyone else, and was well enumerated to the people prior to the election on numerous occasions). She is the first lawfully elected Governor that has stated she is bisexual and unabashedly stands behind it. (Before I get a note, here is an addendum: Though she was elected as Secretary of State, she assumes her office lawfully and can thus be considered to be elected to the position of Governor, should the Governor resign, die, etc. as part of the Constitution of Oregon which the people retain.)
Why it’s good: In the LGBTQIQ (Political correctness for the recognized orientations- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexed, and Questioning- Intersex includes things like hermaphroditism, gender dysphoria, and other conditions in which the “parts” as it were are not matching up to the gender a person identifies with. The 2 “Q’s” are best left to the experts(PFLAG) to explain.) bisexualism is seen as the “black sheep” as it were of the community. Gays typically view them as closeted homosexuals and heterosexuals view them as simply promiscuous. A cursory search of the social networks can easily confirm this. Currently the United States seems to vacillate between approving and disapproving of these classifications, but that has nothing to do with the good here. The good is that, for once, the system worked precisely as it should: a candidate expressed her viewpoints and plan of action clearly and concisely during the campaign and started her term as Governor with what appears to be an honest and open administration, the people elected her and soon she will assume office, despite the hemming and hawing of the Right wingers across the nation whose argument against her is only her bisexuality (her platform would have been an easier target since it does all the things they don’t want done, but hey, I’m not their strategist). Her being bisexual is something that shows promise for that state, not because of the orientation issue, but because she was honest about her life (as far as is possible for us to know) and was willing to run with a label that has never been widely approved of attached to her. She did not run away, hide an affair (Gay Governor of New Jersey resigned for this), or try to make it look like anything more than what it is nor did she apologize for her being her. This is the good, hope that politicians might see this and take heed, and that we have a Governor willing to run as she is.
The Bad: The bad is probably readily apparent, but with all the terrible things going on it may have gotten lost in the woodwork: Obama’s War Powers Proposal and Congress’s Response. Essentially it seems that the only way Congress will cross Party boundaries is with their desire to do absolutely nothing. The whole story amazed me but can be broken down quite simply: Boehner and other Hawks in Congress requested Obama do something about ISIS (because using their ability to declare war would require work and would inch them closer to the Constitutional powers they are given). Obama, in a bid to have a moderate strategy came up with a vague but more potent version of 2001’s war powers. Republicans and Hawk Democrats complained it was too mild. Democrats and Dove republicans claimed it was too strong. Both agreed to decline the powers and did NOTHING more. They are the only branch that can declare war but for 14 years they have relied on Executive Orders authorizing military action (the Executive’s version of war-in essence it’s all the death of war, but doesn’t pay our soldiers wartime pay, which is substantially larger than current pay and can be roughly equated to hazardous duty pay or overtime, albeit VERY roughly, and as a bonus it doesn’t require Congress to do their job or put their own necks on the chopping block as it were) and the good old-fashioned, tried and true method of “blame someone else so I can get elected again”.
Why it’s bad: Why its bad should be a little evident already and requires little explanation: 1)Congress declares war and there’s a reason for that- the people are represented in Congress (ideally) and since military action of any kind involves ALL of America, the people should at least be consulted prior to sending their sons and daughters to die. 2)War pays more both in the life and death of a soldier as is commensurate with the dangers and risks inherent in war (or ANY military action beyond EXTREMELY limited engagements-2 weeks tops) and the trauma to entire communities when they lose loved ones. It also provides more supplies to our troops and comes with international restrictions like the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Convention that protect our troops and engender world support (and that we are not currently observing). 3)MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS ARE WAR- excepting in certain circumstances (limited engagements that limit exposure). A famous line from Shakespeare says it all, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” or my version, “You can call a turd a life-vest but if you do, I’m never sailing with you!” Take your pick. finally 4)The three branches of government should all work together, checked by their equals through the Constitution, NOT bickering like children, NOT expanding their own powers beyond what they are lawfully or even ethically entitled to, and NOT IGNORING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! It amazes me how Congress didn’t think to go back to their districts, ask the voters what they want (war or not war) and then return to Washington to REPRESENT their constituents. They didn’t even look at the polls, just their own desires. Tho I will not argue it here in full, if a government (which governs by consent of the governed) is ignoring the very people it is duty-bound to protect, it loses its authority to govern.
