Democracy is not inherently fair.
Take hypothetical candidates for some office. The people will vote for the candidate of their choice, but how do the people know which candidate is the best choice for the office? Their perception of each candidate depends on what they know about that candidate. Because there are so many people and they are spread across a large amount of land, it's not possible for the candidates to speak to each person directly. What each candidate tells the people about themselves is limited by how that candidate can reach the people. Television, radio, billboards, pamphlets, internet sites, and word of mouth are some common ways to reach people and they all incur costs for the candidate. So how much each candidate can tell people about him or her self depends on money. Not all candidates have the same amount of money so candidates with more money are more likely to reach more people and be able to tell them more about themselves (or tell them negative things about other candidates). Because people are more comfortable with people with whom they are more familiar, even if the messages from two identical candidates are essentially the same, the candidate with more public exposure is likely to receive more votes. This may be unfair. Furthermore, people don't necessarily vote for what is best for the county, state, or country. Some people may conscientiously vote for what is best for everyone but most people just vote for what they think is best for themselves first and then for everyone else. So the votes are naturally subjective and playing to people's selfish subjectivity is an old play for politicians running for an office. Once in office, politicians are under no obligation to fulfill their campaign promises. There is no law requiring any effort towards fulfilling campaign promises. There is no penalty for not fulfilling them and even though theoretically the punishment for not fulfilling them is to be voted out of office the next election, historically politicians continue to be re-elected even after failing to fulfill their most important promises.
In a state with millions of people, not all people drive the same roads. But is the road improvement budget apportioned according to the number of people in each area and the taxes they paid towards the road improvement budget? Or do people in rural areas pay the same amount towards road improvement but see a fraction of the benefit relative to tax payers in other areas because the money from all over the state tends to be spent in more highly populated areas? Do people in some areas wait an unreasonable amount of time for improvements to occur because the state published the entire work as one offer and the winning company can't do it all at once, so it focuses on highly monitored areas first? Maybe work should be published as multiple offers according to geographical areas and the work contracted to multiple companies who will execute simultaneously.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, July 5, 2013
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Libertarian Party
Just saw on the news that congress currently has an 11% approval rate... Which is far out of alignment with its political makeup. It seems that citizens are unhappy with both major parties because they spend too much, they pass many laws for the benefit of few people, they pass laws that they claim protect citizens without understanding how they are hurting the country.
The popular wisdom is that Republicans are financially and socially conservative and Democrats are financially and socially liberal. However, both are financially liberal - they just have different clients. Democrats are willing to forcefully take money from the rich (including the middle class) to take care of everyone else. Republicans are willing to take from everyone to feed their friends. Both parties disregard the constitution when it's convenient for them.
The Libertarian Party is the only constitutionally conservative party.
Every time you vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate, a little part of America dies. Vote Libertarian - its te only way to save America.
The popular wisdom is that Republicans are financially and socially conservative and Democrats are financially and socially liberal. However, both are financially liberal - they just have different clients. Democrats are willing to forcefully take money from the rich (including the middle class) to take care of everyone else. Republicans are willing to take from everyone to feed their friends. Both parties disregard the constitution when it's convenient for them.
The Libertarian Party is the only constitutionally conservative party.
Every time you vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate, a little part of America dies. Vote Libertarian - its te only way to save America.
Monday, November 28, 2011
It's the cookie, stupid!
I bought a cookie at a convenience store today and a man noticed me and said that he saw me buy a cookie yesterday too and asked if I can afford it. I said, yesterday I bought the chocolate chunk flavor and today I bought the peanut butter flavor. He asked if one was healthier than the other and I said, no, they are different toppings but the cookie is the same, and both are equally unhealthy for me - I just wanted to see how they tasted.
Now that I think about it, it's a lot like America's two-party system. We have two different flavors of the same cookie - they both like to spend more than America can afford, and they both have a vision of America that is far different from what our founding fathers envisioned. This may be an oversimplification, but during the recent budget crisis where the Republicans and Democrats agreed to form a "super-commitee" to decide on budget cuts to total $1.4 trillion over the next ten years, they couldn't agree on what to cut and this was big news. What this big news and all the talk about a balanced budget was hiding was the fact that $1.4 trillion over the next ten years is meaningless. What we need is to create a budget surplus of $1.4 trillion in the next 12 months and then maintain it for the subsequent 10 years in order to eliminate the country's $15 trillion national debt, without accounting for inflation.
The Republicans and Democrats are just fat cookies. Each one tastes good to different people but they are both bad for our health.
The Libertarian party is the ideological descendant of the founding fathers. Only the Libertarian party recognizes that both Republican-run and Democrat-run governments have had the same deleterious effects on our nation - money being forcibly taken from all citizens in some way to pay for special interests, rampant fraud and corruption endorsed by the government (both Republican president Bush and Democrat president Obama endorsed bailouts of companies) and handouts to either rich or poor citizens (just another flavor).
Now that I think about it, it's a lot like America's two-party system. We have two different flavors of the same cookie - they both like to spend more than America can afford, and they both have a vision of America that is far different from what our founding fathers envisioned. This may be an oversimplification, but during the recent budget crisis where the Republicans and Democrats agreed to form a "super-commitee" to decide on budget cuts to total $1.4 trillion over the next ten years, they couldn't agree on what to cut and this was big news. What this big news and all the talk about a balanced budget was hiding was the fact that $1.4 trillion over the next ten years is meaningless. What we need is to create a budget surplus of $1.4 trillion in the next 12 months and then maintain it for the subsequent 10 years in order to eliminate the country's $15 trillion national debt, without accounting for inflation.
The Republicans and Democrats are just fat cookies. Each one tastes good to different people but they are both bad for our health.
The Libertarian party is the ideological descendant of the founding fathers. Only the Libertarian party recognizes that both Republican-run and Democrat-run governments have had the same deleterious effects on our nation - money being forcibly taken from all citizens in some way to pay for special interests, rampant fraud and corruption endorsed by the government (both Republican president Bush and Democrat president Obama endorsed bailouts of companies) and handouts to either rich or poor citizens (just another flavor).
Friday, October 14, 2011
Election Rules
Running for public office costs money. The more important the office, the more is spent on the campaign.
Should there be a limit on how long the "campaign season" is? No. A person who is running for office is using reputation built over his or her entire lifetime, and the right to free speech prevents the government from restricting precisely this kind of (usually positive) political speech. Putting an arbitrary limit on the "campaign season" won't do much to curb the spending, it will just concentrate most of it during that period when all the advertising and traveling is done.
Should private funding of campaigns be prohibited? No. Having the government pay for campaigns is a terrible idea. First, there would have to be a system to determine who is eligible to receive money. Since we have two long-standing major parties, any public funding system would probably end up being very biased towards those two parties the way that the rest of the election system is biased towards them now. Second, there would have to be a limit on how much money is spent on each candidate or in total over all the candidates, and each year lawmakers will waste time debating about raising the limit. Third, I reject the idea of using my tax money to pay for the opposition's advertising.
Should there be a limit to private donations? No. It would be very hard to enforce, anyway, because a person with a lot of money to donate can get around any arbitrary limit by distributing the donation among a large number of supportive people.
Should disclosure of donations be mandatory? Yes. People have a right to know who are major donors of campaigns (for any definition of major) because it may affect what the candidate will do once in office (sadly) and also casts light on some of the candidate's statements. Right now there is a law that campaigns must disclose the names of all persons who donate over $250, but they get around it with "bundlers" who collect thousands of dollars from people and then don't have to disclose where they got it. I don't know how the justice department allows that to go on when it's a clear violation of the spirit of the $250 law. I think $250 is a fine arbitrary maximum anonymous donation.
