I can't decide if the panic over the Corona Virus is actually valid.
It seems like a severe case of the flu and most people who get it will just recover.
Yes it has a 2% or so mortality rate and we would prefer to contain it, but I'm not sure if all the panic is merited.
Of course now with Pence in charge we should be able to pray it away.
Unfortunately he won't be praying for who he considers sinners, so if he is successful it may be a repeat of Aids.
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Congrats
Congrats are in order to Bernie Sanders, the winner in the Nevada Caucuses
Part of his victory is attributable, like all primary victories to the way they are conducted.
We have structured a system where enthusiasm and organization for a candidate can lead to a victory which may or may not translate into broader support.
It was partly what happened to the Republicans in 2016.
Whether the early lead can be sustained as we proceed through the primary season remains to be seen, with the big test coming up during the super primaries in early March.
If no one has a majority going into the convention it will be interesting to see what happens.
Part of his victory is attributable, like all primary victories to the way they are conducted.
We have structured a system where enthusiasm and organization for a candidate can lead to a victory which may or may not translate into broader support.
It was partly what happened to the Republicans in 2016.
Whether the early lead can be sustained as we proceed through the primary season remains to be seen, with the big test coming up during the super primaries in early March.
If no one has a majority going into the convention it will be interesting to see what happens.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Smoke and Mirrors
Consider the current debates about the future of this country.
On one hand we have one party that says you are pretty much on your own. Earn what you need or go without.
The other party wants to guarantee a certain level of security to all Americans.
Health Care, Student Debt, Homelessness, Jobs, are areas that should be provided or at least enabled by the Government.
Of course it isn't quite as clear as that, but given the ability to do it, the most die hard Republicans would eliminate all those new deal things like Social Security and bank regulation as well as remove restriction on business owners and landlords about who they can hire or rent to.
Their theory is that economic forces would result in a fair system while motivating everybody to work hard. They have in fact achieved some notable successes in reducing Union influence and certain social programs.
While few would cite it at least in public, the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge rings true about the poor, “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Its pretty clear which vision is more popular so we see significant distractions used to mask the positions. Certain social issues have been used to garner support even when the economics would indicate otherwise.
Things like immigration, abortion, patriotism, are used to sway voters, even when many of the issues are fabricated. Take patriotism. Generally things that are not actually happening or at least not happening very much are presented as big issues. If some homeowners association won't allow flags to be displayed its pretty much their issue, yet you will likely see it as an attack on our rights.
It just isn't. The very same people who defend a baker's right to refuse service to people want to interfere in a homeowner's association setting rules.
The inconsistencies are ignored because it's all manipulated in the first place.
They need to use smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.
On one hand we have one party that says you are pretty much on your own. Earn what you need or go without.
The other party wants to guarantee a certain level of security to all Americans.
Health Care, Student Debt, Homelessness, Jobs, are areas that should be provided or at least enabled by the Government.
Of course it isn't quite as clear as that, but given the ability to do it, the most die hard Republicans would eliminate all those new deal things like Social Security and bank regulation as well as remove restriction on business owners and landlords about who they can hire or rent to.
Their theory is that economic forces would result in a fair system while motivating everybody to work hard. They have in fact achieved some notable successes in reducing Union influence and certain social programs.
While few would cite it at least in public, the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge rings true about the poor, “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Its pretty clear which vision is more popular so we see significant distractions used to mask the positions. Certain social issues have been used to garner support even when the economics would indicate otherwise.
Things like immigration, abortion, patriotism, are used to sway voters, even when many of the issues are fabricated. Take patriotism. Generally things that are not actually happening or at least not happening very much are presented as big issues. If some homeowners association won't allow flags to be displayed its pretty much their issue, yet you will likely see it as an attack on our rights.
It just isn't. The very same people who defend a baker's right to refuse service to people want to interfere in a homeowner's association setting rules.
The inconsistencies are ignored because it's all manipulated in the first place.
They need to use smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.
Friday, February 21, 2020
Economic Systems
Economics is both simple and complex.
At many levels it is simply adding and subtracting when we measure things like Gross Domestic Product or trade balances.
However the actual impact of the economy on individuals can be harder to determine.
This is similar to measuring the individual cells in a person to see how he is doing.