AND NOW THE UGLY:
The Ugly is a picture everyone should be familiar with, and ashamed of. Vote by your convictions, not Red/Blue, Dems/Reps, N/S or any other reason.
How far we’ve come or “Welcome Back McCarthy”
A little background information: John McCain on CodePink
First a little background information (for those of you who passed 5th grade civics class I apologize for the review; it’s more for our illustrious representatives): The opening to the founding document and the highest law in the land begins with “We the People,” includes numerations of rights assured to the people (including Freedom of Speech and Expression), and has been interpreted by one of our greatest Presidents as meaning a nation, “for the People, by the People, and of the People.” Even our Declaration of Independence describes the fundamental principles on which liberty is founded and includes, in part, a description of legitimate government as being, “Government by consent of the governed,” and assures us of the right to alter or abolish any unjust government that has become so oppressive as to be tyrannical in nature and practice. Above all though, these documents make it clear that the entire purpose of the legislature (state and/or federal) is to listen to the constituency and act according to what the people want (while protecting the minority from abuse).
Now the current way things work: The legislature is elected by infusing commercials with misinformation and relying on the comparatively tiny amount of voters that participate. Once in office, the majority of them rely on “Campaign Contributions” from special interest groups while conveniently ignoring the pleas of their people (or at least the ones without money).
All of this leads me to the group CodePink, a women’s anti-war group that frequents congressional hearings (their right as citizens) and are routinely thrown out for “disruptions” no different than Republican disruptions in a Democratic congress and vice versa. A good deal of them are Mr. McCain’s constituents, yet because of their unpopular opinion, he calls them scum. Sen. Feinstein (D) threw them out of a CIA confirmation hearing because of less than audible disruptions: Audio of Hearing and no Congress or Executive has given credence to this large movement (a very poignant fallback to the difficulties of the Suffragettes).
If the problem is not evident by now, let me spell it out. While I may agree with CodePink and what they are trying to do, that point is irrelevant. I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and many other bigoted groups, but they still have the right to express their opinions (so long as they do not interfere with others self-same rights) and should be heard in the context of their overall populace representation. That is what Freedom of Speech means! I may not like what you say (or I may support it on different levels) but everyone has the right to be heard. Government employees at every level are duty bound to hear and give credence to their citizenry. If they feel it is interrupting their important “business” (you know, bilking the public and so forth), their responsibility would be to offer truly public hearings that would allow those voters to express themselves and give the legislature (Executives and Justices as well) the full picture, regardless of personal opinions.
So let CodePink speak, at the very least, with equal opportunity as the wealthy special interest groups. Their message is sound and agreed with by 66% of American (27% Approve): American Current War Support. And their message is not in least bit unsound: CodePink. Yet the opinions of the citizens (unless they pander and flatter to those with money and/or power) are ignored even though Congress works far less than anyone in any country (not counting their “vacation” which come out of your taxes). To verify, follow this link (the blue days are work days and Congress is paid even when they don’t work): Congress work days and what they spent their time on (bear in mind some activities overlap and were done at the same Time: Congressional Breakdown. This is the President’s priorities (golf is more important than poverty apparently): Presidential time. Finally, the Supreme Court works 5 hours per day(End of October to beginning of June, excluding federal holidays, can choose which cases to accept, recesses frequently and takes an enormous amount of time to be even heard and thus works a maximum of 143 days or 715 total hours: Work days Supreme Court Calculator. The point being that no elected official works enough to even logically say they can’t listen to their constituency.
CodePink deserves to be heard and McCain’s comments are indicative of how Congress feels and by extension how the government feels about our populace. They are so disconnected sitting in their golden mansions an deaf ears that they use the guise of democracy (which we have none nor are we headed towards it again) and placate the people with plenty of gadgets, games, and make sure no one notices the clear violations of the social contract (for example, several wars that are killing our young people in droves but few efforts are being made to change things because as long as we have “Candy Crush” we can ignore our attempt to occupy the world and keep our populace ignorant by reducing education, science, etc.). If we were to educate our young and old people we might understand CodePink, and at least have rational debates on the many viewpoints out there.
