1) A representative democracy is the one major detail I will refuse to back off from. A representive democracy would be less messy than a direct democracy, and less prone to national unhappiness than a dictator ship.
A) Giving all adult citizens the ability to vote for politicians and constitutional amendments (state, federal) will provide flexibility in the system. Yes, the leaders in Washington make the decisions, but once constituents are dissapointed in a leader, they can kick him out for some one who they like. Leaders must know they that are in this position of power not because they are necessarily smarter than every one else, but because it is easier for only several hundred congressman to write a bill rather than several thousand, hundreds of thousands, or millions.
Now, depostism shares the same fundamental problem with anarchism: human nature. All systems of government share this problem, but depostism and anarchism are especially sensitive. Consider the Roman Empire, where Pertinax got murdered by soldiers. He was replaced by Didius Julianus, who was sentenced to death by the Senate after only a couple of months of being Emperor. He was replaced by Septimius Severus, who died from illness, thank God for that. But then Caracalla, assassinated. Geta, assassinated by Caracalla (!). Macrinus, executed. Diadumnian, executed. Elagabalus, assassinated. Alexander Severus, assassinated. Look, I don't need to list every body else. Let's just say that the only job more dangerous than Roman Emperor is a taxi driver who works on a mine field.
There was no system in place to make things kosher. It was run like the heavyweight championship. No simple line of succession. Or peaceful system to remove rulers who want to stay. If people don't like a lawmaker or executive, they can kick him out come election day.
2. A voting system garners respect for the government because voting will know that they stake in the system. They respect the system because they own it. That means keeping unruly mobs to a minimum. Know why there were so many riots in the 60s? Because the rioters felt that they had no other recourse. They felt powerless in the greater scheme of things. Giving people the vote--as many as physically possible--is the best means to garner respect for the system. Yes, that means giving felons the vote, too (except when they are in prison, since politics is a great way to light short tempers). The minute convicts leave prison is the minute their registration process should begin in their state.
In short: Any economic system can thrive. Any general philosohpy for law enforcement can work for the betterment of society. All you need is good management, and democracy is the best way to move with the many variables involved with governing. For example, consider when Americans during the Great Depression replaced the laissez-faire President Hoover with FDR.
2) Transparancy
The number one reason why no one trusts government. First...you need mandatory waiting periods before bill are enacted or even voted on, where the exact text of the bill is available to the public online, and in appropriate physical publications. That means 3 - 5 days for any legislative body, and 3-5 days before the executive office will sign the bill into law. When the waiting period is over, the lawmakers will vote on the bill. Appropriate parlimentary procedure will ensure that no one can amend the bill from the moment the lawmaking body decides to send the bill into its waiting period to the moment that they as a body vote for it. If it passes and goes to another law making body (eg. from the House to the Senate), and that new body decides to vote on the bill, they must wait another 3-5 days where the bill is published for the general public. Then if they pass the bill, then it is sent to the executive, who waits antoehr 3-5 day. No earlier than the exact moment of the bill's online publication should the waiting period be considered to have begun, in any governmental body.
All government funding is revealed to the general public.
All court cases are open to the general public.
Government pays for advertising to run on prime time television listing the candidates for local, state, and national office from the beginning of the 30 days before the election to the night before the election. (Television networks can reject the government's request to buy ad time, but the government must have found a byer by the relevant date.)
3) Federation
A national government handles issues that are strictly interstate, where state governments handle issues that are relevant to them. This is just a better management principle than having too many relevant decisions made for you by people who have no stake in your community. That would be like a sandwich franchise telling a New Jersey location of the franchise to overstock on mustard, but, apparantly, mustard is unpopular in New Jersey.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
How John McCain Broke My Heart (1st draft)
In 2002ish, he sang Barbara Steisand songs before a national TV audience.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=12&gps=22_13_600_498&f=00&tt=9&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//vodpod.com/watch/835874-mccain-sings-streisand
Even after reviewing the video now, I am sort of inclined to vote for him. Look at him with his microphone, and shameless love of making an ass out of himself. In that same episode, he played a creepy husband, and overzealous hippie school teacher. He fielded questions from Psuedo-Tim Russert.
Think of all the damn cliches. He had that spring in his step, that glint in his eye. You must respect a person who can stand up and make an ass of themself, then turn around and basically says, with a straight face, "I want to represent you in government. I want to use the tax money that the government takes from you, and use it for initiatives that will benefit our land."
I knew very little about his policies of that time. I did not know how long he had served as senator, or that he had served in The House. I did not know what division of the US armed forces he was in. I did not know who his wife was, or that she was his second spouse, and far younger than he. I did not know what legislation he introduced and helped pass. I only knew that he once ran for the Republican nomination for General Election of 2000, and that, if he ran again, he would be my first choice for president. Once I came of voting age. And bothered the vote.
I missed the 2004 election due to my age (I was 17) and missed the midterm election due to a friggin address issue that is my fault because I didn't stick a neddle in the gov't's eye long enough to make sure my application really get enterned into the system, and I ended up getting turned away on election day. I am definitely registered this time, as a Democrat in Queens. And I have learned that four years is a long time. A long time.
This has nothing to do with presidential terms. This has nothing to do with a senator's 6 year term, or Congressman's 2 year term. Nothing about Bush or Dick. Nothing about going from Colin to Rice. Just growing up is the thing. A person at 17 is several personalities away from who (s)he will be at 21. That just seems to be the law of life.
So, it's the very last day of high school. The very very last day. The seniors were forced to sit in the auditorium to watch a slideshow of photos of prom. And all of the pictures features just about the same circle of friends. Pay attention to the loud whispers in the audience, and you would notice more than one complaint about the students who set up the slide show.
People stay in their circles, no matter how physically small that circle. This was true in my high school. The teenage cliche of different cliques sitting in different lunch tables were pronounced in several different ways. We were a performance art high school, so creative writing majors might sit with their CW classmates. Actors with actors, artists with artists, sports players with sports players. Of course, people Simply came together due to similar interests.
And then there is the race thing. About over 50 percent of the people there, at Howard W. Blake High School in downtown Tampa, FL.