Is there any adjustment we can make to get better accountability over the election funding process? Yes. Even though the money should not come from the government and we shouldn't limit the period of time that candidates are allowed to make statements, if we want to be certain that we know who is contributing to a campaign we need to make the accounting transparent. The way to accomplish that is to require candidates to use an independent accountancy firm that has a license from the government to manage campaign funds. Anyone should be able to get a license to do that job by reading a book with all the campaign finance laws and signing an agreement to report faithfully what is going on with the campaigns it manages. Every candidate would hire their own "treasury firm" to manage income and expenses for the campaign - actually the licensed accountancies should be allowed to manage the finances of only one candidate running for any one office. So for example the same firm could manage the campaign of a person running for mayor and another running for congress but not the campaign of a third person who is running for the same mayoral or congressional office. The firm would accept all donations and issue checks and debit cards for all expenses. It would publish (publicly) a list of all people and corporations who donated more than $250 to the campaign (or whatever the maximum anonymous donation is) and the government would access the same published data that everyone else can access. People would still be able to get together, form an organization, and donate through that organization to the campaign - but that would still allow investigators to find out the identities of the people behind that facade.
Also, campaign income and expenses would have to be defined as being specifically about the candidate. That is separate from income and expenses of the candidate's party to promote its platform without naming a specific person who is running for office. Any trip that the candidate makes in which the candidate performs even one speech about election is considered a campaign expense. If it's paid for by some other person instead of coming out of the campaign fund, then the accountancy firm must simply list something like "trip to (wherever) and meals paid for by (who) estimated at $xxx" so the public knows about the donation. This allows people to contribute equipment, food, parties, or whatever with assets they have instead of having to convert that to a monetary donation while still being accountable to the public for their support.
Is it proper to make a candidate's election finances public? I think so. Candidates who are elected for public office will be managing public funds and there is no privacy there - so why should there be privacy for people who want to attain such positions? The people have a right to know who they are voting for, and a person's finances have a lot to tell.
What else can we do? If we're concerned about minority party access to the public during a campaign there should be non-profit associations who set up debates and donate radio, television, or newspaper ads to campaigns by minority parties (anyone not a Democrat or a Republican).
I also think that how political parties choose their candidates is not government business. All sorts of "primaries" and other nonsense should not be funded by nor regulated by the government.
Should there be a limit on how long the "campaign season" is? No. A person who is running for office is using reputation built over his or her entire lifetime, and the right to free speech prevents the government from restricting precisely this kind of (usually positive) political speech. Putting an arbitrary limit on the "campaign season" won't do much to curb the spending, it will just concentrate most of it during that period when all the advertising and traveling is done.
Should private funding of campaigns be prohibited? No. Having the government pay for campaigns is a terrible idea. First, there would have to be a system to determine who is eligible to receive money. Since we have two long-standing major parties, any public funding system would probably end up being very biased towards those two parties the way that the rest of the election system is biased towards them now. Second, there would have to be a limit on how much money is spent on each candidate or in total over all the candidates, and each year lawmakers will waste time debating about raising the limit. Third, I reject the idea of using my tax money to pay for the opposition's advertising.
Should there be a limit to private donations? No. It would be very hard to enforce, anyway, because a person with a lot of money to donate can get around any arbitrary limit by distributing the donation among a large number of supportive people.
Should disclosure of donations be mandatory? Yes. People have a right to know who are major donors of campaigns (for any definition of major) because it may affect what the candidate will do once in office (sadly) and also casts light on some of the candidate's statements. Right now there is a law that campaigns must disclose the names of all persons who donate over $250, but they get around it with "bundlers" who collect thousands of dollars from people and then don't have to disclose where they got it. I don't know how the justice department allows that to go on when it's a clear violation of the spirit of the $250 law. I think $250 is a fine arbitrary maximum anonymous donation.
Is there any adjustment we can make to get better accountability over the election funding process? Yes. Even though the money should not come from the government and we shouldn't limit the period of time that candidates are allowed to make statements, if we want to be certain that we know who is contributing to a campaign we need to make the accounting transparent. The way to accomplish that is to require candidates to use an independent accountancy firm that has a license from the government to manage campaign funds. Anyone should be able to get a license to do that job by reading a book with all the campaign finance laws and signing an agreement to report faithfully what is going on with the campaigns it manages. Every candidate would hire their own "treasury firm" to manage income and expenses for the campaign - actually the licensed accountancies should be allowed to manage the finances of only one candidate running for any one office. So for example the same firm could manage the campaign of a person running for mayor and another running for congress but not the campaign of a third person who is running for the same mayoral or congressional office. The firm would accept all donations and issue checks and debit cards for all expenses. It would publish (publicly) a list of all people and corporations who donated more than $250 to the campaign (or whatever the maximum anonymous donation is) and the government would access the same published data that everyone else can access. People would still be able to get together, form an organization, and donate through that organization to the campaign - but that would still allow investigators to find out the identities of the people behind that facade.
Also, campaign income and expenses would have to be defined as being specifically about the candidate. That is separate from income and expenses of the candidate's party to promote its platform without naming a specific person who is running for office. Any trip that the candidate makes in which the candidate performs even one speech about election is considered a campaign expense. If it's paid for by some other person instead of coming out of the campaign fund, then the accountancy firm must simply list something like "trip to (wherever) and meals paid for by (who) estimated at $xxx" so the public knows about the donation. This allows people to contribute equipment, food, parties, or whatever with assets they have instead of having to convert that to a monetary donation while still being accountable to the public for their support.
Is it proper to make a candidate's election finances public? I think so. Candidates who are elected for public office will be managing public funds and there is no privacy there - so why should there be privacy for people who want to attain such positions? The people have a right to know who they are voting for, and a person's finances have a lot to tell.
What else can we do? If we're concerned about minority party access to the public during a campaign there should be non-profit associations who set up debates and donate radio, television, or newspaper ads to campaigns by minority parties (anyone not a Democrat or a Republican).
I also think that how political parties choose their candidates is not government business. All sorts of "primaries" and other nonsense should not be funded by nor regulated by the government.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Value-based politics
Here are some of my political positions and the values they are based on.
Selfless service is a military and government value but I don't think it can be an individual intrinsic value. It's really a combination of integrity, loyalty, duty, and courage. I mean it's a value that is necessary for the accomplishment of a military mission or for ethical public service by a politician but its not an end in itself. I think that a government official needs to put the country and its people above his or her own needs, but I also think that this is part of the job description of being a government official - therefore it's part of the duties of an official to willingly forego personal gain at the expense of others through the use of the public office. It's not an inversion of values. Even though it might seem that selfless service places duty above life or property, it does not, because the oath of office explicitly declares a willingness to assume the duties of the office and therefore a personal choice to forego personal gain when it conflicts with the duties of the office.
Openness (as in transparent government). I value openness because it's a means to ensuring that the government functions with honesty, integrity, loyalty, responsibility, and respect, which are concepts I value.
Worker protection. I value worker protection as it relates to preserving life, liberty, justice, right to property, opportunity, and treating people with respect. That means I advocate for practicing safety controls in work environments, prevention of sexual harassment, and a minimum wage. But I do not value government laws related to unions that force employers to negotiate with unions or force employers to keep unprofitable businesses open just so they can employ union workers, because to me these are huge violations of an employer's liberty and right to property. Also, I think that in some situations a minimum wage does not apply, such as when a person volunteers to do work for free or in exchange for something other than money (such as experience, like student internships), or when the work is done as a punishment (prisoners should not receive payment because their work is paying a debt to society).