I fear, however, that we have past this point. The income divide is too great and the people too indolent to make the changes necessary. I encourage CodePink and any of those who share the beliefs of a free, peaceful, and united nation to join together in arms to set up and defend a nation founded and sealed on truth, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood (sisterhood, etc.). We have been oppressed and insulted by the wealthy rulers long enough, We must join together and exercise our right to revolt: Declaration of Independence. If a new and better nation that listens and addresses your complaints, concerns, ideas, etc. sounds like a place you would want to be a part of, feel free to contact me. If you believe we can save this current United States, please contact me for a rational discourse. I am always looking for new ways of looking at things.
Foundational Documents:
The New Hampshire Rebellion
The idea that the system is broken and needs to be fixed is by no means a new or novel one. Novelty arises in all the ways it could be fixed or should be fixed. To this end one in particular stands out as a plausible, albeit optimistic, way of changing things while still keeping the basic framework intact. Lawrence Lessig is the face of this and similar movements in The New Hampshire Rebellion which endeavors, in a nutshell, to use the loopholes and lack of campaign finance regulation to raise enough money to elect people who will ultimately get rid of those problems thus allowing future congressmen to be a truer representation of the people and therefore willing to pass laws that will address all of the other woes America has. In principle this seems to be a very accurate representation as to the root cause of our social ailments. At the moment, Representatives and Senators both are far richer than their constituency. They are also allowed to accept enormous sums of money from special interest groups which undoubtedly sways their vote on a great many things. This makes the run for Congress far less about platforms and issues and far more about who can pay enough to get their image out there favourably. All of these things are very true and in addressing the central issue of cash flow, the NHR would seem to have nailed it on the head.
Now I am by no means belittling Lawrence Lessig nor am I belittling his intelligence (he is nowhere near a stupid man and has many accomplishments to prove this). I do find fault though with his project in this, he has not accounted for the issues that allow the system to function this way to start with or at least has not underscored their importance. A little thought experiment can help illustrate one of the issues. Let us say that the NHR raises a sufficient amount of money to accomplish their goal (presumably electing at least 51% of both House and Senate and the President or 2/3 of both Houses without the President who are sympathetic to his cause and willing to actually implement it), and let’s say that the money is distributed to the individual candidates and said money is spent on advertising, campaigning, debating, and the whole lot. Then let us think about election day bearing in mind the platform has been campaign finance reform and apply the trends of the last several elections in regards to turnout. A problem should immediately come to mind, i.e. even spending as much or more than the other candidates the actual turnout is still not representative of even half of what the nation wants. Even if it were, it does not represent those who are almost perpetually forbidden to vote (the felons, illegal immigrants, legal immigrants in some places, even just minorities in some communities where they are “discouraged” from voting, etc.). It belies a very powerful idea that no amount of reform can change, i.e. we do not have “government by consent of the governed,” nor can we as long as we remain bound in our own chains and bound again by the immense effort put forth to keep us distracted from those chains.
Voter turnout aside (for that is within the change Lessig proposes) it is exceptionally optimistic to think the wealthy and powerful would stand by and simply let their gravy train be derailed. It is also optimistic to think that by uniting people under one flag that the other issues would be solved. After all, special interest groups do have a role to play in helping to protect the rights of those not able to get into the halls of Congress, they have simply gotten out of hand in their available power. Who is to say that by reforming Congress that it will not need reforming quickly again? After all, the source of power does not change, and even a Congress of this type can not strip money of its power; only the Fed (non-elected) could conceivably do that on any degree.
All this said, Lessig is a brilliant man and his ideas deserve merit, even this one. The issue of campaign finance reform is a vital one, and one that should have been reviewed long ago. It is simply too optimistic to think that the broken system can be fixed with the broken system. It is like hammering a nail in with a nail. Perhaps at one time if this issue had been addressed in this manner and if the people of America still had the time to wait for this change to happen would this be a realistic goal. The simple fact of the matter is that the system has given itself over to despotism and additional delays will only cause more unnecessary suffering. Now is the time for action, and Lessig is a valuable asset to that action, but the current plan as it stands simply won’t work. Something a little more drastic is required.