If all of them are doing fine except say the brain ones, we probably wouldn't give hive a high rating.
That's a bad analogy but individuals are in fact the economy and the goal of most economic theory.
Capitalism is generally concerned with improving the larger economy. Whether that leads to trickle down or not is debatable but arguing about what to do with more is better than arguing about what to eliminate.
Socialism, which is not necessarily Communism, is less concerned with the means of production but treats it as a collaborative effort where the fruits are shared equally.
So in Capitalism someone owns the apple tree and tends it, makes it grow, keeps it healthy and at the end owns all of the fruit which they trade to others for something of value.
In socialism the tree belongs to everyone, or no one and you simply take the fruit you need and leave the rest.
In Communism the tree belongs to the State who controls access to it and who gets what.
Socialism is problematic because in many cases the tree simply doesn't do well.
In Communism, the State is generally an inefficient owner since its goals are often disputed.
In Capitalism profit is the clear goal and motivator.
.Who gets the rewards though is also different and you have a system where the few get the biggest rewards but there are plenty of apples, or a system where the rewards are shared equally, but you generally have less apples.
If you don't get any apples it doesn't really matter though.
At many levels it is simply adding and subtracting when we measure things like Gross Domestic Product or trade balances.
However the actual impact of the economy on individuals can be harder to determine.
This is similar to measuring the individual cells in a person to see how he is doing.
If all of them are doing fine except say the brain ones, we probably wouldn't give hive a high rating.
That's a bad analogy but individuals are in fact the economy and the goal of most economic theory.
Capitalism is generally concerned with improving the larger economy. Whether that leads to trickle down or not is debatable but arguing about what to do with more is better than arguing about what to eliminate.
Socialism, which is not necessarily Communism, is less concerned with the means of production but treats it as a collaborative effort where the fruits are shared equally.
So in Capitalism someone owns the apple tree and tends it, makes it grow, keeps it healthy and at the end owns all of the fruit which they trade to others for something of value.
In socialism the tree belongs to everyone, or no one and you simply take the fruit you need and leave the rest.
In Communism the tree belongs to the State who controls access to it and who gets what.
Socialism is problematic because in many cases the tree simply doesn't do well.
In Communism, the State is generally an inefficient owner since its goals are often disputed.
In Capitalism profit is the clear goal and motivator.
.Who gets the rewards though is also different and you have a system where the few get the biggest rewards but there are plenty of apples, or a system where the rewards are shared equally, but you generally have less apples.
If you don't get any apples it doesn't really matter though.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Word are now the Sticks
In general I believe everyone should be nice to everyone else. I reality I understand that lide isn't like that. The question becomes what part does the Government of the courts have in this.
I grew up at a time when the following chant was pretty common, "Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". It was a response you made to someone who insulted you or made a derogatory statement about you.
Nowadays we seem to have decided that words can hurt you. Of course it was always pretty obvious that words could be painful, they led to emotional displays and sometimes violence. Still at least at one time we seemed to accept that what you said wasn't generally actionable.
This has changed and we now can pursue things like hostile workplaces, and harassment where no physical actions took place.
It didn't happen all at once, we live in a country where law is driven by precedents, so once one case determined something was wrong it became a precedent. The fact that it hadn't been wrong until that time was sort of a non-issue.
Once again I would like everyone to be nice but if someone is having a bad day and says you look ugly or oddly if they say you look nice, we might have a cause of action.
This is the political correctness that at times seems out of control.
It has almost become as popular as playing the lottery, hoping to get a documented instance that you can use.
Maybe we really have become a nation of overly sensitive victims.
I hope not.
I grew up at a time when the following chant was pretty common, "Sticks and Stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". It was a response you made to someone who insulted you or made a derogatory statement about you.
Nowadays we seem to have decided that words can hurt you. Of course it was always pretty obvious that words could be painful, they led to emotional displays and sometimes violence. Still at least at one time we seemed to accept that what you said wasn't generally actionable.
This has changed and we now can pursue things like hostile workplaces, and harassment where no physical actions took place.
It didn't happen all at once, we live in a country where law is driven by precedents, so once one case determined something was wrong it became a precedent. The fact that it hadn't been wrong until that time was sort of a non-issue.
Once again I would like everyone to be nice but if someone is having a bad day and says you look ugly or oddly if they say you look nice, we might have a cause of action.
