I'll let these graphs speak for themselves.
Sources:
NASDAQ
Per Capita Real GDP
Dow Jones
Monday, October 26, 2009
Some Graphs For Thought
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
I'll let these graphs speak for themselves.
Sources:
NASDAQ
Per Capita Real GDP
Dow Jones
I'll let these graphs speak for themselves.
Sources:
NASDAQ
Per Capita Real GDP
Dow Jones
Friday, October 23, 2009
Bible Highlights: Leviticus
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Christians on a crusade against homosexuality often turn to the Bible to justify their claims. Most often, they reference this (Leviticus 20:13 NRSV):
Leviticus 20:9 NRSV:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.I thought I would take the opportunity to show you all a few more great portions of the book of Leviticus.
Leviticus 20:9 NRSV:
All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.Leviticus 20:18 NRSV:
If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has laid bare her flow of blood; both of them shall be cut off from their people.Leviticus 20:27 NRSV:
A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned to death, their blood is upon them.Leviticus 19:19 KJV:
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.Leviticus 19:20 KJV:
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.Leviticus 21:9 KJV:
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.When the Christian right starts following all the rules of Leviticus, I'll concede that they have a point about the Bible and homosexuality. However, you can't just pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you want to apply to the modern world. Either they accept it all, or they can't use any of it to prove their points. (By the way, rules of kosher are also set out in Leviticus. When was the last time you saw a Christian who kept kosher?)
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Washtenaw County School Millage
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
This is the first of my posts that will address an issue of primarily local concern. In Washtenaw County, a large fight has ensued over a "school enhancement millage" on the November ballot. In Michigan, school districts cannot raise money through district wide taxes, they must raise it through county wide taxes which are then distributed to the school districts on a per-pupil basis.
The proposed two mill tax (a mill is a $1 tax per $1,000 taxable value on a house) would bring local homeowners to the point of paying more than 19 mills to support schools, or almost 2% of their homes' taxable value.
Those in support of the millage, in a campaign orchestrated and heavily endorsed by the schools, argue that due to a decrease in state per-pupil funding, increased revenue is necessary to cover expenses.
Those against the millage are convinced that the Ann Arbor Public Schools have not managed their money wisely in the past, and do not believe that raising taxes in tough economic times is a good plan.
In terms of funding, Ann Arbor does receive more than average in state funding for its schools every year. According to the Detroit News, Ann Arbor receives $9,723 per pupil per year from the state. At the top end, Bois Blanc Pines receives $15,876 per pupil per year, and at the low end many districts get only $7,316 per pupil per year. Ann Arbor comes in 17th out of 782 districts in the state. However, there is no denying that state funding has been falling, and that something must be done to deal with the increasing difference between revenue and costs.
For me, the most convincing argument against giving the school district more money right now is how they've spent their money in the past few years. An administration that has spent money irresponsibly should not be given more resources until they've proved that they can be responsible with what they have.
In the fall of 2008, the Ann Arbor School District opened a hugely expensive new school--Skyline High School. School officials cited school overcrowding when selling the project to local citizens, but a look at the data demonstrates the ridiculousness of these claims.
The graph represents Ann Arbor high school enrollment according to the district's own data and projections. The red vertical line represents the year Skyline High School opened. The project was sold to voters during the peak of enrollment, but the school didn't actually open until during Michigan's enrollment decline.
A district that spends its money this way needs to create a serious, thoughtful, and detailed budget plan for how this money will be spent before the voters approve it, and the Ann Arbor school administrators have yet to do so, beyond vague, fear mongering threats to fire huge swaths of teachers if the millage isn't passed.
Ann Arbor deserves honesty and transparency from its school board about how they're going to use all of this money.
The proposed two mill tax (a mill is a $1 tax per $1,000 taxable value on a house) would bring local homeowners to the point of paying more than 19 mills to support schools, or almost 2% of their homes' taxable value.
Those in support of the millage, in a campaign orchestrated and heavily endorsed by the schools, argue that due to a decrease in state per-pupil funding, increased revenue is necessary to cover expenses.
Those against the millage are convinced that the Ann Arbor Public Schools have not managed their money wisely in the past, and do not believe that raising taxes in tough economic times is a good plan.
In terms of funding, Ann Arbor does receive more than average in state funding for its schools every year. According to the Detroit News, Ann Arbor receives $9,723 per pupil per year from the state. At the top end, Bois Blanc Pines receives $15,876 per pupil per year, and at the low end many districts get only $7,316 per pupil per year. Ann Arbor comes in 17th out of 782 districts in the state. However, there is no denying that state funding has been falling, and that something must be done to deal with the increasing difference between revenue and costs.
For me, the most convincing argument against giving the school district more money right now is how they've spent their money in the past few years. An administration that has spent money irresponsibly should not be given more resources until they've proved that they can be responsible with what they have.
In the fall of 2008, the Ann Arbor School District opened a hugely expensive new school--Skyline High School. School officials cited school overcrowding when selling the project to local citizens, but a look at the data demonstrates the ridiculousness of these claims.
The graph represents Ann Arbor high school enrollment according to the district's own data and projections. The red vertical line represents the year Skyline High School opened. The project was sold to voters during the peak of enrollment, but the school didn't actually open until during Michigan's enrollment decline.
A district that spends its money this way needs to create a serious, thoughtful, and detailed budget plan for how this money will be spent before the voters approve it, and the Ann Arbor school administrators have yet to do so, beyond vague, fear mongering threats to fire huge swaths of teachers if the millage isn't passed.
Ann Arbor deserves honesty and transparency from its school board about how they're going to use all of this money.
Monday, October 19, 2009
In Response: Family Research Council II
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Today's response to the Family Research Council is based on a pamphlet entitled "Homosexuality In Your Child's School." I can only presume that if PDFs could include soundtracks, this one would be accompanied by stereotypical horror music.
Again, I'll examine this pamphlet bit by bit, bringing the especially interesting parts to your attention and then responding to them. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but there is a lot of material to cover and respond to.
(A previous response to this same organization can be found here.)
In arguing against safe school measures, FRC says that there is no reason to single out sexual orientation as a reason someone cannot be bullied. They're correct, in that no one should be subjected to bullying. However, they say:
FRC next argues that people should be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
The next horror story that the pamphlet talks about is, dare I say, transgendered teachers.