Senate Intelligence Committee Report On Torture or Nuremberg Denied
The recently released report from the Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA’s activities is by no means a surprise, at least not to anyone who had any common sense about what goes on at secret jails, and at Gitmo. It is, of course, a very disturbing account but from the record appears to rely very heavily on the CIA’s own documentation and records of what happened (and presumably what continues to happen according to Brennan’s testimony and media clips, but more on that later) and lends little room for doubt on the truthfulness of the report. It is also not surprising that Brennan avoids the use of the word “torture” like the plague, evades questions on his confirmation hearing, and accuses the Democrats on the committee of exaggerating what happened (bear in mind he offers no details on their side of the story, he just says the Committee failed to interview them. This is of course the sentiment shared by Fox”News” but they appear to be so adamantly against Democrats, independents, and essentially anyone who isn’t a bigoted and hypocritical WASP that it would be remiss for them not to enjoy torturing the nation with their broadcasts), after all if he admitted it he and his associates would be guilty of a host of war crimes and self-preservation does not cease at the basic needs level; he undoubtedly enjoys his enormous paycheck and luxurious lifestyle and would be willing to lie to the nation and he world on what is going on. The CIA is, by nature, an organization of deceptions and could not exist without them. It is not even surprising that the CIA, Republicans, and conservatives in general have accused the Democrats of drawing attention away from important issues like Obamacare (just to keep up torture falls below a flawed healthcare bill on the scale of importance of things to address in any substantial way according to this logic. And for the record, half of the committee were Republicans so…) and have rationalized what they did as being necessary to the war on terror, simply invoking the name 9/11 for a rationale while failing to provide proof of the validity of the argument, after all if they cooperated then they wouldn’t continue to get paid for doing nothing, and providing real proof for magnifying exponentially a comparatively minor event is hard work. It is even not surprising (though paradoxically so) that our current president has only offered an “apology” if it could even be called that, for the actions Brennan denies, Cheney admits, and Congress has provided ample proof of, after all the Nazis did not willingly come to Nuremberg. What is surprising is this:
1) The American people don’t seem to really care about any of this and in the last election sided with its perpetrators because of their heavy use of 9/11 as a beacon for the moronic voters who seem to believe that this event is new (Following 1776 the British repeatedly invaded America, killing many more true patriots and innocent people on any given day than 9/11. Any of the battles of the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Texas War of Independence, Civil War, etc. killed more people, had more relevant context, and overall were far more important.), important, or even something we had never experienced before (Pearl Harbor-Kamikaze pilots we were not at war with attacked American soil and thrust us into a war that we managed with less technology, fewer troops, and less international aid to wrap up in less than half the time of our current “wars” and with the bonus of a boom afterwards. Or how about the Oklahoma City bombing, or even the previous attack on the Twin Towers?)
2) Congress seems decidedly partisan on this issue, which for some reason seems ok with the tiny portion of voters that turn out to any election (~28%). It turns out how you differentiate between torture and “Enhanced Interrogation” is whether you are a Democrat or Republican.
And finally:
3) Despite every nation but France, including the entirety of the United Nations, finding the report and response reprehensible, and despite every nation on the face of the earth just generally disliking America and its administration, we still think the system works on any level and will likely pass on the consequences to our kids. Apparently no one has thought of the one thing we need; it is the same thing we needed over 200 years ago under a different kind (but same substance) of despot: Revolution.
Feel free to engage in thoughtful discussion of this topic, only ignorant harassment will be moderated.
Background:
Republican Response to Senate Report
Politicians Responses to Report
US Casualties of Wars/Engagements
Psychologists Who Created US Torture Tactics
Finally an update from me!