Consumer protection. I value consumer protection as it relates to preserving life. That means I advocate for laws requiring manufacturers or merchants to disclose harmful effects of their products, especially related to health or risk of injury or damages. I also advocate laws that require truthfulness in advertising, including identification of unfounded claims.
Insurance. I value insurance because it's a good way for a community of people to organize and help each other in times of need.
Universal healthcare. I advocate universal healthcare that is provided through charity, volunteerism, or non-profit organization. I reject universal healthcare if everyone is forced to pay for it while the people involved in providing it make profits, because that is essentially forcing everyone to buy something they may not need and is a form of enslaving everyone (even if it's for a limited annual amount) for the benefit of the relatively few in the healthcare field. I think that non-charity healthcare should be community-based (insurance) and not slavery-based.
Retirement guarantee. I reject the "Social Security" system because it's a form of slavery. Everyone who works has to pay for the retirement benefits of the previous generation, benefits promised to them by people who don't have the right to make that promise, and also subject to change at the whim of any generation of lawmakers.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Membership Criteria to the United Nations
Any state that acts against its own people must be denied membership in the United Nations. This is because the government of such a state cannot be trusted to represent its people, and therefore the nation it represents is not really united with the others. Such governments can be counted on to abuse their membership in the United Nations just as they abuse their own people.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Courage Campaign Crossed the Line
So I receive emails from the Courage Campaign which fights for equal rights for minorities.
Today I got an email from them about Obama and how terrible it is that he is proposing more cuts to the budget than what was already agreed and that he "already gave the republicans what they wanted" so he should be focusing on creating jobs instead of cutting spending.
I replied to the email and here is what I wrote:
you better stick to full equality issues... providing jobs is NOT the government's purpose
Today I got an email from them about Obama and how terrible it is that he is proposing more cuts to the budget than what was already agreed and that he "already gave the republicans what they wanted" so he should be focusing on creating jobs instead of cutting spending.
I replied to the email and here is what I wrote:
you better stick to full equality issues... providing jobs is NOT the government's purpose
this isn't about "giving republicans what they wanted", this is about a serious and grave challenge to our entire country.
don't you understand? even with a balanced budget (which 1.5 trillion doesn't do) we won't be rid of the national debt, because to get rid of it we need to have a NET GAIN every year... for many, many years.
in order to have a net gain we would have to cut so many programs and eliminate so many tax shelters for the mega-rich that practically everyone in the country would be angry at the government.
it would require an American toughness at least the magnitude that was suffered during the world wars. to do it willingly before we are forced to, now THAT requires courage.
people naturally get more conservative during tough times. if Americans suffer because we've reached the end of the rope, instead of voluntarily taking responsible action, then we will lose a lot of ground in the fight for personal freedoms. but if we convince people to willingly sacrifice their favorite programs by eliminating or greatly reducing them, or by paying more taxes (those of us with money to speak of) then we can have economic recovery without the rash changes in attitude.
that's what the courage campaign should be advocating... hey all, let's put our war face on and figure out how to get by without social security, without welfare, without tax shelters, without pork barrel projects, without paying for senators traveling internationally, and without literally a million other things that sound great on paper but that all together are bringing our country to its knees.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Destabilizing the Security Situation
I get annoyed when I read news like "the bomb may have been intended to destabilize the security situation". If one bomb can do that, it must have already been unstable.
The detonation of a bomb, the assassination of a leader, the murder of innocent people, these are not things that reflect the security situation. It is the way the government responds to them that reflects the security situation. If the government has the means to bring the criminals to justice, there is potential for security... If the government pursues the criminals and brings them to justice, then it is working. There is nothing unstable about that. If the government, because of corruption or lack of means, is not able to pursue the criminals, then the more people know this and take advantage, the worse the security situation becomes.
Ultimately, the security situation is each citizen's perception about their ability to live in peace, about the government's ability to deal justice. The security situation is the deterrent to crime and the actual capacity for enforcement.
Some people's perceptions may be swayed by one attack but the actual capacity for enforcement cannot be significantly degraded by just one attack. Therefore the security situation cannot be destabilized by just one attack. That's why I get really annoyed when I see someone writing such drivel - because the writer is typically speculating about the attacker's motive, and I think in most cases writers give attackers too much credit. Most of the attackers, whether it's in the USA or in one of our "war" zones, are just unstable paranoid delusional misguided immoral self-righteous fearful violent scum. They try to justify their crimes in any way they can and writers just do them a favor by publishing their bullshit.
I would prefer for the serious news publishers to abstain from propagating analysis until after the facts are actually available, because often people read the first version of the story and then aren't interested in the updates... not to mention that most of the time the updates don't get the same level of placement as the original story, as if they are less important.
And now, in mocking fashion, I present you other news: An ignorant blog writer attacked a common news publishing practice today, in a possible attempt to destabilize the already deteriorating journalism situation...
The detonation of a bomb, the assassination of a leader, the murder of innocent people, these are not things that reflect the security situation. It is the way the government responds to them that reflects the security situation. If the government has the means to bring the criminals to justice, there is potential for security... If the government pursues the criminals and brings them to justice, then it is working. There is nothing unstable about that. If the government, because of corruption or lack of means, is not able to pursue the criminals, then the more people know this and take advantage, the worse the security situation becomes.
Ultimately, the security situation is each citizen's perception about their ability to live in peace, about the government's ability to deal justice. The security situation is the deterrent to crime and the actual capacity for enforcement.
Some people's perceptions may be swayed by one attack but the actual capacity for enforcement cannot be significantly degraded by just one attack. Therefore the security situation cannot be destabilized by just one attack. That's why I get really annoyed when I see someone writing such drivel - because the writer is typically speculating about the attacker's motive, and I think in most cases writers give attackers too much credit. Most of the attackers, whether it's in the USA or in one of our "war" zones, are just unstable paranoid delusional misguided immoral self-righteous fearful violent scum. They try to justify their crimes in any way they can and writers just do them a favor by publishing their bullshit.
I would prefer for the serious news publishers to abstain from propagating analysis until after the facts are actually available, because often people read the first version of the story and then aren't interested in the updates... not to mention that most of the time the updates don't get the same level of placement as the original story, as if they are less important.
And now, in mocking fashion, I present you other news: An ignorant blog writer attacked a common news publishing practice today, in a possible attempt to destabilize the already deteriorating journalism situation...
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Libya
So the United Nations agreed to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in order to prevent Ghadafi from using air strikes against the rebels.
Now everyone is talking about whether the United Nations should arm the rebels. The rebels will need a full spectrum of ground combat weapons and training. It will take time to arm them, train them, and wait for their victory. And while we wait, we have to pay for their expenses and for what it costs us to maintain the no-fly zone.
Why not just send in a professional military to defeat Ghadafi and hand the country over to the rebels? We can achieve victory faster and spare the lives of many Libyan citizens in the process.
There's also no need to maintain a United Nations "peace keeping" force there later - just issue a warning to all countries that if they attack Libya during its reconstruction phase the United Nations will defend Libya and counter-attack the attacker's country - not just to get them out of Libya but to disable the attacker's own military for a significant enough amount of time that the attacker would be vulnerable to attack by their own neighbors. Such a warning is a good deterrent - and if it's tested a decisive follow-through will ensure that the next such warning will be an even better deterrent.