Malcolm X got it right, I feel, when he disparaged legal attempts at integration, and said the only real integration would happen in marriage. Now, he was defining real cultural integration too thin, but people can't just be allowed to hang out with each other. They can't be given gov't incentives to hang out together, do business. They have to willingly, with a limit on agenda, go up to the other person and say, "Hi, how are you. How was your day? What are your interests?" That quotes, and any embodiment of it performed sincerely, represents my image of integration. Something happens on a micro level between any two people. Fuck race. That's just a red herring for humanity's problems (but more on that some other time).
Let me just mention that some of the magnet school students in the school had a name for the rowdy kids: "Ghettys." As in Ghetto, not the gas station, chief.
Now, this apparently wasn't racist. Apparently. It was a reference to the perception of the school being pretty uncomfortable. Because a number of the student body enjoyed writing gang signs on the wall, and occasionally starting fights, and being rude to the women, and the most vocal of these rowdy people were black dudes. most of these black dudes were neighborhood students, from surrounding areas, including the housing project right across the street. The white kids getting bused in from other areas didn't aways appreciate the atmosphere, and the users of the ghetty word were more mostly white. And their defense of the word had to do with the perception of the rowdy kids being from an immature culture. A 'ghettoish' culture of cursing, disrespect for authority, homophobia, misogyny, reverse racism, at least from my view point.
Now I'm not going to spend too much time on the word ghetty, and it is an interesting subject to spend a good little time on, to try to get a 3D coverage of it, because that is really interest. So I will only state the opinion I had when I originally had and kept personal at the time: Let's face it. That shit is tap dancing on the border to racist. It is walking on the edge of racist. Simply because of the association, man. I mean, that word is suspicious.
And this essay is now officially wack and represents why 2nd drafts are a good idea. Never write an essay while often leaving the apt. to do laundry, or you will lose coherent train of thought, but this all has to do with indirectly shaping my perception of John McCain, our silver hair champion of liberty, free market, unborn fetuses, and Sarah Palin, the most promising and disappointing Vice-Pres candidate ever.
So, to some up high school, everyone was a ghetty, in some way. Self-righteous, sometimes petty, sometimes bereft of complete acceptance of others, very un-Carl-Rodgers-like And while I pretty much kept out of the ghettyness (overtly), it was soon to infect me, and blow up like HIV.
I DON'T have HIV.
But I do have the disease of ghettyness, the pervasive disease in the humanity. and when you act ghetto, you are ignorant of the fact.
Slipknot is an underrated band, by the way, though the lyrics of their latest single is pretty sloppy. Just so you know.
So in the fall of 2006, I went to college, and John McCain was two years into his fourth senate term. And I kept to myself, and took my spanish class, and other classes to finish the college's core requirement, and John McCain, who has been in the senator longer than I have been alive(!) prepped for his run for the presidency. And over this time, I noticed that his pupils had gotten bigger. His jowls hung lower than before.
His mom is in her 90s, and doing great. Okay.
And then his paternal grandfather died at 61. Okay.
And then his pop died at 70. Well, medicine has made advances since then, 1981. Okay.
And John S. McCain, III, senator from Arizona, is 72. The oldest man ever to run for office.
(quick McCain tidbit, "[McCain] recalls in his writings how, as a toddler, he sometimes held his breath and fainted during moments of fury." - Washington Post's Michael Leahy, regarding his infamous temper)
Is he crisp? Is it the best decision to run for
Will I get to 70, and think of 21 year old me as a presumptuous dweeb?
Hell, never mind his age. I just don't like his campaign. I dislike his he dismisses Obama's tax plan as merely raising taxes. I dislike how he blames his opponent for having no real plan, yet speaking in "Hooray terms" without substain. How are you going to reform the system, dude?
I agree with the Obama's policy toward companies that happen to pollute; simply set caps for how much they can pollute, and make them pay to go over that amount.
I am fond of his tax plan.
i am skeptical of his health plan, especially in this environment.
i am pleased with his policy on Iraq and Afghanistan, considering the past 7 years.
It's 11pm, and sleep must come, and the second draft of this will wait.
BUt if Ron Paul were still running, I'd vote for him. Seriously.
And Sarah Palin, what? She's a hardass lady. *Fill in blanks; I'm setting about watching her interview with Charlie Gibson, but so far it seems for some reason is NOT answering questions from the press. Wow.
Personal bitchyiness, personal ghettyness, internship, yada, yada.
Something something about Lincoln and Doris Goodwin Kearns, Team of Rivals is a great book.
Meditations on power, pride, Fidel Castro, people, why they go after all that responsibility. Do they really do this for other people? messiah complex. Obama, wanting him to lose to Clinton just so maybe he would get humbled. Because it was painful to figure things out. Blah blah
Okay, step by step, how are you going to reform things. I don't mind you holding back on precise details, but I'd like actual specific policies before I invest the next 4 years on you. you're making me have to dig up your plan, John.
research research
solution?
****
Hosanna to the highest! Our LOUD
*
Our LORD has cast down his cross, and immitation of sacrifice, he has painted red on his hands and feet. He dabs a part of his ribs with water from Aquafina, and says that he has been stabbed. And he cries what a voice, supported by loud speakers, "you are my children, and i am your father, who loves you, and cares for you, and
Our LORD ordered 'plumbers' to break into Watergate.
Our LORD bathed in White Water.
Our LORD flirts with pages.
Our LORD shot himself through the mouth.
Our LORD cheated on his wife.
Our LORD might actually not care that her husband cheats on her, but that's just a brief assumption.
Our LORD gets caught banging hookers after publicly condemning prostitution. The media pretty much ignores his state's severe deficit.
Our LORD onced fathered a part-black kid, and later made damn sure black people would have nothing to do with white people (what, dude, the mom break your heart or something?)
Our LORD is going to cut health insurance for underpriviledged children.
Our LORD is 9 trillion dollars in debt, and even cannot pay for at least (at least) over 400 billion in programs he wants to accomplish. He asked me for a loan, about 20 twenty dollars, just for laundry. I said, "Uh."
The LORD took our faith in Him, and very probably used it to hide child pornography in his computer (seriously! An assemblyman from New Jersey is accused of doing that!)
"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=12&gps=22_13_600_498&f=00&tt=9&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//vodpod.com/watch/835874-mccain-sings-streisand
Even after reviewing the video now, I am sort of inclined to vote for him. Look at him with his microphone, and shameless love of making an ass out of himself. In that same episode, he played a creepy husband, and overzealous hippie school teacher. He fielded questions from Psuedo-Tim Russert.