FRC then talks about the great evil of indoctrination of students.
The pamphlet also bemoans GSAs: "participating in gay 'pride' marches," because we must have freedom of speech, except for students who are proud of the fact that they are gay.
We cannot, apparently, have literature that includes homosexual characters.
FRC continues its assault on a full, balanced education.
The FRC pamphlet closes with the following exhortation:
Again, I'll examine this pamphlet bit by bit, bringing the especially interesting parts to your attention and then responding to them. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but there is a lot of material to cover and respond to.
(A previous response to this same organization can be found here.)
In arguing against safe school measures, FRC says that there is no reason to single out sexual orientation as a reason someone cannot be bullied. They're correct, in that no one should be subjected to bullying. However, they say:
But if all forms of harassment are wrong, then all forms of harassment—without distinction—should be banned.All forms of harassment in schools are banned. The movement that FCR is objecting to is advocating increased awareness of sexual orientation as a cause of bullying--schools can't combat it if they don't realize that it exists. Safe schools advocates don't think that homosexuality is the only reason school kids are bullied, but they believe it's an under recognized reason.
FRC next argues that people should be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
However, singling out “sexual orientation” for special protection (along with the usual categories of “race, color, national origin, sex, and disability”) is illogical. The latter qualities are usually inborn, involuntary, immutable, and innocuous—none of which is true of homosexual behavior, despite the claims of its advocates.Even if we accept their unsupported claim that homosexuality is not inborn, does the fact that it's a choice make it an OK reason to discriminate? Religion is a choice, but I suspect that FRC would strongly object to discriminating against Christians. (Of course, they might not mind discrimination against a different religion.
The next horror story that the pamphlet talks about is, dare I say, transgendered teachers.
Lily McBeth, a 71-year-old man who recently became a “woman,” was similarly re-hired as a substitute teacher—by a New Jersey elementary school. One mother said “she thought McBeth would confuse her sons because McBeth had already taught them when she was male”—but such concerns were discounted by the school board.Really? The school board "discounted" concerns about "confusion" because parents are unwilling to explain to their children the realities of sex changes? Must shield the children from the real world! Must shield the children from the real world!
FRC then talks about the great evil of indoctrination of students.
A more important task for pro-homosexual activists—indoctrinating the children themselves—usually begins with formation of a student club called a “gay-straight alliance” (GSA). GSA’s are often said to promote “safety” and give gay, “questioning,” and “straight ally” youth a forum to “discuss sexual orientation and gender identity issues.”Oh my god! Indoctrination. Oh wait...wasn't there a difference between giving students the opportunity to have real discussions about things and indoctrinating them? Not if they're discussing anything liberal...
The pamphlet also bemoans GSAs: "participating in gay 'pride' marches," because we must have freedom of speech, except for students who are proud of the fact that they are gay.
GLSEN annually promotes a one-day event they call the “Day of Silence, which they describe as a day when defenders of homosexuality “take a day-long vow of silence to . . . protest . . . discrimination and harassment.” This disruption of the educational process, whereby students who are normally called upon in class refuse to speak and, in some cases, even teachers themselves refuse to give their normal lectures, has been questioned in some school districts, but tolerated in others.Because again, we apparently cannot tolerate the fact that students choose to exercise their right to free speech in support of homosexuality. None of this is forced upon students. Teens make their own choices, and by and large they decide to be accepting of others. That's not evidence of indoctrination, that's evidence that today's youth represent hope for the future of America.
We cannot, apparently, have literature that includes homosexual characters.
As with older youth, the pro-homosexual message is also pushed in a burgeoning crop of books directed at children, ranging literally from A (Amy Asks a Question: Grandma, What’s a Lesbian?) to Z (Zack’s Story: Growing up with same-sex parents).Seriously, now? If every children's book features a straight couple raising children, do you think that will affirm children of homosexual couples? Of course, we don't want to affirm them, do we...we want to make them feel like their parents are sinners.
FRC continues its assault on a full, balanced education.
In September 2004, National Public Radio featured an interview with Deb Allen, a lesbian who teaches eighth-grade sex education in Brookline, Mass. Her lessons include descriptions of homosexual sex.Of course, they also include descriptions of heterosexual sex...but that's completely fine. The pamphlet continues with celebration of successful anti-homosexual censorship.
Parents Michael and Tonya Hartsell of Wilmington, North Carolina were shocked when their daughter Olivia—a first-grader—brought home from her school library the book King and King. It tells the story of a prince in need of a mate who rejects dozens of princesses before finally choosing to “marry” another prince. After a week of national media attention, Freeman Elementary School agreed to place the book under lock and key and make it available only to teachers and parents.And the FRC supports the fact that,
Because they realize that it is often the first wedge to insert a pro-homosexual agenda in their schools, many parents and other citizens have tried to block the formation of “gay-straight alliances.”These parents do not want their children to have the opportunity to discuss issues that are important to them, because allowing them to discuss things decreases the parents' ability to brainwash their children to their homophobic belief system.
The FRC pamphlet closes with the following exhortation:
What they seek to do is “recruit children”—100% of our children, “gay” or straight—as soldiers in their war against truth, common sense, and traditional moral values. That’s one recruitment drive that has no place on the campuses of America’s public schools.This, of course, from the organization that recommends censorship of books, banning of student clubs dedicated to discussion, and a total ban on all points of view except for their own in schools. FRC are the ones truly engaged in a "war against truth, common sense, and traditional moral values."
Taking Back the Labels
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Over time, blocs of voters tend to be identified in certain ways. Some, such as "liberal" "progressive" "conservative" "libertarian" are applied reasonably fairly. But sometimes, the labels are inappropriate. In this segment, I would like to take back some of those labels that I feel have been applied to groups that either don't deserve them, or don't deserve exclusive use of them.
I am a morals voter. My morals include equality, freedom, acceptance of others, and the study of other peoples. My morals do not include subjugation of minorities, government mandated lifestyles, bigotry, or an insular society.
I am a Christian voter. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ: to love thy neighbor, irregardless of their sexual orientation. To help the less fortunate, rather than letting them live on the street without food or health care. To turn the other cheek, not seek out mindless revenge.
I am a family values voter. I support strengthening all families, not just those comprised of husband, wife and children. I believe that all members of a family are equal, and that no one has special authority merely because of age.