Now everyone is talking about whether the United Nations should arm the rebels. The rebels will need a full spectrum of ground combat weapons and training. It will take time to arm them, train them, and wait for their victory. And while we wait, we have to pay for their expenses and for what it costs us to maintain the no-fly zone.
Why not just send in a professional military to defeat Ghadafi and hand the country over to the rebels? We can achieve victory faster and spare the lives of many Libyan citizens in the process.
There's also no need to maintain a United Nations "peace keeping" force there later - just issue a warning to all countries that if they attack Libya during its reconstruction phase the United Nations will defend Libya and counter-attack the attacker's country - not just to get them out of Libya but to disable the attacker's own military for a significant enough amount of time that the attacker would be vulnerable to attack by their own neighbors. Such a warning is a good deterrent - and if it's tested a decisive follow-through will ensure that the next such warning will be an even better deterrent.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Burkas in France
Last year France passed a law that bans the public wearing of full head & body coverings. The law provided for 6 months of announcements of the new law before it takes effect (next month).
Approximately 80% of French citizens support the law.
Amnesty International claims it violates the right to freedom of religion of Muslims in France.
Compared with places like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even allow Jews to enter the country (actually they backtracked on this after some pressure from the USA but they still don't allow anyone with an Israeli stamp on their passport), and has no tolerance AT ALL for any public appearance or practice that is not Muslim, France is still very, very free.
The burka is just a style of dress, and there are dress codes in every place in the world. I think French citizens have a right to say that in THEIR country they don't want to see people wearing burkas. Maybe it's painful for them because of everything that burkas are associated with. Maybe it's a first step in forcing Arab immigrants to assimilate to French culture instead of living in their own enclaves isolated from society.
And forcing assimilation is not a bad thing - if the immigrants want to live just as they did at home, well, then they should go back home. There's a REASON they immigrated to France. Whatever that reason is (and let's assume it's not to execute a peaceful takeover by simply outpacing the French birthrate) it will be best leveraged by assimilating to the French culture.
And since French people don't wear burkas, the immigrants shouldn't be either - yet they do, and they're isolated, and they're teaching their kids to behave in ways that are contrary to French law, and it's caused a lot of friction with the rest of French society - hence the new law against burkas.
Arabs have countries where they can force all people to behave like Arabs and refuse to allow certain kinds of people to even visit... so they shouldn't complain that the French want people in France to behave like the French.
Amnesty International should respect that.
The biggest lie of modern history is that religion can be completely separate from state and politics. Religion teaches politics! Every religion teaches how to behave towards other people. Every religion is based on some ideas of what is best. And all the religions that I've studied define what is a crime and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. And what do states do? States define crimes and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. Many modern states have values that stem from the dominant religion of the people within the state. Some states acknowledge their values stem from religion, and other states pretend that their "secular" values stand apart from any religion. Notice that in states that claim to allow freedom of religion, they still prosecute people whose religious practices happen to be a crime in the state. For example: animal sacrifices, honor killings, polygamy, sodomy, child molestation. How is that freedom of religion? It's not - it's tolerance of religion as long as its practice stays within the bounds of the state law.
In France, by the way, young Muslim men have caused quite a lot of trouble. It seems that their religion, as practiced by them, is not very compatible with French law. I remember stories I read a few years ago about young Muslim men in France raping girls who they thought didn't dress conservatively enough. Now, other men in France have raped too, and France has a law against this, and rapists who are caught get punishment. But it's interesting to note that only the young Muslim men actually cited their religion and conservative cultural practices as reasons to rape a girl. This is what I mean when I say their religion is incompatible with French law.
And that's why it's a good thing that France is passing laws to force Arab immigrants to assimilate. By mixing into society more they are more likely to learn French values and trim their religious practices to the subset that is compatible with French law.
When in France, do as the French do.
I think it's strange that Amnesty International, a group devoted to the defense of freedom of religion and opinion, should choose to defend people adhering to a religion that, when fully adopted by a state, is the source of the most oppressive regimes in world history.
Approximately 80% of French citizens support the law.
Amnesty International claims it violates the right to freedom of religion of Muslims in France.
Compared with places like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even allow Jews to enter the country (actually they backtracked on this after some pressure from the USA but they still don't allow anyone with an Israeli stamp on their passport), and has no tolerance AT ALL for any public appearance or practice that is not Muslim, France is still very, very free.
The burka is just a style of dress, and there are dress codes in every place in the world. I think French citizens have a right to say that in THEIR country they don't want to see people wearing burkas. Maybe it's painful for them because of everything that burkas are associated with. Maybe it's a first step in forcing Arab immigrants to assimilate to French culture instead of living in their own enclaves isolated from society.
And forcing assimilation is not a bad thing - if the immigrants want to live just as they did at home, well, then they should go back home. There's a REASON they immigrated to France. Whatever that reason is (and let's assume it's not to execute a peaceful takeover by simply outpacing the French birthrate) it will be best leveraged by assimilating to the French culture.
And since French people don't wear burkas, the immigrants shouldn't be either - yet they do, and they're isolated, and they're teaching their kids to behave in ways that are contrary to French law, and it's caused a lot of friction with the rest of French society - hence the new law against burkas.
Arabs have countries where they can force all people to behave like Arabs and refuse to allow certain kinds of people to even visit... so they shouldn't complain that the French want people in France to behave like the French.
Amnesty International should respect that.
The biggest lie of modern history is that religion can be completely separate from state and politics. Religion teaches politics! Every religion teaches how to behave towards other people. Every religion is based on some ideas of what is best. And all the religions that I've studied define what is a crime and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. And what do states do? States define crimes and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. Many modern states have values that stem from the dominant religion of the people within the state. Some states acknowledge their values stem from religion, and other states pretend that their "secular" values stand apart from any religion. Notice that in states that claim to allow freedom of religion, they still prosecute people whose religious practices happen to be a crime in the state. For example: animal sacrifices, honor killings, polygamy, sodomy, child molestation. How is that freedom of religion? It's not - it's tolerance of religion as long as its practice stays within the bounds of the state law.
In France, by the way, young Muslim men have caused quite a lot of trouble. It seems that their religion, as practiced by them, is not very compatible with French law. I remember stories I read a few years ago about young Muslim men in France raping girls who they thought didn't dress conservatively enough. Now, other men in France have raped too, and France has a law against this, and rapists who are caught get punishment. But it's interesting to note that only the young Muslim men actually cited their religion and conservative cultural practices as reasons to rape a girl. This is what I mean when I say their religion is incompatible with French law.
And that's why it's a good thing that France is passing laws to force Arab immigrants to assimilate. By mixing into society more they are more likely to learn French values and trim their religious practices to the subset that is compatible with French law.
When in France, do as the French do.
I think it's strange that Amnesty International, a group devoted to the defense of freedom of religion and opinion, should choose to defend people adhering to a religion that, when fully adopted by a state, is the source of the most oppressive regimes in world history.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Honesty about Separation of Church and State
I believe that our government favors certain religions. It has values and ideas embedded in it that come from Christianity. Some of these values and ideas were in turn derived from Judaism and that, I believe, is the reason that Jews and Christians get along so well in the United States, along with Hindus and many others. I also believe that, while we claim that we tolerate all religions here, in reality we only tolerate compatible religions. There may be some of us who truly tolerate every religion even if it's to the detriment of our society as a whole, but I believe that most of us do draw a line, even if we aren't aware of it. I believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the values and ideas of the United States. However, I also acknowledge that millions of Muslims do live here and the vast majority of them seem to do alright - and in my opinion they only way they are able to conform to American culture is by deviating from their religion.