It may seem hard to believe but it took me quite a long time to decide on how to write this piece. My disgust for the current state of US affairs aside I am above all a patriot and loyal to the Constitution as it was written (bureaucracy, immunities (both judicial and sovereign), and way too much “judicial review” removed). I am not, however, loyal to the misinterpretation we call our current government. Mexico is a case in point. We are terribly concerned with an immigration threat that while real is less of a threat and more of a nuisance. We are obsessed with the states that want to govern themselves. We believe that everyone is a terrorist who has simply committed a crime, no matter how small. And worst of all we build our lives around what is most publicized, not what is true (Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Opera, and Good Morning America dictate everything from our purchases and our filtered news to our mind and bodies). Case in point is the trip I took to Mexico and what I uncovered there. The time I had in Mexico was only a full working day yet it was very educational. Without going more than a few yards from the boat, one can fill one’s purse, messenger bag, or even a plain old paper bag with all kinds of “goodies” albeit within schedule IV and below (this includes antibiotics which are like candy it seems but it also includes the controlled substance Soma, a powerful and dangerous muscle relaxant). Go past the initial gate and into Mexico proper and you can literally write down your pharmaceutical order, as it were, and have almost anything filled. Finally what you can’t find at the legitimate pharmacy is available for a price if one looks enough like a tourist trying to get a quick fix, simply wait to be approached.
Now one may ask how all of this is relevant. What is the real threat? It is true that on return to the states I passed through no detector and only had to give my word on a declaration to customs that I had nothing to declare (which was true for me but for anyone smuggling would have been the only thing they had to do to get anything back into the states). For all this though, I would not recommend an increase in TSA, simply a reassessment of what really is a threat. However minor this must be it is a very real threat that should be dealt with appropriately (ideally diplomatically). It should not under any means though be dealt with out of proportion. This threat, as should all threats, be dealt with a much as it genuinely disrupts US health and should not be dealt with outside of the powers granted (not created by the government) in the Constitution. When the government fails to do so or acts beyond its lawful powers and non-violent means have failed, any means must be used to restore a government that is constitutional. The people always have the right to assert their end of the social contract, it is a question therefor of whether we have the courage to do so.
That is my update, look forward to getting back on the ball!
How the Judiciary Failed us today both in Utah and in the Supreme Court
It is curious how the Mormons, whose educational system is less than reputable, and who still maintain a doctrine of polygamy could be so sly. Calling upon one of the few Justices whose ignorance is only outweighed by her inappropriate mixing of her religious beliefs with civil law, the State of Utah (one could hardly argue that it is anything less than a state whose official, but unofficial, religion is Mormonism. A story, by the way that’s good for a laugh if one is up to it, but I digress.) asked Justice Sotomayor for an emergency stay halting all gay marriages until the District Court of Appeals rules whether Gay marriage is constitutional. She, being the ever prudent jurist (who has apparently forgotten that the Court has already ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional) decided to grant the stay until the Appeals court decides. Thankfully, the Appeals Court judge actually was paying attention when the DOMA decision was handed down (I believe Ms. Sotomayor was having a mild stroke that month and just signed the dissent to satisfy her HEAVILY religious and conservative lobbyists-follow her paper trail and it reads like Jerry Falwell’s memoirs) placed the ruling under a sort of Fast-Track. So what can we draw from this? The Judicial system was created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to handle disputes when the law is unclear or outright broken. Contrary to Ms. Sotomayor and several other judges’ opinions, it was NOT created to impede the progress of law (until AFTER an initial ruling and then it should not interfere until it reverses that ruling), not to create laws, and certainly not to stop something that has stood numerous appeals and affects only one group of people (gays) in a positive way. Judges, and especially Justices, continue to build their power, issuing their own “executive orders” as it were (stays, injunctions, etc.) and issuing them based only on personal preference, not any educated interpretation of the law. We have seen this happen time and again in famous cases like Brown v. The Board of Education (Stays on the decision to integrate were issued until the Supreme Court could get their grubby mits on it, depriving blacks of what was their right at the time of the stays, as an appeals court had ruled). What is worse is that if we dislike the President and his executive orders, we can impeach him. We cannot impeach sitting Judges, even when they are so old and senile that their decisions are ignored by the others at best, but still become part of case law. We can only wait until they all die and then elect a President to place competent jurists on the bench, and elect a senate that will confirm them.
In short, doesn’t it seem that rather than protecting liberty and allowing the courts to rule in their jurisdiction (Ms. Sotomayor’s decision was WELL outside of the powers enumerated in the US Constitution), our courts have become places where the richer your lawyer, the better your chances, and the more you belong to whatever sociological group the judge does, the better your chances of winning? Does justice rule in our courts? What do you think?