I am a Federalist. I believe that a strong central government is necessary to the survival of America as a modern sovereign nation and that the United States will survive best as a federal community rather than as a loose confederacy.
If you have any more suggestions for terms to claim back, leave a comment.
Over time, blocs of voters tend to be identified in certain ways. Some, such as "liberal" "progressive" "conservative" "libertarian" are applied reasonably fairly. But sometimes, the labels are inappropriate. In this segment, I would like to take back some of those labels that I feel have been applied to groups that either don't deserve them, or don't deserve exclusive use of them.
I am a morals voter. My morals include equality, freedom, acceptance of others, and the study of other peoples. My morals do not include subjugation of minorities, government mandated lifestyles, bigotry, or an insular society.
I am a Christian voter. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ: to love thy neighbor, irregardless of their sexual orientation. To help the less fortunate, rather than letting them live on the street without food or health care. To turn the other cheek, not seek out mindless revenge.
I am a family values voter. I support strengthening all families, not just those comprised of husband, wife and children. I believe that all members of a family are equal, and that no one has special authority merely because of age.
I am a Federalist. I believe that a strong central government is necessary to the survival of America as a modern sovereign nation and that the United States will survive best as a federal community rather than as a loose confederacy.
If you have any more suggestions for terms to claim back, leave a comment.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
In Response: Family Research Council
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
One of my friends pointed this site out to me the other day, and I've been fascinated by the bigotry it displays under the guise of "Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom."
Today, I'll focus on the organization's fascinating views on human sexuality. In the future...who knows. Perhaps I'll respond to them again.
Let's examine their views on human sexuality piece by piece.
I'm also curious as to how a "marriage only" philosophy will decrease adultery, since adultery is impossible outside of the context of marriage...if we didn't have marriage, we wouldn't have adultery.
The "society at large" part is what really gets me. I'm going to be hurt by the fact that the random people down the street are lesbians? In fact, am I even going to be forced to associate with them? Is there some big gay conspiracy going on to convert us all to homosexuality so that we all go to hell?
Yeah, right.
No, it must be because homosexuality is such a new thing. It's an invention of the 60s and 70s. Blame the hippies! Oh, wait, that doesn't explain homosexuality in the ancient world...
No, seriously. How can they claim to be defending freedom while at the same time blatantly saying that they won't except equality?
At the end of the day, Family Research Council (when it comes to sexual issues, at least) is another offspring of that unfortunate tumor on America known as the religious right. It's a movement that somehow identifies as "Christian" while ignoring the teachings of Christ, and claims to be "American" while seeking to violate the basic tenets of our free and equal society.
One of my friends pointed this site out to me the other day, and I've been fascinated by the bigotry it displays under the guise of "Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom."
Today, I'll focus on the organization's fascinating views on human sexuality. In the future...who knows. Perhaps I'll respond to them again.
Let's examine their views on human sexuality piece by piece.
FRC believes the context for the full expression of human sexuality is within the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. Upholding this standard of sexual behavior would help to reverse many of the destructive aspects of the sexual revolution, including sexually transmitted disease rates of epidemic proportion, high out-of-wedlock birth rates, adultery, and homosexuality.Here we are, right off the bat. We're "Defending Faith," so long as it's a faith that believes in marriage. We're "Defending Family" so long as it's a "traditional" family. And we're "Defending Freedom" for straight, religious, married people.
I'm also curious as to how a "marriage only" philosophy will decrease adultery, since adultery is impossible outside of the context of marriage...if we didn't have marriage, we wouldn't have adultery.
The abstinence-until-marriage approach promotes optimal physical and psycho-social outcomes for youth and young adults.By telling people who give into natural urges that they are evil, sinful, and self-destructive, thus maximizing their "psycho-social outcome."
FRC maintains that contraceptive-based or comprehensive sex education is destructive, providing mixed risk messaging and an overly narrow focus on physical health alone.Let me paraphrase. "FRC maintains that giving youth a full education is harmful, because by their late teenage years youth are unable to deal with the truth. They should be shielded from the realities of their world by the adults in their life."
FRC does not consider homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgenderism as acceptable alternative lifestyles or sexual "preferences"; they are unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society.We defend your faith, so long as your faith accepts only heterosexuality. We defend your family, so long as it is a traditional one. We defend your freedom to be anything you want to be, expect for homosexual, bisexual or transgender.
Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed.For indeed, Jesus did say, "Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless thy neighbor do lay with other men." (Gospel of Mike Huckabee, 1:25).
The "society at large" part is what really gets me. I'm going to be hurt by the fact that the random people down the street are lesbians? In fact, am I even going to be forced to associate with them? Is there some big gay conspiracy going on to convert us all to homosexuality so that we all go to hell?
Yeah, right.
It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.By which definition? The same part of the Bible that bans the wearing of clothing made from two different types of cloth? Or from the fact that it never happens in the animal world? Oh, wait, it does...
No, it must be because homosexuality is such a new thing. It's an invention of the 60s and 70s. Blame the hippies! Oh, wait, that doesn't explain homosexuality in the ancient world...
There is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn.That's why scientists who studied gay animals found that there was no biological reason for sexual preference. Oh, wait, they found that there was a biological reason.
We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools.Because we defend your freedom (to be straight)!
No, seriously. How can they claim to be defending freedom while at the same time blatantly saying that they won't except equality?
At the end of the day, Family Research Council (when it comes to sexual issues, at least) is another offspring of that unfortunate tumor on America known as the religious right. It's a movement that somehow identifies as "Christian" while ignoring the teachings of Christ, and claims to be "American" while seeking to violate the basic tenets of our free and equal society.
The First Amendment
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is probably the portion of American law that normal citizens are the most interested in. It's also the one that's most often misused, misquoted, or misrepresented. Below, I'll set out a few of my pet peeves about the two most famous aspects of the First Amendment: "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion."
Text of the Amendment
Before I delve into it, here's the actual text of the First Amendment:
Free speech has long been the rallying cry of the minority. "They can control the government, but they can't stop us from speaking out about it!" Unfortunately, some people seem to think that freedom of speech gives them the right to say whatever they want without fear of criticism. This shirt from Zazzle.com sums up this phenomenon.
That's not how freedom of speech works. You have the freedom to say whatever you want, and I have the freedom to completely refute your ideas and destroy your logic, if I so choose. The fact that I do that doesn't mean I'm violating your freedom of speech, it means I'm exercising mine.