I believe that to create a government that truly allows freedom of religion, we would have to remove from it some of our core values and beliefs because they are uniquely Jewish and Christian. I believe that we wouldn't want to have such a government if we were able to attain it. I also believe that we are better off being honest with ourselves about what we do tolerate and announcing to the world that anyone who can conform is welcome, all others beware.
The religious values embedded in our government are exposed by our laws. Murder is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Theft is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Adultery is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Buying alcohol on Sunday is not allowed in some states, and they prescribe punishments. At one time we even had a national prohibition on alcohol with prescribed punishments. These are distinctly religious rules and they favor the values of some people while discriminating against others. The special and holy day of the week for Jews is Saturday. A Jew should be able to buy alcohol on Sunday, but this is not the case in Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and more. In some places we have laws prohibiting other kinds of business on Sunday and we pretend that it's for a non-religious purpose. I believe that a comparison of our laws to Christian religious beliefs and practices would show a very strong correlation. I believe the state of the union is not consistent with our claim to separation between church and state.
If our government truly allowed people of different religions to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, then it would have to allow for completely different sets of laws as well as for laws governing interactions between members of different religions. I think that in order to get this right, it needs an abstract treatment with as few distinctions as possible. I propose the following distinctions: crimes against a person of the same religion, crimes against a person of a different religion, crimes against society or against the environment, violent crimes in each of these categories, non-violent crimes in each of these categories, and victim-less crimes. When I say religion I also mean to include in the discussion people who are atheists or who otherwise wish to set themselves apart from people of any known religion.
When a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, should their religion and its institutions be solely responsible for administering punishment according to its own values and sense of justice? Do we all want that kind of autonomy for our own religion? Do we sincerely believe that each religion is a system of government and that they should all be allowed to function as designed in order to bring about some greater good?
If the religious punishment for said crime is murder, can we accept that? After all, if a person doesn't want to be held accountable to those laws they could convert to another religion. What if the religion has a punishment for converting away from it?
Does geography matter? If a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, but this happens in an area dominated by a second religion, should the authorities there apply their own laws? Or the laws of the religion of the criminal and victim? Can we trust people from one religion to apply laws from another religion? I think not, mostly because the legitimization of justice requires people to believe that the administrators are experts in the law. So should the authorities send the criminal to his own people to be tried? There may be several nearby communities of that religion, so how would the local authorities choose to which community they will send the criminal to be tried? Should the local authorities contact the closest religious community of the criminal? Is it possible that community will refuse to accept the criminal for trial? Should the local authorities then try the next possible religious community or should they then try the criminal by their own laws? Should they keep the criminal imprisoned until they find a suitable court?
If a person commits two or more crimes before being caught, and one of them is against another person of the same religion but another is against a person of a different religion, should they be processed in the order they occurred? Or should they be processed in the order of their seriousness? Do we compare the seriousness of the crime or the seriousness of the punishment? Is it possible this order might differ for different religions?
If a person commits a crime against a person of a different religion, which law applies? Should the criminal be tried according his or her own religion or according to the religion of the victim? Allowing the religion of the victim to handle the crime could be a deterrent against people of a lax religion committing crimes with impunity against people of other religions. In such a system, ignorance of the law cannot ever be an excuse for a crime. People must know the laws of their own religion and, at a minimum, the laws of other religions that could have serious consequences, or else they must tread very carefully. Such a system might encourage a religion to develop very severe punishments in order to deter crimes against its members. Also, it is possible that some religions may have hypocritical laws, where they themselves distinguish between committing a crime against a member of the religion or against a non-member, and between a member of the religion committing a crime and a non-member of the religion committing the crime. If the religion of the victim has hypocritical laws, should the government demand application of the laws as if the criminal was a member of the victim's religion? Or would such hypocritical laws be abandoned in a system of government that already handles inter-religion issues?
What should happen to govern two people of no religion? Should the law should be applied as if they were from two different religions? So if the victim is a member of an atheist organization that is equipped to handle crimes, should the criminal be handed over to them?
Having multiple religious organizations, each with their own infrastructure for handling criminals, may result in a significant waste of resources. It may also allow a sort of denial-of-service attack against minority religions by committing many crimes in a short period of time against members of that religion and then turning over the actor-criminals for handling, overwhelming the judiciary capacity of the minority religion. Having multiple religious organizations handle their own criminal justice systems also means that some religions may be at a significant disadvantage when handling certain kinds of crimes. How would a religion that forbids certain technology or practice handle a crime committed using that technology or practice? They probably wouldn't have the forensic experts to discuss the evidence.
Should the government provide a complete criminal justice system and a national police force that handles temporary imprisonment and allows different religions to supply judges for their own cases?
If we were to change our government to allow such a large degree of autonomy to different religions, would we place limits on what can be considered a religion? If a group of people organize together and declare that they are following the teachings of some person, alive or dead, and create rituals and codes of conduct, and call it by some name, shall they be recognized as a religion and allowed the same autonomy as other religions?
If any of the religions have practices that are barbaric, discriminatory, or inhumane, can we live with that? And by asking this question I'm of course identifying myself as a person who thinks that his own religion is not one of these. It's convenient to say that a person in such a religion living in a free country could just convert or relocate but the reality is that abusive communities tend to have systems in place to keep people in place. And even if the systems themselves didn't force people to stay, as our founding fathers said over 200 years ago, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". If I can't stand idly by, knowing that some people in my own country are being abused in a way prescribed by their own religion, then I cannot support a system of government that allows true freedom of religion.
I think that when we talk about religious freedom we mean freedom within some bounds that are shared by most of us and by the founding fathers (and mothers). And I think that when we talk about religious tolerance we mean tolerance for anything that conforms to our basic values. Anything outside of these bounds might receive lip service when it's at a distance but I think we would not really tolerate it here at home.
I think we should be honest with ourselves and say, our religious beliefs are part of the state and we like it. We think it's good. We prefer our religion to other religions, we prefer our culture to other cultures. We want to keep it the way it is or make it better, in accordance with our beliefs of what better might be. Our beliefs, not others' beliefs.
The way I know that I live in a Christian country is that some states and counties forbid selling alcohol on Sundays, which is a special day for Christians but not for Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or many others. Yet I don't know of any state or county that allows selling only Kosher foods. In our constitution, Article I, Section 7, it is written: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...". Sundays excepted - but not Saturdays! Since every 7-day week has a Sunday, any span of 10 days will include at least one Sunday and some spans will include two Sundays. Therefore, could not the founding fathers have simply said that the President has 12 days to sign a bill? They could have, but they were Christian, so it didn't occur to them. I do acknowledge some religious freedom, such as not being forced to go to church, and a very religiously permissive and accommodating environment in many schools across the country. So I am happy to say that I live in a free country, with our own special definition of free, and a tolerant country, so long as as I live within the bounds of the dominant culture.
I may prefer increased separation of church and state, and I may prefer more honesty about what we really do here, but I think I would not like for any religious group to have complete autonomy here. It's better for the world to be divided up for that sort of thing. Each land should have only one set of laws. I believe that these laws should be the minimum required for people to get along. In a country that claims separation of church and state, that minimum must be carefully considered.
We have our own set of values, American values. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Equal opportunity and treatment before the law based on merits, evidence, and without shallow discrimination on race, gender, religion, or age. Due process for justice. Safety. Privacy. Our sense of liberty has evolved since the writing of the Constitution - it used to mean just white people, now it means everyone. Our sense of equal opportunity has evolved - it used to mean just men, now it applies to men and women.