This is the political correctness that at times seems out of control.
It has almost become as popular as playing the lottery, hoping to get a documented instance that you can use.
Maybe we really have become a nation of overly sensitive victims.
I hope not.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Winning Policies
One of the things that I find annoying is how we see pundits talking about what Democrats have to do to win the next election.
What you never hear is that they should adopt good policies.
Instead we have to get this vote or that vote, pick a candidate who can win, focus on the right states, get out the vote etc.
Now all of these might be true from a political perspective but I like to think, maybe incorrectly that the voters care about the issues.
Hopefully real ones.
For example finding a way to make sure everyone can get quality medical care with having to declare bankruptcy.
Reestablishing a measure of fairness in our tax system.
Reducing the level of damage we are doing to our only planet.
Improve the safety of all Americans domestically.
Protect America from external threats.
Develop a fair and logical policy on immigration.
Improve our ability to compete globally by providing our children and adults with the skills they need.
Eliminate discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation while preserving everyone's individual belief system.
The eonomy we have now is creating sub-par jobs for many, driving up the national debt and increasing wealth disparity. It isn't the best we can do.
What you never hear is that they should adopt good policies.
Instead we have to get this vote or that vote, pick a candidate who can win, focus on the right states, get out the vote etc.
Now all of these might be true from a political perspective but I like to think, maybe incorrectly that the voters care about the issues.
Hopefully real ones.
For example finding a way to make sure everyone can get quality medical care with having to declare bankruptcy.
Reestablishing a measure of fairness in our tax system.
Reducing the level of damage we are doing to our only planet.
Improve the safety of all Americans domestically.
Protect America from external threats.
Develop a fair and logical policy on immigration.
Improve our ability to compete globally by providing our children and adults with the skills they need.
Eliminate discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation while preserving everyone's individual belief system.
The eonomy we have now is creating sub-par jobs for many, driving up the national debt and increasing wealth disparity. It isn't the best we can do.
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Scientific Theory
If you consider the things large sections of our country seemingly believe, One has to wonder about our educational system.
Part of the reason for this is that much of what we know is based on science and all science theories.
Now take something like gravity. We know what it is, we know how to measure it and we know it varies somewhat based on factors such as altitude. So science makes statements like we know something is 99.99% certain. This doesn't imply there is any doubt, simply that because of the complex number of variables, we haven't measured every one.
Take vaccinations.
There is at this time no valid evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Does this mean that no vaccine has ever cause autism? We don't know that for sure. We know that getting a vaccination does not increase your chances of getting autism over not getting a vaccination. Since the cause for autism are not fully known, we can only eliminate it as a direct cause.
Science, unlike say Religion, excepts the possibility that theories can change if new data is discovered. Going back to Gravity we accepted Newtonian theory. Then with later developments we modified it using better knowledge.
That sort of thing doesn't negate the concept of Gravity it expands it to include the new data. Gravity is not a universal constant, it depends on where you are in the Universe.
No one on earth is going to start floating anytime soon. I am at least 99.9% certain of that.
Part of the reason for this is that much of what we know is based on science and all science theories.
Now take something like gravity. We know what it is, we know how to measure it and we know it varies somewhat based on factors such as altitude. So science makes statements like we know something is 99.99% certain. This doesn't imply there is any doubt, simply that because of the complex number of variables, we haven't measured every one.
Take vaccinations.
There is at this time no valid evidence that vaccinations cause autism. Does this mean that no vaccine has ever cause autism? We don't know that for sure. We know that getting a vaccination does not increase your chances of getting autism over not getting a vaccination. Since the cause for autism are not fully known, we can only eliminate it as a direct cause.
Science, unlike say Religion, excepts the possibility that theories can change if new data is discovered. Going back to Gravity we accepted Newtonian theory. Then with later developments we modified it using better knowledge.
That sort of thing doesn't negate the concept of Gravity it expands it to include the new data. Gravity is not a universal constant, it depends on where you are in the Universe.
No one on earth is going to start floating anytime soon. I am at least 99.9% certain of that.
Monday, February 17, 2020
Twitter News?
We live in a world where having an opinion at any time in the past is a dangerous thing if you want to run for an office.
At one time people understood that your opinion can change based on life experience.