If you can't deal with criticism for saying something, don't say it in public. But that's on you, not on the people who are going to criticize you.
Freedom of Religion
This part of the First Amendment is often misused by people who want to justify forcing their religion onto other people. They'll say, "you can't stop me from putting this cross up on government land--I have the freedom to support religion however I want!"
A closer look at the actual text, though, reveals the flaw in this argument. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress cannot support or prohibit the exercise of religion. What is prohibited, however, is government sponsorship of religion. It's not prohibited by Congress, but by the Constitution itself.
A prime example of this occurred earlier this fall in Catoosa County, Tennessee. The school cheerleading squad created signs with Christian messages and held them up during games. After receiving a complaint, the school made the cheerleaders remove the signs to an area where people of any faith were free to have signs or messages.
One commenter on this story (bamagurl1005) had this to say:
When everyone is given an equal opportunity to espouse their beliefs, we do indeed have freedom of religion. But school officials do not have the legal authority to endorse one religious message, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan or anything else, over another message.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is probably the portion of American law that normal citizens are the most interested in. It's also the one that's most often misused, misquoted, or misrepresented. Below, I'll set out a few of my pet peeves about the two most famous aspects of the First Amendment: "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion."
Text of the Amendment
Before I delve into it, here's the actual text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Freedom of Speech
Free speech has long been the rallying cry of the minority. "They can control the government, but they can't stop us from speaking out about it!" Unfortunately, some people seem to think that freedom of speech gives them the right to say whatever they want without fear of criticism. This shirt from Zazzle.com sums up this phenomenon.
Liberals Love Free SpeechLeaving aside the politics of this shirt (and trust me, people on both sides of the aisle do this), the sentiment is basically: "all of these liberals are disagreeing with me and telling me I'm wrong, therefore they're violating my freedom of speech!"
As Long As You Support:
Punitive Taxes On The "Rich"
Killing Unborn Children
Socialized Medicine
Destroying Property as "Protoest"
War Criminals For President
Giving People Money They Did Not Earn
The U.N. Over The Constitution
Trees And Snails Over People
Confiscating Firearms
Otherwise Shut The Hell Up You Conservative Nazi A**HOLE!
That's not how freedom of speech works. You have the freedom to say whatever you want, and I have the freedom to completely refute your ideas and destroy your logic, if I so choose. The fact that I do that doesn't mean I'm violating your freedom of speech, it means I'm exercising mine.
If you can't deal with criticism for saying something, don't say it in public. But that's on you, not on the people who are going to criticize you.
Freedom of Religion
This part of the First Amendment is often misused by people who want to justify forcing their religion onto other people. They'll say, "you can't stop me from putting this cross up on government land--I have the freedom to support religion however I want!"
A closer look at the actual text, though, reveals the flaw in this argument. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress cannot support or prohibit the exercise of religion. What is prohibited, however, is government sponsorship of religion. It's not prohibited by Congress, but by the Constitution itself.
A prime example of this occurred earlier this fall in Catoosa County, Tennessee. The school cheerleading squad created signs with Christian messages and held them up during games. After receiving a complaint, the school made the cheerleaders remove the signs to an area where people of any faith were free to have signs or messages.
One commenter on this story (bamagurl1005) had this to say:
I think that this is crazy..If you have a problem w/ the sign DON'T GO TO THE GAME!!! I think that taking prayer out of schools is one of the problems in todays time. I think everyone has forgotten that this is AMERICA and we are supposed to have Freedom Of Speech. We have so many people that have different religious beliefs and some people forget that GOD is who brought us here and I think that it is great that you have young teenage kids wanting to show scriptures from his book. I think that we should put GOD back in the schools where our kids can learn about him. Some kids don't have the opportunity to learn about him at home and that's what's wrong w/ kids today. If you don't want your kids to learn about our GOD then you can go back to your country or send your child some where that practices your beliefs. I went to LFO and I am glad these kids are following there hearts!! KEEP ON LFO GOD IS THE WAY TO GO!!! If they was wanting to do a very distasteful dance where they look cheap it would be ok but, everyone is saying no too GOD. That's what is wrong with the world today!! Follow your hearts & listen to God our Savior...This idea, that people can do whatever they want related to religion, is ridiculous and not protected by the First Amendment. In cases like these, where a school sponsored group is given a good position to advocate beliefs not open to other people, that becomes state sponsored religion, forbidden by the Constitution.
When everyone is given an equal opportunity to espouse their beliefs, we do indeed have freedom of religion. But school officials do not have the legal authority to endorse one religious message, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan or anything else, over another message.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Senate Votes Against Rape 68-30
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Most of us have been nagged about it a lot by our mothers: read everything before you sign it! But in this day and age, when everything we buy comes with a twelve page "Terms and Conditions" sheet and other contracts can be longer than a Dickens book, it's impossible. We'd all like to have a team of lawyers on hand to read everything before we sign it, but it just isn't going to happen.
But some people are learning the hard way that what you don't know can still hurt you. A few years ago, a woman named Jamie Leigh Jones alleged that she was gang raped by fellow Halliburton employees and imprisoned in a shipping container. When she finally safely returned to the United States, she learned that she could not sue Halliburton because of a contract that she signed. (Note: About a month ago, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Jones could sue the company in court, effectively overturning the contractual agreement.)
What has been the reaction to these rape waiver clauses in contracts? Well, new socialist freshmen Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, has completely violated the Constitution by proposing an amendment to a defense bill to forbid any such requirement in a contract, and the GOP did its best to stop him, right?
Oh, wait. It didn't actually forbid such contracts, it only forbade the Defense Department from giving money to companies that had them? Well, clearly, the Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to decide who it gives money to! But, then, the GOP thing must be wrong too, right..? They must have supported it?
Guess again. The amendment to the bill passed the Senate 68-30, garnering 10 Republican votes. (I assume two Democrats were absent for the vote.) If you notice, however, that means that 30 Republicans voted against this amendment. 30 Republicans voted to continue to allow taxpayer money to be given to companies that forbid rape victims from having their day in court. 30 Republicans, in other words, voted to continue funding the cover up of sexual assaults.
What was their reasoning? The basic idea seems to be a belief that the government has no business interfering with how its contractors operate, and it's not the government's place to pass moral judgment on organizations' policies.