I think that we should have courage and say that anyone who shares our values and abides by our laws is welcome, and all others must find a home elsewhere in the world or face the consequences of breaking our laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. And I hope that our sense of separation of church and state will evolve - from limited separation to greater separation, to mean that we will secularize or abolish national laws that are specific to Christianity, keeping our American values and system of government separate from Christianity's specific beliefs and practices.
I believe that to create a government that truly allows freedom of religion, we would have to remove from it some of our core values and beliefs because they are uniquely Jewish and Christian. I believe that we wouldn't want to have such a government if we were able to attain it. I also believe that we are better off being honest with ourselves about what we do tolerate and announcing to the world that anyone who can conform is welcome, all others beware.
The religious values embedded in our government are exposed by our laws. Murder is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Theft is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Adultery is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Buying alcohol on Sunday is not allowed in some states, and they prescribe punishments. At one time we even had a national prohibition on alcohol with prescribed punishments. These are distinctly religious rules and they favor the values of some people while discriminating against others. The special and holy day of the week for Jews is Saturday. A Jew should be able to buy alcohol on Sunday, but this is not the case in Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and more. In some places we have laws prohibiting other kinds of business on Sunday and we pretend that it's for a non-religious purpose. I believe that a comparison of our laws to Christian religious beliefs and practices would show a very strong correlation. I believe the state of the union is not consistent with our claim to separation between church and state.
If our government truly allowed people of different religions to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, then it would have to allow for completely different sets of laws as well as for laws governing interactions between members of different religions. I think that in order to get this right, it needs an abstract treatment with as few distinctions as possible. I propose the following distinctions: crimes against a person of the same religion, crimes against a person of a different religion, crimes against society or against the environment, violent crimes in each of these categories, non-violent crimes in each of these categories, and victim-less crimes. When I say religion I also mean to include in the discussion people who are atheists or who otherwise wish to set themselves apart from people of any known religion.
When a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, should their religion and its institutions be solely responsible for administering punishment according to its own values and sense of justice? Do we all want that kind of autonomy for our own religion? Do we sincerely believe that each religion is a system of government and that they should all be allowed to function as designed in order to bring about some greater good?
If the religious punishment for said crime is murder, can we accept that? After all, if a person doesn't want to be held accountable to those laws they could convert to another religion. What if the religion has a punishment for converting away from it?
Does geography matter? If a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, but this happens in an area dominated by a second religion, should the authorities there apply their own laws? Or the laws of the religion of the criminal and victim? Can we trust people from one religion to apply laws from another religion? I think not, mostly because the legitimization of justice requires people to believe that the administrators are experts in the law. So should the authorities send the criminal to his own people to be tried? There may be several nearby communities of that religion, so how would the local authorities choose to which community they will send the criminal to be tried? Should the local authorities contact the closest religious community of the criminal? Is it possible that community will refuse to accept the criminal for trial? Should the local authorities then try the next possible religious community or should they then try the criminal by their own laws? Should they keep the criminal imprisoned until they find a suitable court?
If a person commits two or more crimes before being caught, and one of them is against another person of the same religion but another is against a person of a different religion, should they be processed in the order they occurred? Or should they be processed in the order of their seriousness? Do we compare the seriousness of the crime or the seriousness of the punishment? Is it possible this order might differ for different religions?
If a person commits a crime against a person of a different religion, which law applies? Should the criminal be tried according his or her own religion or according to the religion of the victim? Allowing the religion of the victim to handle the crime could be a deterrent against people of a lax religion committing crimes with impunity against people of other religions. In such a system, ignorance of the law cannot ever be an excuse for a crime. People must know the laws of their own religion and, at a minimum, the laws of other religions that could have serious consequences, or else they must tread very carefully. Such a system might encourage a religion to develop very severe punishments in order to deter crimes against its members. Also, it is possible that some religions may have hypocritical laws, where they themselves distinguish between committing a crime against a member of the religion or against a non-member, and between a member of the religion committing a crime and a non-member of the religion committing the crime. If the religion of the victim has hypocritical laws, should the government demand application of the laws as if the criminal was a member of the victim's religion? Or would such hypocritical laws be abandoned in a system of government that already handles inter-religion issues?
What should happen to govern two people of no religion? Should the law should be applied as if they were from two different religions? So if the victim is a member of an atheist organization that is equipped to handle crimes, should the criminal be handed over to them?
Having multiple religious organizations, each with their own infrastructure for handling criminals, may result in a significant waste of resources. It may also allow a sort of denial-of-service attack against minority religions by committing many crimes in a short period of time against members of that religion and then turning over the actor-criminals for handling, overwhelming the judiciary capacity of the minority religion. Having multiple religious organizations handle their own criminal justice systems also means that some religions may be at a significant disadvantage when handling certain kinds of crimes. How would a religion that forbids certain technology or practice handle a crime committed using that technology or practice? They probably wouldn't have the forensic experts to discuss the evidence.
Should the government provide a complete criminal justice system and a national police force that handles temporary imprisonment and allows different religions to supply judges for their own cases?
If we were to change our government to allow such a large degree of autonomy to different religions, would we place limits on what can be considered a religion? If a group of people organize together and declare that they are following the teachings of some person, alive or dead, and create rituals and codes of conduct, and call it by some name, shall they be recognized as a religion and allowed the same autonomy as other religions?
If any of the religions have practices that are barbaric, discriminatory, or inhumane, can we live with that? And by asking this question I'm of course identifying myself as a person who thinks that his own religion is not one of these. It's convenient to say that a person in such a religion living in a free country could just convert or relocate but the reality is that abusive communities tend to have systems in place to keep people in place. And even if the systems themselves didn't force people to stay, as our founding fathers said over 200 years ago, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". If I can't stand idly by, knowing that some people in my own country are being abused in a way prescribed by their own religion, then I cannot support a system of government that allows true freedom of religion.
I think that when we talk about religious freedom we mean freedom within some bounds that are shared by most of us and by the founding fathers (and mothers). And I think that when we talk about religious tolerance we mean tolerance for anything that conforms to our basic values. Anything outside of these bounds might receive lip service when it's at a distance but I think we would not really tolerate it here at home.
I think we should be honest with ourselves and say, our religious beliefs are part of the state and we like it. We think it's good. We prefer our religion to other religions, we prefer our culture to other cultures. We want to keep it the way it is or make it better, in accordance with our beliefs of what better might be. Our beliefs, not others' beliefs.
The way I know that I live in a Christian country is that some states and counties forbid selling alcohol on Sundays, which is a special day for Christians but not for Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or many others. Yet I don't know of any state or county that allows selling only Kosher foods. In our constitution, Article I, Section 7, it is written: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...". Sundays excepted - but not Saturdays! Since every 7-day week has a Sunday, any span of 10 days will include at least one Sunday and some spans will include two Sundays. Therefore, could not the founding fathers have simply said that the President has 12 days to sign a bill? They could have, but they were Christian, so it didn't occur to them. I do acknowledge some religious freedom, such as not being forced to go to church, and a very religiously permissive and accommodating environment in many schools across the country. So I am happy to say that I live in a free country, with our own special definition of free, and a tolerant country, so long as as I live within the bounds of the dominant culture.
I may prefer increased separation of church and state, and I may prefer more honesty about what we really do here, but I think I would not like for any religious group to have complete autonomy here. It's better for the world to be divided up for that sort of thing. Each land should have only one set of laws. I believe that these laws should be the minimum required for people to get along. In a country that claims separation of church and state, that minimum must be carefully considered.