Nowadays the #TwitterTrolls think everything that ever happened just happened and anything can be twisted into a criticism.
Did you ever not support gay marriage, even if you do now, well too late.
Did you ever insult any group in any way, even if it takes convoluted reasoning to do so, too bad for you.
Oddly some of the worst offenders seem to get a pass by these people, they love to find obscure things about clean candidates.
The fact that we pay any attention to them is the real mystery, or maybe not.
It provides a quick easy story and many news outlets now seem to rely on twitter instead of doing actual research.
The fact that a few posts on twitter get reinforced in news stories on "reputable" news sources is a vicious cycle.
It might be the reporters themselves posting tweets they can report on.
It would make things easier for them.
At one time people understood that your opinion can change based on life experience.
Nowadays the #TwitterTrolls think everything that ever happened just happened and anything can be twisted into a criticism.
Did you ever not support gay marriage, even if you do now, well too late.
Did you ever insult any group in any way, even if it takes convoluted reasoning to do so, too bad for you.
Oddly some of the worst offenders seem to get a pass by these people, they love to find obscure things about clean candidates.
The fact that we pay any attention to them is the real mystery, or maybe not.
It provides a quick easy story and many news outlets now seem to rely on twitter instead of doing actual research.
The fact that a few posts on twitter get reinforced in news stories on "reputable" news sources is a vicious cycle.
It might be the reporters themselves posting tweets they can report on.
It would make things easier for them.
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Our Ideals
First and foremost this country was founded by people who wanted to live lives that were not particularly allowed in the old world.
Nothing is ever that simple and the various colonies and subsequent States each have many stories, but you didn't pack up and go on a long risky sea voyage because everything was fine.
Yes some came to get rich other to practice their religion and others just to be free and have a new start.
Once the colonies got well established they rejected the tyranny of the old world and demanded independence.
If you live in this country you need to keep in mind the words of our Declaration of Independence, even if at the time they might have been primarily talking about free white men.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Over the years we have expanded the meaning to include all people and to secure these rights we have adopted the Bill of Rights to guarantee freedoms of speech, or religion, or assembly among others.
We are about to celebrate President's day and people may very well disagree about the current one, but President's are not the country, the people are.
As Americans we need to hold onto our ideals, and stand up for freedom and equality.
If we can agree on nothing else, we always have our founding ideals.
Our inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Nothing is ever that simple and the various colonies and subsequent States each have many stories, but you didn't pack up and go on a long risky sea voyage because everything was fine.
Yes some came to get rich other to practice their religion and others just to be free and have a new start.
Once the colonies got well established they rejected the tyranny of the old world and demanded independence.
If you live in this country you need to keep in mind the words of our Declaration of Independence, even if at the time they might have been primarily talking about free white men.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Over the years we have expanded the meaning to include all people and to secure these rights we have adopted the Bill of Rights to guarantee freedoms of speech, or religion, or assembly among others.
We are about to celebrate President's day and people may very well disagree about the current one, but President's are not the country, the people are.
As Americans we need to hold onto our ideals, and stand up for freedom and equality.
If we can agree on nothing else, we always have our founding ideals.
Our inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Saturday, February 15, 2020
A World of Uncertainty
So much of the information being circulated is false that it can become nearly impossible to know what is true. Our mainstream media has been attacked as fake news and alternative media has created different news as true.
It has gotten to the point where things that should be undisputed get disputed. If you buy into the theory that the Government is in control of people who want to deceive you, then who can you trust?
At one time late night radio had shows on that were controversial and in many ways amusing. Stories about area 51 or who shot JFK allowed listeners to speculate and often absurd theories.
Unfortunately some people did take them seriously.
The internet and the rise of other media sources on cable have made these type of theories circulate further.
Some of our well established media outlets are accused of bias and falsehoods.
You could try to rely on scientific evidence or hard news except some attach those too.
One would like to think the public can figure it out, but when popular media is telling them false theories as possibilities, the public is faced with a difficult job. As noted by George Orwell in his boo 1984.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
It has gotten to the point where things that should be undisputed get disputed. If you buy into the theory that the Government is in control of people who want to deceive you, then who can you trust?
At one time late night radio had shows on that were controversial and in many ways amusing. Stories about area 51 or who shot JFK allowed listeners to speculate and often absurd theories.
Unfortunately some people did take them seriously.