Oh, really? Let's look at what a few of the detractors from this amendment said about defunding ACORN.
US Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE): "This is another great bipartisan message from the Senate."
Can't have the same bipartisanship when we're defunding Dick Cheney's company, though.
US Senator Richard Shelby (R-AK): The Senate Votes No 2010 Funding for ACORN; Access to Stimulus Funds in Crosshairs Senate's ACORN funding ban was proposed by Senator Richard Shelby
US Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO): Bond says he is outraged by the actions of Acorn employees and wants them to be punished.
Moral of the story? Isolated employees in a left-leaning organization do bad things, Democrats join Republicans in condemning the organization. Dick Cheney's former company has policies that deny rape victims their legal rights, and many Republicans stick up for the company's right to not be sued.
What does this tell us? You decide.
By the way, I read that all of the women in the Senate's GOP caucus voted in favor of the amendment. This led me to wonder how many women the GOP actually has in the Senate. According to this site, there are currently seventeen women in the Senate, four of whom are Republicans.
That gives the Republicans a 10% female Senate composition and the Democrats a 22% female composition.
Maybe that's why the GOP votes against rape victims?
Credit goes to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart for giving me the idea for this post. I shamelessly ripped it off of him, but I hope I've added my own little twist to it.
Most of us have been nagged about it a lot by our mothers: read everything before you sign it! But in this day and age, when everything we buy comes with a twelve page "Terms and Conditions" sheet and other contracts can be longer than a Dickens book, it's impossible. We'd all like to have a team of lawyers on hand to read everything before we sign it, but it just isn't going to happen.
But some people are learning the hard way that what you don't know can still hurt you. A few years ago, a woman named Jamie Leigh Jones alleged that she was gang raped by fellow Halliburton employees and imprisoned in a shipping container. When she finally safely returned to the United States, she learned that she could not sue Halliburton because of a contract that she signed. (Note: About a month ago, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Jones could sue the company in court, effectively overturning the contractual agreement.)
What has been the reaction to these rape waiver clauses in contracts? Well, new socialist freshmen Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, has completely violated the Constitution by proposing an amendment to a defense bill to forbid any such requirement in a contract, and the GOP did its best to stop him, right?
Oh, wait. It didn't actually forbid such contracts, it only forbade the Defense Department from giving money to companies that had them? Well, clearly, the Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to decide who it gives money to! But, then, the GOP thing must be wrong too, right..? They must have supported it?
Guess again. The amendment to the bill passed the Senate 68-30, garnering 10 Republican votes. (I assume two Democrats were absent for the vote.) If you notice, however, that means that 30 Republicans voted against this amendment. 30 Republicans voted to continue to allow taxpayer money to be given to companies that forbid rape victims from having their day in court. 30 Republicans, in other words, voted to continue funding the cover up of sexual assaults.
What was their reasoning? The basic idea seems to be a belief that the government has no business interfering with how its contractors operate, and it's not the government's place to pass moral judgment on organizations' policies.
Oh, really? Let's look at what a few of the detractors from this amendment said about defunding ACORN.
US Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE): "This is another great bipartisan message from the Senate."
Can't have the same bipartisanship when we're defunding Dick Cheney's company, though.
US Senator Richard Shelby (R-AK): The Senate Votes No 2010 Funding for ACORN; Access to Stimulus Funds in Crosshairs Senate's ACORN funding ban was proposed by Senator Richard Shelby
US Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO): Bond says he is outraged by the actions of Acorn employees and wants them to be punished.
Moral of the story? Isolated employees in a left-leaning organization do bad things, Democrats join Republicans in condemning the organization. Dick Cheney's former company has policies that deny rape victims their legal rights, and many Republicans stick up for the company's right to not be sued.
What does this tell us? You decide.
By the way, I read that all of the women in the Senate's GOP caucus voted in favor of the amendment. This led me to wonder how many women the GOP actually has in the Senate. According to this site, there are currently seventeen women in the Senate, four of whom are Republicans.
That gives the Republicans a 10% female Senate composition and the Democrats a 22% female composition.
Maybe that's why the GOP votes against rape victims?
Credit goes to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart for giving me the idea for this post. I shamelessly ripped it off of him, but I hope I've added my own little twist to it.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Modern Civil Rights
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
America has seen black rights movements, women's rights movements, and Native American movements. What's the modern civil rights movement?
It seems like it's the homosexual rights movement. Momentum was building during the Clinton Administration, but took a huge step backwards when George W. Bush was elected. Now, Barack Obama's election seems to have injected hope back into gay rights activists.
Some homosexual leaders have accused Obama of moving too slowly on the issue. Lately, though, signs have been popping up all over the place that there will be progress, even if it's not immediate. A few weeks ago, an article was published in a military journal advocating the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And yesterday, Obama spoke at a Human Rights Campaign dinner. He promised to work for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Of course, critics made a big deal of the fact that Obama didn't lay out a specific timeline. Given that Obama is fighting two wars overseas, working for important health care reform measures, and trying to fix our economy, though, I think we can give him a little time to deal with gay rights issues.
The bottom line is that the struggle of human rights activists against the conservative, religious right will be the defining civil rights movement of the early 21st century. History tells us that equal rights will eventually triumph over "moral" bigotry, but how long it will take is a question we won't be able to answer until it's over.
America has seen black rights movements, women's rights movements, and Native American movements. What's the modern civil rights movement?
It seems like it's the homosexual rights movement. Momentum was building during the Clinton Administration, but took a huge step backwards when George W. Bush was elected. Now, Barack Obama's election seems to have injected hope back into gay rights activists.
Some homosexual leaders have accused Obama of moving too slowly on the issue. Lately, though, signs have been popping up all over the place that there will be progress, even if it's not immediate. A few weeks ago, an article was published in a military journal advocating the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And yesterday, Obama spoke at a Human Rights Campaign dinner. He promised to work for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Of course, critics made a big deal of the fact that Obama didn't lay out a specific timeline. Given that Obama is fighting two wars overseas, working for important health care reform measures, and trying to fix our economy, though, I think we can give him a little time to deal with gay rights issues.
The bottom line is that the struggle of human rights activists against the conservative, religious right will be the defining civil rights movement of the early 21st century. History tells us that equal rights will eventually triumph over "moral" bigotry, but how long it will take is a question we won't be able to answer until it's over.