Part II: The Executive Department of “The Ideal Government”
Our current Executive Branch is bloated and inefficient. Through the guise of regulatory activity, its agencies create their own laws which are separate and above what Congress has enabled them to do. Our own NSA is a perfect example of this. Whether or not they were empowered to do so, they used the Patriot Act to justify the whole-scale spying on US citizens and US allies. They are not alone in their activities as each Department creates for themselves entire structures of regulations which are at best tangential to the original vague laws that authorized their goals. It is my goal to eliminate that red tape through remembering the purpose of the Executive Branch and limiting it to that purpose: to enforce the laws Congress has established. Thus I think the following structure would allow us a far better, and far less greedy Executive Branch.
Article I The Executive Branch
Elections
All elections should be based on the popular vote alone and the Electoral College should be disbanded. It is a hold-over from the days when calculating the popular vote and verifying it was tedious and could leave the nation leaderless if there was a dispute. This is no longer an issue.
The President
The President is the face of our nation, and the commander of our police force. As it stands, he holds powers outside of what the Constitution has given him. The Executive order allows him to create temporary laws and temporary military movements that can have wide-ranging and possibly destructive powers. His appointment of justices and other officers (ambassadors, etc.) even when confirmed by the Senate is an archaic and useless measure that is best left to the people through election. Only the power of veto still serves a purpose, though it is abused for partisan reasons.
The President, under my construction, would have only the power of veto without additional powers approved by congress. As the face of the nation, the President has no business in the budget, no business in moving and commanding troops without permission from congress, and no business issuing executive orders (law-making should be vested solely in one branch, not muddled into many). The President need not appoint anyone as all offices can now be expedited through the election system and chosen by the people. The President should be the bearer of the peoples’ will to other nations and the very essence of what it means to be American. He should be our ambassador to other nations, supervising other ambassadors and ensuring that the image of America is consistent.
He should retain the power of veto with one caveat, all vetoes should be ruled by the Supreme Court as either just or unjust. If a veto is made based upon threats to pass or not pass other legislation the President’s party holds interest in, then the veto is unjust and should be disregarded. If the veto, however, is made based on solid legal theory and holds the interest of the people and not the party, then it should be ruled just and upheld. (Overcoming said veto will be address in the legislative part of this series). The President should be no younger than 25 and no older than 65, should have served in at least 2 other elected positions, and should have attained a Master’s degree or higher. The President is elected for 4 years and may be elected twice. Because of the benefits the members of the Executive Branch receive, they should never be paid more than the minimum wage at the time (this includes ALL members of the Executive Branch)
The Vice-President
The Vice-President should serve as President of the Senate and should hold no other duties apart from serving temporarily as President should the need arise due to death or illness of the President. The VIce-President should be elected separately from the President and meet all the qualifications to be President. The Vice-President should serve at most 2 terms of 4 years
The Line of Succession
Should anything happen to the President, an election should be called as soon as possible to elect another. The Vice-President should serve as President during the interim. THe other lines of succession should remain in place, however all should be temporary until a proper election can take place. No person should assume office simply because of misfortune and all offices should be filled with the choice of the people as soon as possible.
The Cabinet
The President’s Cabinet should stay as small as is necessary to enforce the laws of Congress. They should never have the power to create regulations that serve in any way or in any semblance as law. As will be addressed in the section on the legislature, laws should be sufficient clear and well defined to allow them to be enforced with no additional regulations. Internal regulations (Hiring, firing, etc.) should be permitted. The Secretaries of the Cabinets should be no younger than 30 and no older than 70 and should have attained at least 1 Doctorate in the field they wish to be Secretary of. They should also be elected officials who serve a term of the same length of the President they are elected under.
The Fed
The Fed should be abolished and replaced by an elected regulatory agency.
THe Bureaucracy
The officers and employees of the various cabinets should stay as small as is possible to enforce the law. They are entitled to minimum wage at the time and are hired by the President. Their conduct, whether official or not, is a direct reflection upon the President and any and all actions taken by them should be regarded as actions by President. Their actions, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses as well as those of all federal and state employees should be published for public inspection and their homes and families will be protected by the US Marshals and the State Police.