Think of all the damn cliches. He had that spring in his step, that glint in his eye. You must respect a person who can stand up and make an ass of themself, then turn around and basically says, with a straight face, "I want to represent you in government. I want to use the tax money that the government takes from you, and use it for initiatives that will benefit our land."
I knew very little about his policies of that time. I did not know how long he had served as senator, or that he had served in The House. I did not know what division of the US armed forces he was in. I did not know who his wife was, or that she was his second spouse, and far younger than he. I did not know what legislation he introduced and helped pass. I only knew that he once ran for the Republican nomination for General Election of 2000, and that, if he ran again, he would be my first choice for president. Once I came of voting age. And bothered the vote.
I missed the 2004 election due to my age (I was 17) and missed the midterm election due to a friggin address issue that is my fault because I didn't stick a neddle in the gov't's eye long enough to make sure my application really get enterned into the system, and I ended up getting turned away on election day. I am definitely registered this time, as a Democrat in Queens. And I have learned that four years is a long time. A long time.
This has nothing to do with presidential terms. This has nothing to do with a senator's 6 year term, or Congressman's 2 year term. Nothing about Bush or Dick. Nothing about going from Colin to Rice. Just growing up is the thing. A person at 17 is several personalities away from who (s)he will be at 21. That just seems to be the law of life.
So, it's the very last day of high school. The very very last day. The seniors were forced to sit in the auditorium to watch a slideshow of photos of prom. And all of the pictures features just about the same circle of friends. Pay attention to the loud whispers in the audience, and you would notice more than one complaint about the students who set up the slide show.
People stay in their circles, no matter how physically small that circle. This was true in my high school. The teenage cliche of different cliques sitting in different lunch tables were pronounced in several different ways. We were a performance art high school, so creative writing majors might sit with their CW classmates. Actors with actors, artists with artists, sports players with sports players. Of course, people Simply came together due to similar interests.
And then there is the race thing. About over 50 percent of the people there, at Howard W. Blake High School in downtown Tampa, FL.
Malcolm X got it right, I feel, when he disparaged legal attempts at integration, and said the only real integration would happen in marriage. Now, he was defining real cultural integration too thin, but people can't just be allowed to hang out with each other. They can't be given gov't incentives to hang out together, do business. They have to willingly, with a limit on agenda, go up to the other person and say, "Hi, how are you. How was your day? What are your interests?" That quotes, and any embodiment of it performed sincerely, represents my image of integration. Something happens on a micro level between any two people. Fuck race. That's just a red herring for humanity's problems (but more on that some other time).
Let me just mention that some of the magnet school students in the school had a name for the rowdy kids: "Ghettys." As in Ghetto, not the gas station, chief.
Now, this apparently wasn't racist. Apparently. It was a reference to the perception of the school being pretty uncomfortable. Because a number of the student body enjoyed writing gang signs on the wall, and occasionally starting fights, and being rude to the women, and the most vocal of these rowdy people were black dudes. most of these black dudes were neighborhood students, from surrounding areas, including the housing project right across the street. The white kids getting bused in from other areas didn't aways appreciate the atmosphere, and the users of the ghetty word were more mostly white. And their defense of the word had to do with the perception of the rowdy kids being from an immature culture. A 'ghettoish' culture of cursing, disrespect for authority, homophobia, misogyny, reverse racism, at least from my view point.
Now I'm not going to spend too much time on the word ghetty, and it is an interesting subject to spend a good little time on, to try to get a 3D coverage of it, because that is really interest. So I will only state the opinion I had when I originally had and kept personal at the time: Let's face it. That shit is tap dancing on the border to racist. It is walking on the edge of racist. Simply because of the association, man. I mean, that word is suspicious.
And this essay is now officially wack and represents why 2nd drafts are a good idea. Never write an essay while often leaving the apt. to do laundry, or you will lose coherent train of thought, but this all has to do with indirectly shaping my perception of John McCain, our silver hair champion of liberty, free market, unborn fetuses, and Sarah Palin, the most promising and disappointing Vice-Pres candidate ever.
So, to some up high school, everyone was a ghetty, in some way. Self-righteous, sometimes petty, sometimes bereft of complete acceptance of others, very un-Carl-Rodgers-like And while I pretty much kept out of the ghettyness (overtly), it was soon to infect me, and blow up like HIV.
I DON'T have HIV.
But I do have the disease of ghettyness, the pervasive disease in the humanity. and when you act ghetto, you are ignorant of the fact.
Slipknot is an underrated band, by the way, though the lyrics of their latest single is pretty sloppy. Just so you know.
So in the fall of 2006, I went to college, and John McCain was two years into his fourth senate term. And I kept to myself, and took my spanish class, and other classes to finish the college's core requirement, and John McCain, who has been in the senator longer than I have been alive(!) prepped for his run for the presidency. And over this time, I noticed that his pupils had gotten bigger. His jowls hung lower than before.
His mom is in her 90s, and doing great. Okay.
And then his paternal grandfather died at 61. Okay.
And then his pop died at 70. Well, medicine has made advances since then, 1981. Okay.
And John S. McCain, III, senator from Arizona, is 72. The oldest man ever to run for office.
(quick McCain tidbit, "[McCain] recalls in his writings how, as a toddler, he sometimes held his breath and fainted during moments of fury." - Washington Post's Michael Leahy, regarding his infamous temper)
Is he crisp? Is it the best decision to run for
Will I get to 70, and think of 21 year old me as a presumptuous dweeb?
Hell, never mind his age. I just don't like his campaign. I dislike his he dismisses Obama's tax plan as merely raising taxes. I dislike how he blames his opponent for having no real plan, yet speaking in "Hooray terms" without substain. How are you going to reform the system, dude?
I agree with the Obama's policy toward companies that happen to pollute; simply set caps for how much they can pollute, and make them pay to go over that amount.
I am fond of his tax plan.
i am skeptical of his health plan, especially in this environment.
i am pleased with his policy on Iraq and Afghanistan, considering the past 7 years.
It's 11pm, and sleep must come, and the second draft of this will wait.
BUt if Ron Paul were still running, I'd vote for him. Seriously.