"Read the Bill" part 2
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
This is the second of two parts of my "read the bill" series. The first part dealt with those who claim they've read bills when they haven't. This part deals with people who complain that bills are too complicated and aren't given enough public scrutiny before being passed.
A conservative movement has been gaining momentum since Obama took office, complaining about the complexity of legislation. People complain that even when legislation is posted online, it's so convoluted and hard to understand that no one really understands what they're voting on.
My response? Yes - it is complicated. So?
Here in America, we've created a system called representative democracy. We don't subscribe to a style of government like that of Classical Greece (democracy). Why not? Because we recognize that governing a large world power is a complicated endeavor, and doing so requires time and dedication.
As a nation, we've hired people to read and write these bills for us. We send them to law school and give them staffs so that they can deal with all of these complicated laws. And the laws aren't needlessly complicated: things interact in unpredictable ways, and there are always people willing to take advantage of legislative loopholes. Trying to make things as airtight as possible leads to complicated, convoluted legislation. It's unavoidable.
So, do we need less complicated legislation? No. What we need is to not be lied to by those who do read the bills and report back to us. The problem is not our laws, it is the honesty of certain factions in America.
I would like to add that there's a related movement, Read The Bill that I fully support. These people ask that all non-emergency bills be posted online, in full, for 72 hours before coming to a vote. I agree. We need to end last minute amendments, and give people time to review the final versions before Congress has its final vote. Transparency in government is key.
This is the second of two parts of my "read the bill" series. The first part dealt with those who claim they've read bills when they haven't. This part deals with people who complain that bills are too complicated and aren't given enough public scrutiny before being passed.
A conservative movement has been gaining momentum since Obama took office, complaining about the complexity of legislation. People complain that even when legislation is posted online, it's so convoluted and hard to understand that no one really understands what they're voting on.
My response? Yes - it is complicated. So?
Here in America, we've created a system called representative democracy. We don't subscribe to a style of government like that of Classical Greece (democracy). Why not? Because we recognize that governing a large world power is a complicated endeavor, and doing so requires time and dedication.
As a nation, we've hired people to read and write these bills for us. We send them to law school and give them staffs so that they can deal with all of these complicated laws. And the laws aren't needlessly complicated: things interact in unpredictable ways, and there are always people willing to take advantage of legislative loopholes. Trying to make things as airtight as possible leads to complicated, convoluted legislation. It's unavoidable.
So, do we need less complicated legislation? No. What we need is to not be lied to by those who do read the bills and report back to us. The problem is not our laws, it is the honesty of certain factions in America.
I would like to add that there's a related movement, Read The Bill that I fully support. These people ask that all non-emergency bills be posted online, in full, for 72 hours before coming to a vote. I agree. We need to end last minute amendments, and give people time to review the final versions before Congress has its final vote. Transparency in government is key.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
"Read the Bill" part 1
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
This post will be one of two related to the same topic: "read the bill." In this entry, I'll discuss those who claim to have read the health care bill when debating it. In the next, I'll respond to those who object to how complicated legislation is and how hard it is to read.
If you've debated politics, you've run into the people who claim to have "read the bill" before. It's a way to increase credibility. Someone's claims have more weight if they've read the bill rather than just listening to media personalities like Rush Limbaugh. I ran into it most recently on Twitter.
Well, maybe there's the fact that there's no "Bill," as hospicenurse54 puts it. There are two versions of the bill in the Senate, plus one in the House. So what exactly have these people read? Have they really read all three versions of the bill, examined them in detail, and then made their informed comments? Somehow, I doubt it. If so, wouldn't they make that point?
So, next time someone says to you, "I've read the bill...have you?" call them out on it. Ask them which version of the bill they've read, and in what level of detail. I will wager that 99.9% of the time, they'll immediately back off; they haven't actually read the bill, they've listened to Rush or Beck or Colbert. (No, Colbert does not belong in the same list as Rush or Beck, but there's no one really comparable to those two on the left.)
Oh, and if someone calls it "Obamacare," that's a pretty sure indicator that they don't actually know anything about the legislative process, since none of the versions were written or directly influenced by the Obama Administration.
I thought I'd add a little bit of an informational blurb here, for those of you who don't know how a bill with this many versions becomes law.
Once the Senate Finance committee passes its version, the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) will work with Democratic leadership to merge the two versions and create a final version to go to the floor. This is one important time when issues like the public option (the main difference between the two Senate versions) will be decided.
If the bills that pass the Senate and the House are not identical, they'll go to a special conference committee, with membership traditionally decided by the majority leaders in each chamber. The committee will create a final version which will go back to both houses for an up or down vote. Thus, we won't really have a final "bill" until the conference committee finishes its work.
Of course, all steps of this are subject to the filibuster in the Senate, unless the Democratic leadership pursues the nuclear option.
This post will be one of two related to the same topic: "read the bill." In this entry, I'll discuss those who claim to have read the health care bill when debating it. In the next, I'll respond to those who object to how complicated legislation is and how hard it is to read.
If you've debated politics, you've run into the people who claim to have "read the bill" before. It's a way to increase credibility. Someone's claims have more weight if they've read the bill rather than just listening to media personalities like Rush Limbaugh. I ran into it most recently on Twitter.
hospicenurse54 @drewmm10 Have you read the Bill? I have....I know what it says...do you?Sounds reasonable. So what's the problem?
Well, maybe there's the fact that there's no "Bill," as hospicenurse54 puts it. There are two versions of the bill in the Senate, plus one in the House. So what exactly have these people read? Have they really read all three versions of the bill, examined them in detail, and then made their informed comments? Somehow, I doubt it. If so, wouldn't they make that point?
So, next time someone says to you, "I've read the bill...have you?" call them out on it. Ask them which version of the bill they've read, and in what level of detail. I will wager that 99.9% of the time, they'll immediately back off; they haven't actually read the bill, they've listened to Rush or Beck or Colbert. (No, Colbert does not belong in the same list as Rush or Beck, but there's no one really comparable to those two on the left.)
Oh, and if someone calls it "Obamacare," that's a pretty sure indicator that they don't actually know anything about the legislative process, since none of the versions were written or directly influenced by the Obama Administration.
I thought I'd add a little bit of an informational blurb here, for those of you who don't know how a bill with this many versions becomes law.
Once the Senate Finance committee passes its version, the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) will work with Democratic leadership to merge the two versions and create a final version to go to the floor. This is one important time when issues like the public option (the main difference between the two Senate versions) will be decided.
