Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich fell into handcuffs after alledgedly conspiring to "sell or trade" Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat. He may beat these charges in pre-trial or trial. The trial may affirm the charges: he attempted to misuse his constitutional powers.
The point of this essay is to highlight that a governor of one of the nation's economic power-houses can be accountable in a nonviolent way. (A disturbing amount of Roman Emperors were killed in action; guys like Robert Mugabe refuse to leave without being nudged away by a crowbar.) While people in other nations live in such conditions that suicide bombing seems attractive, Americans resort to lawsuits because the process is reasonably successful and fair. A well-run, and fair legal system is a primary barrier between order, and chaos (see Afghanistan, where many areas lack regulated law enforcement agencies, and even law enforcement has been accused of abusing prisoners).
Political corruption is like a bad milk stain on the carpet. It won't leave, despite calls to a common sense of decency, and attempts to scrub corruption out. For instance, three other Illinois Governors have landed in jail since 1973, for charges such as tax evasion, bank fraud, and treating favorites to state contracts. Should the current Governor be found guilty, it would seem that more must be done to prevent corruption. The point of this little memo, however, is to remind us that his indictment is a success in regards to cleaning up the stain, if failing prevent it. In America: No one, we hope, can get away with the abuse of power, even politcal power.
That is our country, or, at least, it's political philosophy. So to speak, everyone is accountable to everyone else. You to me, me to you, us to them, them to us.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
A definition of Dangerous Idealogy
I.
He said, I hope they don't catch Bin Laden before the election, or it would hurt Obama. This statement uttered sometime in June. I worked with this man in a certain job, and urged by curiosity and the tightness in my stomach, I asked why he believed that Osama Bin Laden's capture would hurt Barack Obama's chances. Co-worker said that an apprehension would put the GOP in a positive light. Obama would lose the election.
But, I said, wouldn't the capture of Al-Qaeda's leader lead to a great number of benefits?
No, he said, Bin Laden's threat is over rated. (Several miles south, in downtown Manhattan, exists a giant hole.) Co-worker's ring phone: a rap song that blurted, "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!" Hardcore liberal. A real member of the group.
II.
The danger of ideology stems from an intense loyalty to a group. When group affiliation outweighs the application of the ideas, then the ideas lose ground. The group reigns supreme, but the ideas they spout retain the meaning of breaths.
He said, I hope they don't catch Bin Laden before the election, or it would hurt Obama. This statement uttered sometime in June. I worked with this man in a certain job, and urged by curiosity and the tightness in my stomach, I asked why he believed that Osama Bin Laden's capture would hurt Barack Obama's chances. Co-worker said that an apprehension would put the GOP in a positive light. Obama would lose the election.
But, I said, wouldn't the capture of Al-Qaeda's leader lead to a great number of benefits?
No, he said, Bin Laden's threat is over rated. (Several miles south, in downtown Manhattan, exists a giant hole.) Co-worker's ring phone: a rap song that blurted, "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!" Hardcore liberal. A real member of the group.
II.
The danger of ideology stems from an intense loyalty to a group. When group affiliation outweighs the application of the ideas, then the ideas lose ground. The group reigns supreme, but the ideas they spout retain the meaning of breaths.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Several Characteristics of My Ideal Government (1st draft)
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)