And Sarah Palin, what? She's a hardass lady. *Fill in blanks; I'm setting about watching her interview with Charlie Gibson, but so far it seems for some reason is NOT answering questions from the press. Wow.
Personal bitchyiness, personal ghettyness, internship, yada, yada.
Something something about Lincoln and Doris Goodwin Kearns, Team of Rivals is a great book.
Meditations on power, pride, Fidel Castro, people, why they go after all that responsibility. Do they really do this for other people? messiah complex. Obama, wanting him to lose to Clinton just so maybe he would get humbled. Because it was painful to figure things out. Blah blah
Okay, step by step, how are you going to reform things. I don't mind you holding back on precise details, but I'd like actual specific policies before I invest the next 4 years on you. you're making me have to dig up your plan, John.
research research
solution?
****
Hosanna to the highest! Our LOUD
*
Our LORD has cast down his cross, and immitation of sacrifice, he has painted red on his hands and feet. He dabs a part of his ribs with water from Aquafina, and says that he has been stabbed. And he cries what a voice, supported by loud speakers, "you are my children, and i am your father, who loves you, and cares for you, and
Our LORD ordered 'plumbers' to break into Watergate.
Our LORD bathed in White Water.
Our LORD flirts with pages.
Our LORD shot himself through the mouth.
Our LORD cheated on his wife.
Our LORD might actually not care that her husband cheats on her, but that's just a brief assumption.
Our LORD gets caught banging hookers after publicly condemning prostitution. The media pretty much ignores his state's severe deficit.
Our LORD onced fathered a part-black kid, and later made damn sure black people would have nothing to do with white people (what, dude, the mom break your heart or something?)
Our LORD is going to cut health insurance for underpriviledged children.
Our LORD is 9 trillion dollars in debt, and even cannot pay for at least (at least) over 400 billion in programs he wants to accomplish. He asked me for a loan, about 20 twenty dollars, just for laundry. I said, "Uh."
The LORD took our faith in Him, and very probably used it to hide child pornography in his computer (seriously! An assemblyman from New Jersey is accused of doing that!)
"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Marty Bahamonde is pretty awesome
http://derenegade.blogspot.com/2005/10/someone-needs-to-tap-marty-bahamonde.html
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Habeas Corpus, Federalism, and Human Societies (incomplete)
I. Habeas Corpus, and other procedural matters
Habeas corpus exists for the sake of the wrongly accused. The idea behind the writ: the defendant, once imprisoned, can challenge the imprisonment. And from this, the backbone of criminal law, other procedures take shape. The prisoner can get a trial, (s)he can get a lawyer, (s)he can abstain, (s)he can post bail, etc.
How this plays out, and what gets people so disgusted with this situation is that Charles Manson gets to appeal his imprisonment every several years. How this plays out is that, on paper, it is a very structured system. For example, evidence needs to be introduced into trial in a certain way. That's one thing judges do: they make sure procedure is followed, and see what evidence is permissible, depending on procedure. For example, evidence that could convict a robber could be denied access in court because it failed to fit certain guidelines. The problem with law, however, is that any amount of text can fail to anticipate all of the possibilities that reality can become. Remember that those lawyers who came forward with proof that their late client had committed a murder that another man was convicted for? The convicted man lost almost three decades in prison. And why did those lawyer stay back for so long? Apparently, if they came forward while their client was alive, they would have violated attorney-client privilege. Their information would have been inadmissible in a court room, and therefore, the innocent man would still be in jail, all other things being equal. Procedures like these can the sinew of habeas corpus.
Make sure that only the guilty are convicted. Alan Dershowitz, the other side of the coin on which Antonin Scalia lives, supports the idea that many human legal system, including that of the USA, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused person. Better to free the guilty than punish the innocent. The opposite of this chaotic mess of law is just chaos.
For example, just as easily, physically speaking, as those lawyers could have came out with the truth before their client died, another person, Person A, could say he saw the convicted man commit the killing, and Person A lying. Without procedures to make sure the legal system is fair, the alternative is pretty crappy. Instead of just getting murder, murderers can get away with accusing other people of murder.
And the accused gets arrested, and he stays in jail. Without a trial, or at least a fair trail. Because habeas corpus is dead.
II. Federalism
Let's pretend you disbelieve that corporations and the rich run everything. So, looking at the general structure of our government, we find that it is built so that the power of government is divided amongst the rulers. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President with the decision of Congress; the President's vetoes can be overridden by a semi-unified Congress, and his Orders can be nullified by the Court; Congress can be vetoed by the President, and its laws can be nullified by the Court. And the People choose Congress and the President, and therefore indirectly choose the Court. Power is divided so that no one is King.
This nation, the United States of America, was founded on the truth that men feast on one another, and that in order to create a stable society, power needs to be reasonably divided. Not the truth "that all men are created equal," at least in the idealistic sense. The equality thing is what the PR department during the Revolution said, but what the nation is really founded on is that these men, the Founding Fathers, realized that people take advantage of one another. Geniuses, they were. The first people in millennia thrifty enough to both get power, and also realize that power can be abused and that they could be the abusers. After the war ended, they didn't trust one another. They made the first central gov't, the Confederation, and it was weak. They only replaced it with the current structure of government because the confederation was too weak to succeed. But they knew that anyone with too much power could abuse it. It was like a reality show.
And a lot of people still believed that the constitution was imperfectly formed. New York State accepted the document by 3 votes. 3 votes!
And George Washington. Let's just clap the man. A landmark moment, when he chose to abstain from a third term. Perhaps the first time in History that a powerful ruler stepped down from power without having to die, or get pulled out.
Robert Mugabe is 100 years old, and he can't not be President.
III. Human Societies
Stable human societies rely on compromise.
Habeas corpus exists for the sake of the wrongly accused. The idea behind the writ: the defendant, once imprisoned, can challenge the imprisonment. And from this, the backbone of criminal law, other procedures take shape. The prisoner can get a trial, (s)he can get a lawyer, (s)he can abstain, (s)he can post bail, etc.