If the bills that pass the Senate and the House are not identical, they'll go to a special conference committee, with membership traditionally decided by the majority leaders in each chamber. The committee will create a final version which will go back to both houses for an up or down vote. Thus, we won't really have a final "bill" until the conference committee finishes its work.
Of course, all steps of this are subject to the filibuster in the Senate, unless the Democratic leadership pursues the nuclear option.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize?
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
The Nobel committee in Norway shocked the world today when it named President Barack Obama as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah, yeah, old news.
So where did this come from? Are the conservatives right--is it just a political move by Europe? Has Obama genuinely accomplished major strides towards world peace? Or does the fact that he's set us on the right path justify the prize?
First of all, let's take a look at the way conservatives have been reacting to Obama lately. He tried to get the Olympics for Chicago. "How dare he! He's engaging too much with the world!" Chicago's Olympic bid failed. "Oh look! Obama can fail!" Obama gets the peace prize. "He hasn't even done anything internationally!"
The lack of a discernible position is making me dizzy. Do we want Obama to engage in foreign politics or don't we? Do we want him to succeed or fail? Can we make up our minds?
As for the claims that this is just politics...that's a part of it, yes. Almost everyone who's examined the situation agrees that it represents a repudiation of the Bush Administration by Europe and a reaffirmation of the Obama Administration. But is that wrong?
What is the Nobel Peace Prize about, really? It's a way to recognize those people who contribute to the world. More than that, though, it's a way to push certain agendas for peace around the world. It confers stature and legitimacy to a certain plan for peace.
So is it wrong to use it as a way to recognize Obama for the huge shift he's brought about in American foreign policy? It's true, he hasn't accomplished a huge amount. But everything exists in context: Obama is Bush's successor, and even though he hasn't done much, it's remarkable how much he's reversed the Bush legacy in so little time.
But what did the committee itself say about why they awarded the prize to Obama?
This idea, of awarding a prize based on someone's philosophy rather than their accomplishments, is not really new, nor is it contrary to the purpose of the prize. Alfred Nobel described the criteria as:
No matter what you think of America, it's impossible to deny that it's a major player on the international stage. And an American President suddenly bringing multilateral diplomacy back is great work for fraternity between nations. And Obama's work to end nuclear proliferation is certainly great work for the reduction of standing armies.
It's true: Obama's win was surprising. No one was expecting it, and it was basically unprecedented. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't justified. And even if you think that Obama wasn't the most worthy winner, I think we can all unite in agreeing that the conservatives who are somehow blaming Obama for this are completely crazy.
The Nobel committee in Norway shocked the world today when it named President Barack Obama as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah, yeah, old news.
So where did this come from? Are the conservatives right--is it just a political move by Europe? Has Obama genuinely accomplished major strides towards world peace? Or does the fact that he's set us on the right path justify the prize?
First of all, let's take a look at the way conservatives have been reacting to Obama lately. He tried to get the Olympics for Chicago. "How dare he! He's engaging too much with the world!" Chicago's Olympic bid failed. "Oh look! Obama can fail!" Obama gets the peace prize. "He hasn't even done anything internationally!"
The lack of a discernible position is making me dizzy. Do we want Obama to engage in foreign politics or don't we? Do we want him to succeed or fail? Can we make up our minds?
As for the claims that this is just politics...that's a part of it, yes. Almost everyone who's examined the situation agrees that it represents a repudiation of the Bush Administration by Europe and a reaffirmation of the Obama Administration. But is that wrong?
What is the Nobel Peace Prize about, really? It's a way to recognize those people who contribute to the world. More than that, though, it's a way to push certain agendas for peace around the world. It confers stature and legitimacy to a certain plan for peace.
So is it wrong to use it as a way to recognize Obama for the huge shift he's brought about in American foreign policy? It's true, he hasn't accomplished a huge amount. But everything exists in context: Obama is Bush's successor, and even though he hasn't done much, it's remarkable how much he's reversed the Bush legacy in so little time.
But what did the committee itself say about why they awarded the prize to Obama?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
This idea, of awarding a prize based on someone's philosophy rather than their accomplishments, is not really new, nor is it contrary to the purpose of the prize. Alfred Nobel described the criteria as:
the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses
No matter what you think of America, it's impossible to deny that it's a major player on the international stage. And an American President suddenly bringing multilateral diplomacy back is great work for fraternity between nations. And Obama's work to end nuclear proliferation is certainly great work for the reduction of standing armies.
It's true: Obama's win was surprising. No one was expecting it, and it was basically unprecedented. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't justified. And even if you think that Obama wasn't the most worthy winner, I think we can all unite in agreeing that the conservatives who are somehow blaming Obama for this are completely crazy.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Capitalism, Socialism, and The Thing Inbetween
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Surfing Twitter (as has become my hobby lately) I ran across JG_Capitalist. What struck me as fascinating about this particular person is that he was a radical capitalist. So radical, in fact, that he didn't seem to believe that there could ever be a balance between capitalism and socialism. It was either all one or all the other.
I've come to realize that many people in America don't actually understand what capitalism or socialism are. To them, capitalism is the thing where "I keep my money!" and socialism is the thing where "I lose my money." I thought I'd take the opportunity to set out some more rational definitions of the two, and look at how we can balance the good aspects of each.
Capitalism
The core of capitalism is that products and means of production are privately held. Of course, the exact definition of "privately" is hard to provide, as it involves making distinctions between some huge aggregates (commonly called corporations) and others (commonly called governments.) Capitalists believe that money should be the driving force behind change. People can bring about change through exercising their market power; indeed, political power and market power become purely interchangeable concepts.
In a purely capitalist society, the government would not tax its citizens and would not expend any amount of money, as doing so creates government involvement in the economy. Even services such as police and military are not purely capitalist, as they are not traditionally bought and paid for in the market, but instead are paid for by the government with taxes.
Socialism
Socialism is based in the idea that those who work should have primary control over what they create and the economy as a whole. Rather than money being the driving force behind change, political power is.
Socialism does not advocate a complete equalization of resources. Rather, socialism allocates resources in direct proportion to the amount of work provided. More work leads to more compensation, but the compensation system is directly controlled rather than being left to the market.