The internet and the rise of other media sources on cable have made these type of theories circulate further.
Some of our well established media outlets are accused of bias and falsehoods.
You could try to rely on scientific evidence or hard news except some attach those too.
One would like to think the public can figure it out, but when popular media is telling them false theories as possibilities, the public is faced with a difficult job. As noted by George Orwell in his boo 1984.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
Friday, February 14, 2020
Hate and Oppression
Many people in this country are willing to put up with someone like the current President because they feel their values are being betrayed.
Abortion, gay marriage, transgender, and other issues are viewed as violations of their faith and beliefs.
Ideas which have become well accepted on the coasts and big cities are still not so accepted in much of the heartland, especially among evangelicals.
This creates a problem because the concept of individual freedom is not something liberals and progressives can abandon.
It really becomes an issue of oppression.
Throwing off the oppression which made these things illegal or unacceptable is now viewed as oppression by the politically correct.
Both sides view the other as tyrannical.
Evangelicals view what is going on as equivalent to the stories of Sodom and Gomorra while liberals see their reaction as Neo-Fascist.
Its hard to see how this gets resolved in the near term. Clearly as time goes on more and more freedoms have been accepted, but much of this is related to what Evangelicals see as bad Court Decisions, which they hope to overturn.
Unfortunately many evangelical churches are teaching hate and not love, although they disguise it as hating the sin, not the sinner.
However if they win and suppress gay rights among others, it isn't a real distinction.
Abortion, gay marriage, transgender, and other issues are viewed as violations of their faith and beliefs.
Ideas which have become well accepted on the coasts and big cities are still not so accepted in much of the heartland, especially among evangelicals.
This creates a problem because the concept of individual freedom is not something liberals and progressives can abandon.
It really becomes an issue of oppression.
Throwing off the oppression which made these things illegal or unacceptable is now viewed as oppression by the politically correct.
Both sides view the other as tyrannical.
Evangelicals view what is going on as equivalent to the stories of Sodom and Gomorra while liberals see their reaction as Neo-Fascist.
Its hard to see how this gets resolved in the near term. Clearly as time goes on more and more freedoms have been accepted, but much of this is related to what Evangelicals see as bad Court Decisions, which they hope to overturn.
Unfortunately many evangelical churches are teaching hate and not love, although they disguise it as hating the sin, not the sinner.
However if they win and suppress gay rights among others, it isn't a real distinction.
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
More Primaries
It seems like Joe Biden's run for President is in trouble.
He hasn't provided the necessary charisma or enthusiasm so far and its doubtful that he will.
Except for his age, I believe he would have been the candidate we needed, He was progressive but not extreme and had appeal to working men and minorities.
If you are looking for radical change after the next election, he wouldn't be your guy.
The fact is that he is perceived as and in fact is what I would call a regular guy, not some elitist.
I don't want to exclude women from that category, Amy Klobuchar certainly would qualify. Maybe a better term would be regular people.
They have a quality that makes you feel like you could run into them at a fast food restaurant one day.
Harvard College professors, socialists and others give a different impression.
Realistically, progressives and others on the left should have learned their lesson from the last election. Whatever they thought about Hillary, she would have listened to their concerns and helped as opposed to what they get now. If they fail to support the nominee again they might as well go back in time to the 50s.
What we really need in a candidate is someone who can win over those regular people who would like a good job, drug free children, and what some would consider a boring life.
The whole political correct thing is of little interest to them. They don't really care if some people feel unsupported about their gender choices, as we used to say in the Army, it sounds like a personnel issue.
They aren't trying to offend anyone, they just don't want to be nagged.
He hasn't provided the necessary charisma or enthusiasm so far and its doubtful that he will.
Except for his age, I believe he would have been the candidate we needed, He was progressive but not extreme and had appeal to working men and minorities.
If you are looking for radical change after the next election, he wouldn't be your guy.
The fact is that he is perceived as and in fact is what I would call a regular guy, not some elitist.
I don't want to exclude women from that category, Amy Klobuchar certainly would qualify. Maybe a better term would be regular people.
They have a quality that makes you feel like you could run into them at a fast food restaurant one day.
Harvard College professors, socialists and others give a different impression.