They must at all times restrict their actions to enforcing the law and must never attempt to interpret it, go around it, use any loopholes in it or any similar action. They must never, without a court order, use secretive techniques on anyone. This includes the military who must abide by civilian law and whose Secretary of Defense must be elected from the highest ranking members of each branch.
Emergency Powers
Upon the vote of 51% of Congress, or by a special election called by the President in which 51% of the nation agrees, the President may, for a specific and exact period determined by the people or Congress, whichever is applicable, take full command of the military for the express purpose of defending the nation against an aggressor.
Removal of an Executive
Should any member of the Executive Branch prove incompetent, or incapable of filling their duties, he or she may be removed upon recommendation of a member of the House, who, upon obtaining at least 51% of their fellow Representatives and 2/3 of their Senators may take said recommendation to the Supreme Court who, after reviewing all the evidence will decide whether or not to issue an order of no confidence. Upon said order the Executive will be removed and an election will take place to replace said officer.
END
This of course is not a perfect design and would require a great deal more discussion to come up with something perfect. The fact of the matter is that the current Executive Branch has taken for themselves powers not intended for them to have. Take for example the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This entire Department was created as a fear reaction to 9/11. We have no need for an entire department to be created to do something many other departments already do. The NSA would be another perfect example. The CIA handles foreign intelligence (and domestic) and the FBI handles domestic concerns (and foreign to some extent). In addition, each branch of the military has intelligence operations. The NSA was created so we could spy on people we weren’t supposed to be spying on with our legitimate means (Geneva Convention, what’s that?). This is the effect of a bloated and misused Executive Branch. We haven’t seen anything of our Vice-President, nor has he been doing his job as President of the Senate, so why are we paying him? Another example. Time after time we can find perfect demonstrations of a fat, bloated, and lazy Executive Branch and a doddering nation unwilling to see that we can make a better way.
Well, let me know what you think and any suggestions to make this design I present to you better. The next segment will be The Legislature.
Welcome Back! Part 1 of “The Ideal Government”
I apologize for the delay but I have been contemplating a solution to the problems inherent in our government. At the moment our government is inefficient, overpaid, not listening to their constituency, spying on their own people as well as their own allies, and has on numerous occasions threatened the very existence of our Union. In the Senate they have misused the power of unlimited debate to simply block the passage of laws that the people desire (Filibuster). In the House they have refused to use their power to remove elected and/or appointed officials who have transgressed the public trust (Impeachment). The laws passed rarely reflect the desire of the people and those elected are rarely qualified to do what a public SERVANT should do. Our elected officials are wealthy and indulgent while the average American is middle class and quickly losing all they own to the wealthy. Those in power have made sure that power is retained by the wealthy and prohibit those who represent the interests of the middle class from possibly winning an election (winning an election is directly related to the amount of money put into a campaign, rather than platform or qualifications). Watching Congressional Hearings and speeches is a cavalcade of idiocy. Congress refuses to do what we pay them handsomely for with most speeches given to an empty house and debates are nearly non-existent. Congress does not alone share in this damnable indictment. Our President ignores and acts directly opposite to the people, delegates authority to his bureaucracy who creates law (regulations carry the force of law) not based on true science, but on those they pay to create the conclusions they wish. The Department of Defense, the IRS, INS, CIA, FBI, US Marshalls, NSA, FDA, and most importantly the DEA all infringe on liberty unnecessarily, harass the populace continually, and refuse to listen to science, unless it involves groups like the MPAA (who rely on obscure and unwritten rules. Literally, they just watch a movie and make an arbitrary decision) or special interests who pay to have their “science” justify a particular regulation. The President has become a neutered dog and parrots whatever sound bite sounds good. Rather than lead our nation, he allows ignorant and bloated morons whose pay and benefits are NOT commensurate with their qualifications and who rely on inaccurate data to lead us to fear everything from Marijuana to trans fats (Its amazing how both have been around forever and never caused massive problems until Bloomberg (Sieg Heil Bloomberg!) banned them and now just looking at trans fats can cause a heart attack)(Also, just to clarify, neither trans fats that are in even soda pop and marijuana, which the AMA and numerous other truly scientific agencies have approved in its smoked form as a medicine and is SUBSTANTIALLY less dangerous than the legal drug Alcohol).