How this plays out, and what gets people so disgusted with this situation is that Charles Manson gets to appeal his imprisonment every several years. How this plays out is that, on paper, it is a very structured system. For example, evidence needs to be introduced into trial in a certain way. That's one thing judges do: they make sure procedure is followed, and see what evidence is permissible, depending on procedure. For example, evidence that could convict a robber could be denied access in court because it failed to fit certain guidelines. The problem with law, however, is that any amount of text can fail to anticipate all of the possibilities that reality can become. Remember that those lawyers who came forward with proof that their late client had committed a murder that another man was convicted for? The convicted man lost almost three decades in prison. And why did those lawyer stay back for so long? Apparently, if they came forward while their client was alive, they would have violated attorney-client privilege. Their information would have been inadmissible in a court room, and therefore, the innocent man would still be in jail, all other things being equal. Procedures like these can the sinew of habeas corpus.
Make sure that only the guilty are convicted. Alan Dershowitz, the other side of the coin on which Antonin Scalia lives, supports the idea that many human legal system, including that of the USA, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused person. Better to free the guilty than punish the innocent. The opposite of this chaotic mess of law is just chaos.
For example, just as easily, physically speaking, as those lawyers could have came out with the truth before their client died, another person, Person A, could say he saw the convicted man commit the killing, and Person A lying. Without procedures to make sure the legal system is fair, the alternative is pretty crappy. Instead of just getting murder, murderers can get away with accusing other people of murder.
And the accused gets arrested, and he stays in jail. Without a trial, or at least a fair trail. Because habeas corpus is dead.
II. Federalism
Let's pretend you disbelieve that corporations and the rich run everything. So, looking at the general structure of our government, we find that it is built so that the power of government is divided amongst the rulers. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President with the decision of Congress; the President's vetoes can be overridden by a semi-unified Congress, and his Orders can be nullified by the Court; Congress can be vetoed by the President, and its laws can be nullified by the Court. And the People choose Congress and the President, and therefore indirectly choose the Court. Power is divided so that no one is King.
This nation, the United States of America, was founded on the truth that men feast on one another, and that in order to create a stable society, power needs to be reasonably divided. Not the truth "that all men are created equal," at least in the idealistic sense. The equality thing is what the PR department during the Revolution said, but what the nation is really founded on is that these men, the Founding Fathers, realized that people take advantage of one another. Geniuses, they were. The first people in millennia thrifty enough to both get power, and also realize that power can be abused and that they could be the abusers. After the war ended, they didn't trust one another. They made the first central gov't, the Confederation, and it was weak. They only replaced it with the current structure of government because the confederation was too weak to succeed. But they knew that anyone with too much power could abuse it. It was like a reality show.
And a lot of people still believed that the constitution was imperfectly formed. New York State accepted the document by 3 votes. 3 votes!
And George Washington. Let's just clap the man. A landmark moment, when he chose to abstain from a third term. Perhaps the first time in History that a powerful ruler stepped down from power without having to die, or get pulled out.
Robert Mugabe is 100 years old, and he can't not be President.
III. Human Societies
Stable human societies rely on compromise.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Secretary of the Interior resigns over ‘Flag-gate’
May 5, 2020
WASHINGTON, DC--The Secretary of the Interior resigned following a catastrophic exhibition in which he burned an American flag to ashes.
The exhibition was designed to showcase fire-proof fabric manufactured by Dow Jong Industries. Several weeks ago, Dow Jong had received a contract to produce flags used by the federal government.
Observers assumed that the flags would be comprised of the fire-proof fabric that has earned the Chinese company billions in the international market. Laboratory tests show that the flag burned by the Secretary was 100% cotton.
In aftermath of the flag burning, a press release from Dow Jong said, “The use of our Fire-Fighter Fabric was not included in the contract…This is not our fault.” The contract specifies that flags made for the US government will be made of cotton, and the use of any other material will render the contract void.
Federal authorities are looking into the legal mishap.
In a signed statement, the former-Secretary lamented his decision to burn the American flag in front of a crowd of reporters. “My intention was to show the world of America’s ability to handle any situation…I am sorry, and regret any shame brought upon my family.”
Video of the flag burning incident is the most-viewed selection this week on YouTube.
The President held a press conference to declare that the flag contract will be cancelled, pending further negotiations.
“This just shows the dangers of outsourcing to a hostile power, and the harm it can do,” The President said. A week ago, he had been the biggest supporter of the contract.
The President declined to comment on a replacement for the departing Secretary. A White House employee who spoke under the condition of anonymity said that a front-runner for the position was the governor of California, Jessica Marie Alba.
WASHINGTON, DC--The Secretary of the Interior resigned following a catastrophic exhibition in which he burned an American flag to ashes.
The exhibition was designed to showcase fire-proof fabric manufactured by Dow Jong Industries. Several weeks ago, Dow Jong had received a contract to produce flags used by the federal government.
Observers assumed that the flags would be comprised of the fire-proof fabric that has earned the Chinese company billions in the international market. Laboratory tests show that the flag burned by the Secretary was 100% cotton.
In aftermath of the flag burning, a press release from Dow Jong said, “The use of our Fire-Fighter Fabric was not included in the contract…This is not our fault.” The contract specifies that flags made for the US government will be made of cotton, and the use of any other material will render the contract void.
Federal authorities are looking into the legal mishap.
In a signed statement, the former-Secretary lamented his decision to burn the American flag in front of a crowd of reporters. “My intention was to show the world of America’s ability to handle any situation…I am sorry, and regret any shame brought upon my family.”
Video of the flag burning incident is the most-viewed selection this week on YouTube.
The President held a press conference to declare that the flag contract will be cancelled, pending further negotiations.
“This just shows the dangers of outsourcing to a hostile power, and the harm it can do,” The President said. A week ago, he had been the biggest supporter of the contract.
The President declined to comment on a replacement for the departing Secretary. A White House employee who spoke under the condition of anonymity said that a front-runner for the position was the governor of California, Jessica Marie Alba.
Chinese corporation receives no-bid contract to produce US flag
April 21, 2020
SHANGHAI, China--Dow Jong Industies has received a no-bid contract from the federal government to manufacture flags used at government facilities and events. The five-year contract will begin October 1.
Dow-Jong, a state-owned conglomerate located in Guangdong, China, is best known for producing action figures, kitchen knives, and fire-proof fabric.
The Secretary of the Interior praised the move, saying that it would save tax payers millions, and ease pressure from the $50 trillion debt. He promises to soon exhibit the resiliency of the new flags by exposing one to a flamethrower.