The Great Balancing Act
So, can these seemingly opposite economic theories ever be meshed? The proof that they can is all around us. A largely free market economy dominates most of the world, but it's one regulated by governments. These regulations ensure that, to a certain extent, resources are distributed to those who work rather than those who can abuse the free market system.
Governments also try to ensure that certain basic, necessary functions (such as police, fire fighting, legal defense, military protection, and health care) are available to all regardless of wealth. Does this make the societies "socialist?" No. But there are aspects of socialism intertwined and mixed with aspects of capitalism.
Government faces the continual struggle of trying to ensure that resources are free enough to encourage growth and prosperity, while restricted enough to ensure fairness and equality of opportunity. The best way to reach this goal is to look for the best of both worlds: find what works from socialism, what works from capitalism, and how best to combine them.
Surfing Twitter (as has become my hobby lately) I ran across JG_Capitalist. What struck me as fascinating about this particular person is that he was a radical capitalist. So radical, in fact, that he didn't seem to believe that there could ever be a balance between capitalism and socialism. It was either all one or all the other.
I've come to realize that many people in America don't actually understand what capitalism or socialism are. To them, capitalism is the thing where "I keep my money!" and socialism is the thing where "I lose my money." I thought I'd take the opportunity to set out some more rational definitions of the two, and look at how we can balance the good aspects of each.
Capitalism
The core of capitalism is that products and means of production are privately held. Of course, the exact definition of "privately" is hard to provide, as it involves making distinctions between some huge aggregates (commonly called corporations) and others (commonly called governments.) Capitalists believe that money should be the driving force behind change. People can bring about change through exercising their market power; indeed, political power and market power become purely interchangeable concepts.
In a purely capitalist society, the government would not tax its citizens and would not expend any amount of money, as doing so creates government involvement in the economy. Even services such as police and military are not purely capitalist, as they are not traditionally bought and paid for in the market, but instead are paid for by the government with taxes.
Socialism
Socialism is based in the idea that those who work should have primary control over what they create and the economy as a whole. Rather than money being the driving force behind change, political power is.
Socialism does not advocate a complete equalization of resources. Rather, socialism allocates resources in direct proportion to the amount of work provided. More work leads to more compensation, but the compensation system is directly controlled rather than being left to the market.
The Great Balancing Act
So, can these seemingly opposite economic theories ever be meshed? The proof that they can is all around us. A largely free market economy dominates most of the world, but it's one regulated by governments. These regulations ensure that, to a certain extent, resources are distributed to those who work rather than those who can abuse the free market system.
Governments also try to ensure that certain basic, necessary functions (such as police, fire fighting, legal defense, military protection, and health care) are available to all regardless of wealth. Does this make the societies "socialist?" No. But there are aspects of socialism intertwined and mixed with aspects of capitalism.
Government faces the continual struggle of trying to ensure that resources are free enough to encourage growth and prosperity, while restricted enough to ensure fairness and equality of opportunity. The best way to reach this goal is to look for the best of both worlds: find what works from socialism, what works from capitalism, and how best to combine them.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Birthers
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Of the many ridiculous conspiracy theories of the Obama era, one has had the surprising power to both amuse me and frighten me. I'm amused because of how ridiculous the claims are and how many times they've been refuted; I'm frightened because apparently there are lots of Americans out there still so hateful towards the President that they're willing to believe any nonsense.
I was recently made aware (via Twitter, actually) that the "birther" theory is still out there, and apparently still respected enough that there's a court case approaching trial on the issue. For those who didn't know, "birthers" think that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, and thus should not be eligible as a "natural born citizen" to run for President. I thought I would take the opportunity to join the crowd of intelligent, informed voices denouncing the "birthers."
During the election, the Obama campaign released an actual scan of Obama's birth certificate which lists him as being born in the city of Honolulu in Hawaii. People have also found an announcement published in a local newspaper about the birth, and officials from the state of Hawaii have confirmed, multiple times, that all of the records are properly in place. You can read all about the refutation of this myth at snopes.
So what does this entire situation tell us about America? That we will always have our conspiracy theorists? That there will always be those refuse to believe facts? Does it tell us that there are those who are willing to fabricate ridiculous stories in order to reach a political agenda?
Let's call the "birther" theory out for the crap that it is.
Of the many ridiculous conspiracy theories of the Obama era, one has had the surprising power to both amuse me and frighten me. I'm amused because of how ridiculous the claims are and how many times they've been refuted; I'm frightened because apparently there are lots of Americans out there still so hateful towards the President that they're willing to believe any nonsense.
I was recently made aware (via Twitter, actually) that the "birther" theory is still out there, and apparently still respected enough that there's a court case approaching trial on the issue. For those who didn't know, "birthers" think that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, and thus should not be eligible as a "natural born citizen" to run for President. I thought I would take the opportunity to join the crowd of intelligent, informed voices denouncing the "birthers."
During the election, the Obama campaign released an actual scan of Obama's birth certificate which lists him as being born in the city of Honolulu in Hawaii. People have also found an announcement published in a local newspaper about the birth, and officials from the state of Hawaii have confirmed, multiple times, that all of the records are properly in place. You can read all about the refutation of this myth at snopes.
So what does this entire situation tell us about America? That we will always have our conspiracy theorists? That there will always be those refuse to believe facts? Does it tell us that there are those who are willing to fabricate ridiculous stories in order to reach a political agenda?
Let's call the "birther" theory out for the crap that it is.
Source of the Source
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)
Welcome to Source 4 Politics! Thank you to everyone who ends up reading this, and please pass it along.
In general, this is going to be for posts about politics at the national or international level. From time to time, there may be a post relevant to local issues, but those will hopefully be rarer. My name is Andrew, and I will be the host and primary author for the blog. Avi will also be posting at times as a secondary author.
I'll also take this opportunity to explain the name of this blog. It's a theatre joke: a Source 4 is a common type of stage light. The pun should be obvious. :)
Welcome to Source 4 Politics! Thank you to everyone who ends up reading this, and please pass it along.
In general, this is going to be for posts about politics at the national or international level. From time to time, there may be a post relevant to local issues, but those will hopefully be rarer. My name is Andrew, and I will be the host and primary author for the blog. Avi will also be posting at times as a secondary author.
I'll also take this opportunity to explain the name of this blog. It's a theatre joke: a Source 4 is a common type of stage light. The pun should be obvious. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)