Finally, the Judiciary has overstepped its bounds in that they have claimed the right of judicial review without any good reason (read Marbury v Madison) and without approval of the people. They have created and vetoed laws which is not their right. They have ignored the Court of the People, prohibited representation to attorneys which only they can license even when representation by a non lawyer is desired. They have prohibited private criminal prosecution despite it working in every other civilised country and exists now only in despotic regimes. They make access to the court and records expensive and difficult to obtain for all but the wealthy. Judges are corrupt, preferring to stay with the old boys club where they listen and give deference to anyone with a JD, even when the other party has a valid case. Judges do not understand or know the law and attorneys bend the rules and are allowed to. Any question of a judge or attorney will place someone in contempt. Judges are bloated, ignorant, incapable, overpowered, overpaid, and refuse to apply the law equally, even to the point of discrimination.
This is a short indictment of our system and so through the next few weeks I will show you how to fix this. Perhaps with any luck we can call a Constitutional Convention and fix this system that is slowly but surely destroying this nation I love. Let me know what you think would be part of a better government!
Oh the wonderful things you will not see because “there’s nothing to see here, move along”
I am fortunate to have many friends and relatives who are either serving or have served in our nation’s armed forces. I know at least one person in every branch either active or retired. The military is nothing to mock or scoff at as they defend this nation and fight in our wars even when they disagree with the principles behind those wars. My father served many years and was granted unparalleled access and taught me to respect those who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend my ability to post this blog.
That aside, there are a few things about the military that may distrub you. For example, though pledged to defend our Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the law of the military if you will) allows certain parts of the Constitution to “not apply” as it were to military members. For example, the First Amendment protects our liberty to speak our minds (so long as we do not encourage or endorse criminal activity), petition our government for a redress of grievances (through protest, the court system, writing letters to congresspersons, etc.), practice what religion we will (so long as certain tenants of the law are upheld), and assemble freely (again, the right to protest, strike, etc.). This fundamental right, however, can and is suspended in some cases for military members. They may not protest their government or its actions even if they obey orders, during certain times they can not contact their representatives, in fact the only premise the military seems to endorse is the religious freedom, but even that hinges on the availability of a chaplain of that religion being present (and chaplains are in short supply). Even the amendments protecting the rights of the accused, such as habeas corpus and the prohibition against self-incrimination may be suspended at will by the Pentagon and/or superior officers.
What do we make of this? It would seem that those who defend the rights we hold dear are subject to the abridging of those rights in the name of efficiency and “security”. Sometimes, it is true, these rights must be suspended, e.g. in the midst of battle, protesting marines would be highly devastating. But what of those affected who are not in the line of fire? Should we as citizens not protect their rights just as they protect ours? And why a Court Martial of persons on American soil? Could our criminal justice system not adequately handle the affair? It would seem that our military is its own state whose obligation to the Constitution is only its defense. The question then becomes is this right? What do you think? Go and read the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ask yourself if all of its provisions protect those who serve as they protect us:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47 (UCOMJ)
What the Founders Intended
It irks me to no end to hear our Representatives and Senators go on and on about what the founders of our nation meant when they wrote our Constitution. It would seem the answer would be plain enough: The founders intended this nation and its Constitution to live and grow with the changing times. They had no intention of any founding documents to be static and unchanging; indeed they provided for the means to change them in the first place! Our system, however, has become so bogged down with the trappings of the founders’ intentions that they have created a stale Constitution with innumerable laws and bureaucracy binding it to a point that the United States is choking on the vomit of its own lawmakers and the judiciary that interprets these laws (their interpretations, by the way, change with which party is currently in power). Yet even these the founders foresaw in incorporating into our Constitution a way for the people to change the very nature of the entire system. This way is the Constitutional Convention. Our last and only one was with the Articles of Confederation. It was then that we realized the utter uselessness of the current Confederation and drafted the Constitution we have today. This, of course, forces one to wonder if it is time to call another convention and bring this stale system a breath of fresh air. I have posted a poll on this subject and would love to discuss this option. Please vote.
The Valeyard 