SHANGHAI, China--Dow Jong Industies has received a no-bid contract from the federal government to manufacture flags used at government facilities and events. The five-year contract will begin October 1.
Dow-Jong, a state-owned conglomerate located in Guangdong, China, is best known for producing action figures, kitchen knives, and fire-proof fabric.
The Secretary of the Interior praised the move, saying that it would save tax payers millions, and ease pressure from the $50 trillion debt. He promises to soon exhibit the resiliency of the new flags by exposing one to a flamethrower.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Skull invasion begins, New Yorkers remain in city
NEW YORK, NY--This morning, shape shifting aliens called skrulls attacked New York City, causing billions in property damage and untold loss of life. As of press time, little is known about the fate of the superheroes engaged in the battle in Midtown Manhattan.
Both Director of SHIELD, Anthony Stark, and his superhero team the Mighty Avengers also remain missing.
Reports indicate that the invasion proper began months ago with the replacement by skrulls of hundreds throughout planet earth, including 10 members of the city council, 3 out of the 5 borough presidents, and city comptroller Bill Thompson.
Yesterday, SHIELD agents revealed city comptroller Bill Thompson as a skrull shortly after witnesses video taped the imposter engaging in an anti-black tirade. The real Thompson is (was?) African-American.
Experts speculate that the replacements hid in plain sight to gather intelligence for the intergalactic Skrull Empire.
Hours after the beginning of the attack, Mayor Michael Bloomberg held an emergency press conference at the stairs of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse.
"Today has showcased the resiliency of the good people of New York," the mayor said. "Even in the midst of this ongoing tragedy, our population continues to stand over 8 million, tourists worldwide visit our glorious streets, and the economy continues to grow. People want to go to the Big Apple."
"Indeed, the demand for NYC housing has never been more competitive, with the rest of the nation burned by the bursting at the housing bubble," he added, before a laser beam melted him into a green stain.
"Everyone, follow me!" the real Michael Bloomberg said, carrying a smoking, high-tech rifle the size of a grown man. He was accompanied by the remaining members of the New York State Militia Forces. Bloomberg, the Militia, and volunteers will stage a counter invasion from an undisclosed location.
"They should all leave," Martin Martinez, the Chief Operating Officer of Damage Control, Inc., said.
Damage Control is the government sponsored enterprise that repairs property damage in the wake of acts of superpowered violence, and has repaired New York City property in the wake of dozens of attacks from mutant terrorists, alien species, a deposed Latvarian Prime Minister, the Incredible Hulk, extradimensional forces, demons, runaway science experiments, time bombs, and multiple occurances of the collapse of time and space. As of press time, researchers are still calculating how many times New York City has faced certain destruction.
Martinez expresses surprise that European tourists continue to take advantage of the weak US dollar, and spend their money in the Big Apple. He says he cannot understand why the city remains the tourist hotspot, why people continue to move into the city, and why the flight of the middle class is moving as slowly as it is.
"New York is not worth it," Martinez said. "Even before the Skrulls, they were walking into a deficit of several billions of dollars, overpopulation, a broken transporation system. You can rent a piece of crap hole in Queens for the same price you can rent a decent, two bedroom apartment in Florida."
"What kind of crazy #$&@ wants to stay in Manhattan?" Martinez said shortly before the phone lines died.
"I love this city," Lauren Rose, a Columbia University student and Lieutenant of the Counter Invasion, said. "Where else could you be walking down the street, cup of coffee in hand, and witness such cultural diversity? Such history? I mean, where else can you see a three hundred pound man with unbreakable skin punch an anthropomorphic baboon through a brick wall? No where!"
Both Director of SHIELD, Anthony Stark, and his superhero team the Mighty Avengers also remain missing.
Reports indicate that the invasion proper began months ago with the replacement by skrulls of hundreds throughout planet earth, including 10 members of the city council, 3 out of the 5 borough presidents, and city comptroller Bill Thompson.
Yesterday, SHIELD agents revealed city comptroller Bill Thompson as a skrull shortly after witnesses video taped the imposter engaging in an anti-black tirade. The real Thompson is (was?) African-American.
Experts speculate that the replacements hid in plain sight to gather intelligence for the intergalactic Skrull Empire.
Hours after the beginning of the attack, Mayor Michael Bloomberg held an emergency press conference at the stairs of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse.
"Today has showcased the resiliency of the good people of New York," the mayor said. "Even in the midst of this ongoing tragedy, our population continues to stand over 8 million, tourists worldwide visit our glorious streets, and the economy continues to grow. People want to go to the Big Apple."
"Indeed, the demand for NYC housing has never been more competitive, with the rest of the nation burned by the bursting at the housing bubble," he added, before a laser beam melted him into a green stain.
"Everyone, follow me!" the real Michael Bloomberg said, carrying a smoking, high-tech rifle the size of a grown man. He was accompanied by the remaining members of the New York State Militia Forces. Bloomberg, the Militia, and volunteers will stage a counter invasion from an undisclosed location.
"They should all leave," Martin Martinez, the Chief Operating Officer of Damage Control, Inc., said.
Damage Control is the government sponsored enterprise that repairs property damage in the wake of acts of superpowered violence, and has repaired New York City property in the wake of dozens of attacks from mutant terrorists, alien species, a deposed Latvarian Prime Minister, the Incredible Hulk, extradimensional forces, demons, runaway science experiments, time bombs, and multiple occurances of the collapse of time and space. As of press time, researchers are still calculating how many times New York City has faced certain destruction.
Martinez expresses surprise that European tourists continue to take advantage of the weak US dollar, and spend their money in the Big Apple. He says he cannot understand why the city remains the tourist hotspot, why people continue to move into the city, and why the flight of the middle class is moving as slowly as it is.
"New York is not worth it," Martinez said. "Even before the Skrulls, they were walking into a deficit of several billions of dollars, overpopulation, a broken transporation system. You can rent a piece of crap hole in Queens for the same price you can rent a decent, two bedroom apartment in Florida."
"What kind of crazy #$&@ wants to stay in Manhattan?" Martinez said shortly before the phone lines died.
"I love this city," Lauren Rose, a Columbia University student and Lieutenant of the Counter Invasion, said. "Where else could you be walking down the street, cup of coffee in hand, and witness such cultural diversity? Such history? I mean, where else can you see a three hundred pound man with unbreakable skin punch an anthropomorphic baboon through a brick wall? No where!"