Realistically, progressives and others on the left should have learned their lesson from the last election. Whatever they thought about Hillary, she would have listened to their concerns and helped as opposed to what they get now. If they fail to support the nominee again they might as well go back in time to the 50s.
What we really need in a candidate is someone who can win over those regular people who would like a good job, drug free children, and what some would consider a boring life.
The whole political correct thing is of little interest to them. They don't really care if some people feel unsupported about their gender choices, as we used to say in the Army, it sounds like a personnel issue.
They aren't trying to offend anyone, they just don't want to be nagged.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
Primaries, why?
I tend to get a kick out of news analysts who talk about how Democrats or Republicans need to do something. For example the fiasco in Iowa has been typically depicted as a failure of Democrats as opposed to the Iowa people who ran it.
Maybe the National party should take over but I don't think that is practical or desirable.
Meanwhile we still have candidates moving on to New Hampshire, another small non-representative state that we assign significant meaning to.
Now the primaries are messy and the media maks them worse. In past years certain candidates were eliminated after early primaries largely because donors gave up on them. O fcourse we also know primaries are not actually representative of either party because of the relatively low turnout.
Our whole process takes too long, costs too much and produces bad candidates much of the time.
Last election the two nominees were both disliked by more people then liked them but they became the nominees.
A better system would simply be to let all registered members of a party fill out a secret ballot just before the convention and use those results to pick a nominee. Not even sure we need a convention, but it does allow for negotiating platforms and kicking off the actual campaign.
Independents might object to being excluded, but of course if you want to participate, join a party.
I don't understand why the nominee for either party can be nominated because of non-party support.
Its unlikely to change because the current system is very profitable to some.
Still, I can dream of a system where the nominee is actually the one preferred by the majority, of the actual party members.
Maybe the National party should take over but I don't think that is practical or desirable.
Meanwhile we still have candidates moving on to New Hampshire, another small non-representative state that we assign significant meaning to.
Now the primaries are messy and the media maks them worse. In past years certain candidates were eliminated after early primaries largely because donors gave up on them. O fcourse we also know primaries are not actually representative of either party because of the relatively low turnout.
Our whole process takes too long, costs too much and produces bad candidates much of the time.
Last election the two nominees were both disliked by more people then liked them but they became the nominees.
A better system would simply be to let all registered members of a party fill out a secret ballot just before the convention and use those results to pick a nominee. Not even sure we need a convention, but it does allow for negotiating platforms and kicking off the actual campaign.
Independents might object to being excluded, but of course if you want to participate, join a party.
I don't understand why the nominee for either party can be nominated because of non-party support.
Its unlikely to change because the current system is very profitable to some.
Still, I can dream of a system where the nominee is actually the one preferred by the majority, of the actual party members.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
We, the People
There are some fundamental issues in America that should be fixed. This is not to say that the country isn't great in many respects but if the idea of a country is to represent its people and do the most good it can we have some issues.
Some of the issues stem from a different objective, to prevent the tyranny of the many and preserve individual rights. Those two ideals are not actually in conflict but in some cases we need to understand the conflict.
For example two current issues represent this, Abortion and Gun Ownership. Abortion has significant religious involvement but the simple fact is that people who oppose it are trying to impose their will on others. Pro choice people have no interest in making anyone have an abortion, simply that they are free to do so. In a case like this we should protect the individual and not force specific behavior on them. If the argument is that the unborn have rights, well not in any real sense. Its still true that those who hold such a belief are trying to impose it on others which they just don't have a right to do so. Gun rights has the same issue. No one who supports gun rights generally demands that other get guns. I'm not sure anyone is trying to take guns away despite NRA propaganda but in the same way we regulate things like automobiles, we should also regulate guns. However the fundamental right to own them is
Protecting these rights are not the real issue. The real issue is that democracy requires that the will of the people be heard. Something that was built into our constitution to protect slavery continues and has in fact become worse. The idea that the country is a group of states, instead of a democracy.
No matter where you live or what you believe, as an American you should have an equal say in the policies of this country. That simply isn't true in this country. People in low population states have a bigger impact than people in high population states.
There are numerous ways to fix this but under the current system any fixes can be blocked by the same states that benefit from the inequality.
Unfortunately we can see that self interest is in charge and democratic ideals get ignored.
We the people shouldn't stand for it.