We have our own set of values, American values. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Equal opportunity and treatment before the law based on merits, evidence, and without shallow discrimination on race, gender, religion, or age. Due process for justice. Safety. Privacy. Our sense of liberty has evolved since the writing of the Constitution - it used to mean just white people, now it means everyone. Our sense of equal opportunity has evolved - it used to mean just men, now it applies to men and women.
I think that we should have courage and say that anyone who shares our values and abides by our laws is welcome, and all others must find a home elsewhere in the world or face the consequences of breaking our laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. And I hope that our sense of separation of church and state will evolve - from limited separation to greater separation, to mean that we will secularize or abolish national laws that are specific to Christianity, keeping our American values and system of government separate from Christianity's specific beliefs and practices.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Mosque in New York near former World Trade Center site
Some people here are talking about freedom of religion but they don't understand that the Muslim culture is two-faced BY DESIGN. The Koran teaches Muslims that non-Muslims are inferior. Muslim history is replete with Muslims using violence and architecture to show their dominance over other cultures. For example, in areas under Muslim control, synagogues and churches cannot be built higher than the mosques.
Building a new Mosque anywhere near the site of the destroyed towers will be a symbol of victory to radical Muslims world-wide. If you think it will show them that we tolerate Muslims and you think they will love us for it, you're wrong -- it will show them that we are weak and it will embolden them to strike at us again.
We must remember they are a different culture and they have different values. We try to show tolerance and they see it as weakness. We try to show respect and they see us subjugating ourselves.
Don't bother trying to show "mainstream Islam" that we tolerate them and respect them because it doesn't matter... Those people aren't the ones attacking us. The same message will be interpreted by the terrorists as a sign of weakness and will encourage them to attack us again.
So it's better NOT to allow any new mosques in New York City period. Frankly they don't deserve them. We don't want an increase in Muslim populations here because more Muslims means more support for terrorists... places to stay, money, food, etc. Remember the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were living here as they planned and prepared for the attack. They had support.
Sure, not all Muslims are supporting terrorists but there is a percentage that does and since it's impossible for us to tell them apart. We want to be tolerant and let everyone into America but we are forgetting that these people are coming here and NOT conforming to American culture. They are not adopting our values. We show tolerance to them and they will show violence toward us. We'll be afraid to strike back because of our laws and our values but that makes us look weak to them. They are just living here, bleeding us slowly until the day that we are subconsciously so afraid of they can openly dominate non-Muslim Americans.
You think this is a tall tale? Look at Europe. They thought they were enlightened and now they are paying for it.
The only way to co-exist with Muslims is to disintegrate from them. Deport them back to the Middle East where they have their holy lands and don't let them back in. Stop trading with those countries. We don't need their oil or their endless sands. If they provoke us, attack them and win. Then LEAVE and don't waste billions of dollars trying to "repair" their low-life economy. Show them a strong hand and they will respect us and leave us alone. Encrypt our public communications so they can't receive our news or entertainment from the satellites or radios. Spend billions of dollars AT HOME to develop Earth-friendly power sources and eliminate our reliance on oil.
We have to recognize that our freedom of religion applies only to religions that are compatible with our core values - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Islam doesn't value life, it values surrender to Islam above life. If you don't believe that then read the Koran. Islam doesn't value liberty, its very name literally means "surrender". Islam doesn't value the pursuit of happiness, it dictates happiness and subjects who don't comply can be beaten or killed.
I know it sounds harsh, but remember that Muslims, BY THEIR DOCTRINE, do not value freedom of religion. And if they could have their way, they would convert or kill anyone who is not Muslim. Building a mosque - a symbol of their power - near the site where thousands of people were murdered by Muslim terrorists is just another step in the direction of Islam.
Building a new Mosque anywhere near the site of the destroyed towers will be a symbol of victory to radical Muslims world-wide. If you think it will show them that we tolerate Muslims and you think they will love us for it, you're wrong -- it will show them that we are weak and it will embolden them to strike at us again.
We must remember they are a different culture and they have different values. We try to show tolerance and they see it as weakness. We try to show respect and they see us subjugating ourselves.
Don't bother trying to show "mainstream Islam" that we tolerate them and respect them because it doesn't matter... Those people aren't the ones attacking us. The same message will be interpreted by the terrorists as a sign of weakness and will encourage them to attack us again.
So it's better NOT to allow any new mosques in New York City period. Frankly they don't deserve them. We don't want an increase in Muslim populations here because more Muslims means more support for terrorists... places to stay, money, food, etc. Remember the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were living here as they planned and prepared for the attack. They had support.
Sure, not all Muslims are supporting terrorists but there is a percentage that does and since it's impossible for us to tell them apart. We want to be tolerant and let everyone into America but we are forgetting that these people are coming here and NOT conforming to American culture. They are not adopting our values. We show tolerance to them and they will show violence toward us. We'll be afraid to strike back because of our laws and our values but that makes us look weak to them. They are just living here, bleeding us slowly until the day that we are subconsciously so afraid of they can openly dominate non-Muslim Americans.
You think this is a tall tale? Look at Europe. They thought they were enlightened and now they are paying for it.
The only way to co-exist with Muslims is to disintegrate from them. Deport them back to the Middle East where they have their holy lands and don't let them back in. Stop trading with those countries. We don't need their oil or their endless sands. If they provoke us, attack them and win. Then LEAVE and don't waste billions of dollars trying to "repair" their low-life economy. Show them a strong hand and they will respect us and leave us alone. Encrypt our public communications so they can't receive our news or entertainment from the satellites or radios. Spend billions of dollars AT HOME to develop Earth-friendly power sources and eliminate our reliance on oil.
We have to recognize that our freedom of religion applies only to religions that are compatible with our core values - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Islam doesn't value life, it values surrender to Islam above life. If you don't believe that then read the Koran. Islam doesn't value liberty, its very name literally means "surrender". Islam doesn't value the pursuit of happiness, it dictates happiness and subjects who don't comply can be beaten or killed.
I know it sounds harsh, but remember that Muslims, BY THEIR DOCTRINE, do not value freedom of religion. And if they could have their way, they would convert or kill anyone who is not Muslim. Building a mosque - a symbol of their power - near the site where thousands of people were murdered by Muslim terrorists is just another step in the direction of Islam.
I have friends who are Muslim, yet they do share the American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They and all other Muslims like them are the exception, not the rule. They are the progressive fringe. They are to the rest of the Muslim population what modern Christians are to Christians of the last few centuries. I wish all Muslims were like my friends but it's just not so.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Fred Phelps, Anti-American
He's been going to military funerals with hate messages against homosexuals and all Americans.
In my opinion, a funeral is not a valid forum for hate messages. Especially a military funeral.
It's ridiculous that we have to legislate basic respect for each other.
We need to protect grieving families from his assault by restricting hate speech near funerals.
But we need to make sure the protection is adequate. Don't just say "don't make noise at someone else's funeral" because he could still show up with his signs. It has to be, your message must not be seen or heard within two miles of the funeral.
Yes, that means if he happens to be "in the neighborhood" he needs to take his hate speech somewhere else. Not sorry to inconvenience him at all.
And we need to take away non-profit status from his so-called church, which is clearly engaging in distasteful political activism and not religious activities.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell
I've been getting emails from the Courage Campaign about repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell law.
Here's what I think:
In a way, repealing DADT now is premature: even California, one of the more socially liberal states in the Union, is struggling with equal rights for homosexuals. So forcing the military institution to deal with it when the country at large hasn't even figured this out isn't fair at all.
Here's what I think:
DADT is already full equality - EVERYONE can serve, NOBODY can ask, and NOBODY can tell.