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bill Regulates Rape Accusations
By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer
July 12, 2008--Weeks ago, New York Assemblyman Mark Catheter of New York introduced a bill that would regulate rape accusations. Now, he is receiving the backing of a not-for-profit organization, FRAT (the Federation of Rangers Against Tattletaling).
"Rape will still be a crime," the Assemblyman says about his new bill. "We just want to cut down on false accusations. Only a real victim would go to jail to catch the badguys. I mean, after an experience like rape, a night in jail will be no problem."
FRAT is an organization which, since 1901, has lobbied state legislatures and congress for laws that eliminate accusations. Members are called "Rangers," and Assemblyman Catheter has been a ranger since 1982, after he was sued for peeing on a neighbor's porch.
"I don't remember the urinating, per se, but then here I am stumbling down the driveway, getting called a drunk and a bum by Mrs. Finster."
Yesterday, FRAT protesters stormed the steps of the New York Legislature in Albany, New York, calling for whores to shut their mouths. Catheter expressed pride that FRAT was using its first amendment rights.
Anti-accusation proposals date back to 1796, when then-state senator Rufus Burr sponsored a bill that would eliminate insults any and all communication in New York. If the bill had been passed, then a violator would be forced to walk public with the word, "Basterd" tattooed on his forehead.
Catheter believes that by pushing for the passage of the "QYET BILL," he and the other Rangers are protecting the accused from accusations, and upholding the legal tradition that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
He says, in addition: "It's the constitutional right for citizens to do with their bodies as they please."
July 12, 2008--Weeks ago, New York Assemblyman Mark Catheter of New York introduced a bill that would regulate rape accusations. Now, he is receiving the backing of a not-for-profit organization, FRAT (the Federation of Rangers Against Tattletaling).
"Rape will still be a crime," the Assemblyman says about his new bill. "We just want to cut down on false accusations. Only a real victim would go to jail to catch the badguys. I mean, after an experience like rape, a night in jail will be no problem."
FRAT is an organization which, since 1901, has lobbied state legislatures and congress for laws that eliminate accusations. Members are called "Rangers," and Assemblyman Catheter has been a ranger since 1982, after he was sued for peeing on a neighbor's porch.
"I don't remember the urinating, per se, but then here I am stumbling down the driveway, getting called a drunk and a bum by Mrs. Finster."
Yesterday, FRAT protesters stormed the steps of the New York Legislature in Albany, New York, calling for whores to shut their mouths. Catheter expressed pride that FRAT was using its first amendment rights.
Anti-accusation proposals date back to 1796, when then-state senator Rufus Burr sponsored a bill that would eliminate insults any and all communication in New York. If the bill had been passed, then a violator would be forced to walk public with the word, "Basterd" tattooed on his forehead.
Catheter believes that by pushing for the passage of the "QYET BILL," he and the other Rangers are protecting the accused from accusations, and upholding the legal tradition that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
He says, in addition: "It's the constitutional right for citizens to do with their bodies as they please."
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Value of Life Plummets $900,000
***Based on a real article. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/10/national/main4250299.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4250299#ccmm
By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer
July 12, 2008 -- The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) estimates the value of the average American's life to be $6.9 million, a $900,000 drop from 2003 levels.
The statistic results from other statistics, such as what people pay to avoid risks. Like other Government agencies, the EPA uses such a number to determine whether certain initiatives, such as regulations on pollution and thereby saving lives in the long run, are worth supporting with public funds.
If the cost of a initiative exceeds the dollar amount of human life benefitted, then the can consider the initiative impracticle. Americans nationwide are buzzing about the finding.
Yesterday, protesters stormed the front steps of the EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to call for the agency to return the value to previous levels, saying the finding was an affront to human dignity.
"It hurts my feelings," Ronald Cathater, a protester from Los Angeles, California, said. "But I'm special. No body can take away the value of my life. What I give to the world cannot be calculated in dollars and cents." Cathater lives with his mother, and spends over $300 a year on pornography.
In addition, immates in high-security prisons across the country are suing for more amenities, stating that their civil rights are being undermined by the low standards of living found at correctional facilities.
Mark Johnson, Esq., an attorney for several inmates at Rikers Island Prison in New York City, called the movement a milestone in American history.
"This is bigger than the Civil War," Johnson, said. "Perhaps, finally, the downtrodden can get the respect they deserve. You hear that, Sandra? You were wrong. I am worth something."
The change in the value of life has weaved itself into every part of society, as organizations across the nation used the drop as rationale for budget cuts. 50 counties removed chocolate milk from local public schools. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg removed the Administration for Children's Services from the city budget for the 2010-to-2011 fiscal year. In Alabama, Reginald Truman pawned his childrens' X-Box, and told them to finally get jobs, "goddammnit."
In Utah, the wife of kidnapped millionaire Paul Jackson has pushed for renegotiations with her husband's kidnappers. Tanya Jackson had leaned toward conceeding to the orginal demand for $10 million. Upon reading of the EPA's recalculation, however, she changed her mind, and called the kidnappers, "thieves" and "terrorists" for their high price.
If there is going to be a transaction, Jackson says, then they should accept her new offer of $6.9 million. "It's what Paul would've wanted. He was always about being frugal. He never spent more on something than what it was worth."
By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer
July 12, 2008 -- The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) estimates the value of the average American's life to be $6.9 million, a $900,000 drop from 2003 levels.
The statistic results from other statistics, such as what people pay to avoid risks. Like other Government agencies, the EPA uses such a number to determine whether certain initiatives, such as regulations on pollution and thereby saving lives in the long run, are worth supporting with public funds.
If the cost of a initiative exceeds the dollar amount of human life benefitted, then the can consider the initiative impracticle. Americans nationwide are buzzing about the finding.
Yesterday, protesters stormed the front steps of the EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to call for the agency to return the value to previous levels, saying the finding was an affront to human dignity.
"It hurts my feelings," Ronald Cathater, a protester from Los Angeles, California, said. "But I'm special. No body can take away the value of my life. What I give to the world cannot be calculated in dollars and cents." Cathater lives with his mother, and spends over $300 a year on pornography.