Some of the issues stem from a different objective, to prevent the tyranny of the many and preserve individual rights. Those two ideals are not actually in conflict but in some cases we need to understand the conflict.
For example two current issues represent this, Abortion and Gun Ownership. Abortion has significant religious involvement but the simple fact is that people who oppose it are trying to impose their will on others. Pro choice people have no interest in making anyone have an abortion, simply that they are free to do so. In a case like this we should protect the individual and not force specific behavior on them. If the argument is that the unborn have rights, well not in any real sense. Its still true that those who hold such a belief are trying to impose it on others which they just don't have a right to do so. Gun rights has the same issue. No one who supports gun rights generally demands that other get guns. I'm not sure anyone is trying to take guns away despite NRA propaganda but in the same way we regulate things like automobiles, we should also regulate guns. However the fundamental right to own them is
Protecting these rights are not the real issue. The real issue is that democracy requires that the will of the people be heard. Something that was built into our constitution to protect slavery continues and has in fact become worse. The idea that the country is a group of states, instead of a democracy.
No matter where you live or what you believe, as an American you should have an equal say in the policies of this country. That simply isn't true in this country. People in low population states have a bigger impact than people in high population states.
There are numerous ways to fix this but under the current system any fixes can be blocked by the same states that benefit from the inequality.
Unfortunately we can see that self interest is in charge and democratic ideals get ignored.
We the people shouldn't stand for it.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Guilty but not Guilty Enough
There are two reasons not to call witnesses. One is because you just don't care about the fact of the case. That is pretty damming and an aspect which I see a lot of focus on.
The second though is a little more reasonable. Namely that you already proved he did the act accused of so why keep going?
If you accept the second premise all you need to do is determine if that particular action is worthy of removal from office. Obviously we all expect that not to happen.
Without laboring the point one can have a legitimate difference of opinion on that issue. Similarly, when we last had an impeachment there was no doubt that the President had committed the acts, but enough senators decided it was simply not enough to merit removal.
Crimes have certain degrees of harm associated with them. If someone steals a loaf of bread, we no longer consider that act bad enough to warrant imprisonment without extenuating circumstances. On the other hand stealing a million dollar necklace is likely to be treated with serious consequences.
The acts are very similar but have different consequences.
So the two articles of Impeachment are the issue here. The first is that he misused his office to gain a personal favor. Its a bit complicated by the military aid involved but is it bad enough to warrant removal from office? Whether or not it is actually a crime is part of the issue. While the radical argument that he actually can't commit a crime is nonsense, it might be valid that his actual act was allowable but it was his motivation that made it wrong.
That is subjective enough to allow legitimate differences of opinion.
The second article is tied up with the first and regards obstructing congress. He did but so have previous Presidents and generally there is recourse in the courts. So if the first charge wasn't filed, the second wouldn't have been. If the first is not enough, the second joins it.
The vote on Wednesday will acquit the President even though he is in fact guilty. Its a question of how guilty more or less.
The second though is a little more reasonable. Namely that you already proved he did the act accused of so why keep going?
If you accept the second premise all you need to do is determine if that particular action is worthy of removal from office. Obviously we all expect that not to happen.
Without laboring the point one can have a legitimate difference of opinion on that issue. Similarly, when we last had an impeachment there was no doubt that the President had committed the acts, but enough senators decided it was simply not enough to merit removal.
Crimes have certain degrees of harm associated with them. If someone steals a loaf of bread, we no longer consider that act bad enough to warrant imprisonment without extenuating circumstances. On the other hand stealing a million dollar necklace is likely to be treated with serious consequences.
The acts are very similar but have different consequences.
So the two articles of Impeachment are the issue here. The first is that he misused his office to gain a personal favor. Its a bit complicated by the military aid involved but is it bad enough to warrant removal from office? Whether or not it is actually a crime is part of the issue. While the radical argument that he actually can't commit a crime is nonsense, it might be valid that his actual act was allowable but it was his motivation that made it wrong.
That is subjective enough to allow legitimate differences of opinion.
The second article is tied up with the first and regards obstructing congress. He did but so have previous Presidents and generally there is recourse in the courts. So if the first charge wasn't filed, the second wouldn't have been. If the first is not enough, the second joins it.
The vote on Wednesday will acquit the President even though he is in fact guilty. Its a question of how guilty more or less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)