There are a few devils in the details, like when a man bring his boyfriend to family day, it's pretty obvious that he's gay. He doesn't have to say anything. Can he get kicked out for that? I don't know.
Is the repeal going to include extra money for the housing and bath facilities that will be needed and psychological preparation for the entire force? An army must train for tough physical and mental stresses and we need to ensure that sexual openness is part of the plan and not a handicap in the force.
DADT allowed the military to ignore the dilemma. But when it's repealed, will the military abolish separate quarters and baths and allow both genders and all sexual orientations to sleep and bath together? Or will it justify the expense of having all individual sleep and bath accommodations? There is no fair and equitable middle ground.
In my opinion, to repeal DADT without a complete solution is to create a problem bigger than the one being fought now.
In a way, repealing DADT now is premature: even California, one of the more socially liberal states in the Union, is struggling with equal rights for homosexuals. So forcing the military institution to deal with it when the country at large hasn't even figured this out isn't fair at all.
I'm a supporter of other courage campaign efforts so I just want to say: please repeal responsibly.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Perry v. Schwarzenegger
I'm not homosexual but I do believe that any two or more adults living together should get the same tax benefits or penalties as do married couples. I believe that marriage should be controlled by churches, not governments. I also believe that since church membership is optional, churches should be free to discriminate against anyone; governments should not. When our government upholds laws that enforce the values of a specific religious sect over non-members it is toppling a pillar of our country's foundation. I'm very interested in watching this trial to see the case against the separation of church and state, because like other modern Americans I love to be disgusted. So I signed the petition to televise the trial.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Opposite Conclusion
I read this quote today, regarding President Obama's decision to deploy MORE troops to Afghanistan (he did promise to get us out of there when he was elected):
"On the other hand, a president facing re-election who pulls the plug on a failing war is going to find himself charged with being an ineffective commander-in-chief."
That is so completely wrong. ANY president who pulls us out of Afghanistan and Iraq RIGHT NOW is going to be celebrated because those wars are wasting our time, money, reputation, and most of all the invaluable lives of our soldiers.
Re-election should have nothing to do with such an important decision. Any president who puts his career before our nation should be impeached. Even the lowest-ranking soldier in our military puts the nation above his own welfare - we must expect the same selfless service from the commander-in-chief.
Selfless decisions are more likely to lead to better results anyway, and don't better results get politicians re-elected? I don't know. I think they should, but that requires a majority of us to understand what better is.
Selfless decisions are more likely to lead to better results anyway, and don't better results get politicians re-elected? I don't know. I think they should, but that requires a majority of us to understand what better is.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
From bailouts to reform
It was clear to me back when the bailouts were announced that they were a bad idea. From various articles and forums around the Internet, it looks like it was also clear to many others then, and since then it has become clear to many more that the bailouts were a bad idea.
It's disgusting that all taxpayers are paying for business blunders of some fat cats who should really have been forced to declare bankruptcy, because that's what they created for themselves with their own decisions.
It's clear that our government simply isn't equipped to handle a handout and audit of this magnitude. Much smaller projects have failed or later been discovered to be crooked many, many times. This is about people; the people that we elected and the people they hired just aren't strong enough. That means WE are not strong enough, because they and we are all Americans.
So after the smoke clears and we all realize just how much was stolen from us during this bailout, and we begin to rebuke our decision-makers, we need to go further and talk about how we can prevent this from happening again. Because this problem we have is not new, and it's name is corruption.
We are hypocrites because our country is a victim of the largest corrupt schemes in history and at the same time we are trying to "clean up" the rest of the world. We have to admit failure at home so we can fix it and move on and regain our self-respect as well as the world's respect.
Corruption happens because individuals aren't strong enough to withstand the pressures of their position. Let's not be naive and believe we can eliminate the pressures - corporations both profit and non-profit will always attempt to lobby for their interests, ladder-climbers will always be kissing up to the person above them, and bringing home the bacon always looks good to the masses who don't understand what was traded away for it.
We need to focus on strengthening the system in which our elected officials and their hires operate. To strengthen our system we may need to add new laws, remove existing detrimental laws, and amend other existing laws.
The national discussion should be about what can be done in order to strengthen our system for posterity - not just react to the latest blunder.
It's disgusting that all taxpayers are paying for business blunders of some fat cats who should really have been forced to declare bankruptcy, because that's what they created for themselves with their own decisions.
It's clear that our government simply isn't equipped to handle a handout and audit of this magnitude. Much smaller projects have failed or later been discovered to be crooked many, many times. This is about people; the people that we elected and the people they hired just aren't strong enough. That means WE are not strong enough, because they and we are all Americans.
So after the smoke clears and we all realize just how much was stolen from us during this bailout, and we begin to rebuke our decision-makers, we need to go further and talk about how we can prevent this from happening again. Because this problem we have is not new, and it's name is corruption.
We are hypocrites because our country is a victim of the largest corrupt schemes in history and at the same time we are trying to "clean up" the rest of the world. We have to admit failure at home so we can fix it and move on and regain our self-respect as well as the world's respect.
Corruption happens because individuals aren't strong enough to withstand the pressures of their position. Let's not be naive and believe we can eliminate the pressures - corporations both profit and non-profit will always attempt to lobby for their interests, ladder-climbers will always be kissing up to the person above them, and bringing home the bacon always looks good to the masses who don't understand what was traded away for it.
We need to focus on strengthening the system in which our elected officials and their hires operate. To strengthen our system we may need to add new laws, remove existing detrimental laws, and amend other existing laws.
The national discussion should be about what can be done in order to strengthen our system for posterity - not just react to the latest blunder.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Mayor power grab in Sacramento
Sacramento's Mayor, Kevin Johnson, is pushing the city council to approve a law that would give him more power than any other Sacramento mayor had for nearly a century. Apparently, he thinks its necessary because doing things the republican way (lowercase r, not "the party") is too slow for his taste.
If he's not a good enough leader to, uh, lead the council, and if the council members aren't wise enough to have some common vision of what's really important for the city, they should all step down and let a new government take charge of Sacramento.
If he's not a good enough leader to, uh, lead the council, and if the council members aren't wise enough to have some common vision of what's really important for the city, they should all step down and let a new government take charge of Sacramento.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Stupid Mistakes
I read this in an article about Afghanistan today -
"[US Army General] McChrystal's latest assessment calls for redistributing troops to focus more on protecting population centers and less on chasing Taliban fighters. It also says it will take several years to build a more professional and capable Afghan security force, without saying how large that force should be."
And I'm feeling very angry and sad at the same time. He's saying that we are getting our ASS KICKED and that he wants to take a break from the HARD WORK of trying to kill all those Taliban (which is not something we should be trying to do anyway) and SIT ON HIS HANDS, letting the bad guys take the initiative and kick MORE ass.
We should have left Afghanistan immediately after we completed our objective of destroying the existing Al Qaeda camps there. Yes, they would have returned afterwards. But we could have just struck them again when they re-established themselves. We could have maintained a presence there on the cheap, hiring and training spies to report to us the whereabouts of the terrorists and striking them at our convenience, instead of trying to defend the entire country.
But that's a hypothetical situation. Here's reality - we are there now, and even if we had some objective in mind before, it's definitely not going to be served by defending the population centers. Why? Because that means we're giving the REST of the country to the Taliban. And since we're wasting our effort doing something that will NOT lead to defeating the Taliban, we may as well just leave and cut our losses. We have better uses for the money right here at home.
We are tiring ourselves out trying to hold on to worthless pieces of dirt in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is that doing to our ability to defend ourselves here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