In addition, immates in high-security prisons across the country are suing for more amenities, stating that their civil rights are being undermined by the low standards of living found at correctional facilities.
Mark Johnson, Esq., an attorney for several inmates at Rikers Island Prison in New York City, called the movement a milestone in American history.
"This is bigger than the Civil War," Johnson, said. "Perhaps, finally, the downtrodden can get the respect they deserve. You hear that, Sandra? You were wrong. I am worth something."
The change in the value of life has weaved itself into every part of society, as organizations across the nation used the drop as rationale for budget cuts. 50 counties removed chocolate milk from local public schools. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg removed the Administration for Children's Services from the city budget for the 2010-to-2011 fiscal year. In Alabama, Reginald Truman pawned his childrens' X-Box, and told them to finally get jobs, "goddammnit."
In Utah, the wife of kidnapped millionaire Paul Jackson has pushed for renegotiations with her husband's kidnappers. Tanya Jackson had leaned toward conceeding to the orginal demand for $10 million. Upon reading of the EPA's recalculation, however, she changed her mind, and called the kidnappers, "thieves" and "terrorists" for their high price.
If there is going to be a transaction, Jackson says, then they should accept her new offer of $6.9 million. "It's what Paul would've wanted. He was always about being frugal. He never spent more on something than what it was worth."
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Disagreements and Free Speech
I. DISCOURSE
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.
This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.
Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.
Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.
These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.
Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.
Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.
M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.
Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.
II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm
Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."
Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.
Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.
III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.
Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47
In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.
It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php
Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.
A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)
In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.
America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.
Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.
So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?
The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.
Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.
The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.
In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.
I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.
And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.
This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.
IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.
Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."
As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?
We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.
The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."
So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.
To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.
(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.
This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.
Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.
Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.
These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.
Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.
Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.
M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.
Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.
II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm
Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."
Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.
Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.
III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.
Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47
In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.
It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php
Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.
A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)
In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.
America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.
Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.
So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?
The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.
Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.
The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.
In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.
I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.
And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.
This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.
IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.
Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."
As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?
We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.
The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."
So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.
To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.
(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)
Friday, April 18, 2008
Politicians
I.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.
Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?
2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.
Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.
Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.
It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.
III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.
An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.
IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.
I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.
It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.
Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?
2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.
Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.
Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.
It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.
III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.
An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.
IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.
I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.
It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Corrupt Law Enforcement
The fact that an individual is a cop or guard means nothing in regard to their personality as human beings. The promise to serve and protect and whatever are only peripheral. What matters is who the law enforcement person is as a person.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
On Spitzer (aka Client 9)
People are fueled by passion and guided by logic. And sometimes a match ignites the fuel and obliterates the logic.
Governor Spitzer put his marriage and career in danger. For sex. Apparently, he's purchased the company of ladies several times. It makes little since that he would do this, since he has been a top figure in NYS politics for about a decade, but, well, he did. So why?
He might be a sex freak. Now, it seems that this is a weak argument. It makes little sense for a man in his position, no matter how horny he is, to risk things on illicit sex.
There is no logic involved. An experienced politician who graduated from Harvard Law-- my dream school <3 --with a reputation from cracking down on corruption. Seems to be a man guided by logic and wisdom.
However, the most important experience a person can have is in dealing with their passions. Gov. Spitzer seems to be a very smart man, but possibly has little experience in dealing with his secret passions, or at least having to deal with his in such a way that he has to deny himself certain activities. He allowed his passion guide his logic. That was his choice, I must clarify. No "heat of the passion" argument. He decided to dwell on those passions and chose to put gratification ahead of duty--that's my speculative argument. And that's how people work, and Gov. Spitzer is a human being. Quite simply human, and he had to learn a human lesson at the worst possible time.
So, oh well. He's screwed. Time to move on. Even if he wants to still be Gov, he should resign, because he will be dealing with too much drama to do his job as well as he could. Let's see how Paterson does.
PS. By the way, his short speech in response to every is full of BS. It was cute, and written in with an eye toward his duty as public servant, but his actions say that his duty is not always going to be the first thing on his mind.
Governor Spitzer put his marriage and career in danger. For sex. Apparently, he's purchased the company of ladies several times. It makes little since that he would do this, since he has been a top figure in NYS politics for about a decade, but, well, he did. So why?
He might be a sex freak. Now, it seems that this is a weak argument. It makes little sense for a man in his position, no matter how horny he is, to risk things on illicit sex.
There is no logic involved. An experienced politician who graduated from Harvard Law-- my dream school <3 --with a reputation from cracking down on corruption. Seems to be a man guided by logic and wisdom.
However, the most important experience a person can have is in dealing with their passions. Gov. Spitzer seems to be a very smart man, but possibly has little experience in dealing with his secret passions, or at least having to deal with his in such a way that he has to deny himself certain activities. He allowed his passion guide his logic. That was his choice, I must clarify. No "heat of the passion" argument. He decided to dwell on those passions and chose to put gratification ahead of duty--that's my speculative argument. And that's how people work, and Gov. Spitzer is a human being. Quite simply human, and he had to learn a human lesson at the worst possible time.
So, oh well. He's screwed. Time to move on. Even if he wants to still be Gov, he should resign, because he will be dealing with too much drama to do his job as well as he could. Let's see how Paterson does.
PS. By the way, his short speech in response to every is full of BS. It was cute, and written in with an eye toward his duty as public servant, but his actions say that his duty is not always going to be the first thing on his mind.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Guns.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_re_us/virginia_gun_laws
Virginia Governor Kaine proposed background checks for people who purchase firearms from unlicensed dealers. They need to do this in every state. Having a right to own a gun is a everyone's right, unless they've disqualified themselves.
If people need background checks at a licensed shop, they need background checks when dealing with private dealers. No way would this law "infringes on Second Amendment right" if the background checks put the patrons of unlicensed dealers at the same inconvenience that patrons of licensed dealers go through.
Stop bullshit arguments.
Virginia Governor Kaine proposed background checks for people who purchase firearms from unlicensed dealers. They need to do this in every state. Having a right to own a gun is a everyone's right, unless they've disqualified themselves.
If people need background checks at a licensed shop, they need background checks when dealing with private dealers. No way would this law "infringes on Second Amendment right" if the background checks put the patrons of unlicensed dealers at the same inconvenience that patrons of licensed dealers go through.
Stop bullshit arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)