When a child thinks they are destined for great things, we smile and encourage them work hard for their goals.
When an adult thinks they are destined for great things, we look at their efforts, their achievements on the path to that anticipated destiny and compare them to their goal. When we see athletes working hard every day, competing and winning, their dream of Olympic Gold - their dream of being the best in the world - we cheer them on and marvel at the great things they will, and are accomplishing.
But when we see no hard work, no hitting of smaller goals that lead to the larger goal, then we (if we are polite) smile and move on. If we are honest with them, we tell them that their effort will not lead to great things and destiny will be forever outside their grasp.
When those adults get angry and proclaim 'it is their destiny' because THEY are different, they don't have to work, they don't need a history of accomplishments, that THEY have DIVINE support....then we consider them either idiots or delusional, or both.
Barack Obama has no accomplishments, no effort in his background. He may have won, but he is not, THE ONE. And when he surrounds himself with equally delusional staff, the delusional MSM keeps proclaiming, he is THE ONE, because HE WON...then we have a delusional idiot running the country with delusional idiots cheering him on.
Maybe it is because many people are not destined to do great things (either because they have no desire, energy or goal) that they want to be seen as part of someone else's destiny. We see it with sports fans that become so integrated into a team's winning that everything else is irrelevant. And when the team loses, the fan feels betrayed, let down - they have had their share of the great destiny stolen from them. Obama's fans are going to (already starting to) feel betrayed.
Soon, very soon, it will be as obvious to the rest of the country and world that Obama is not failing, he never had a chance - he never gave the goal the effort necessary. His destiny was handed to him without the effort. Obama may in fact have a new destiny - not of his explicit choosing. He may be destined to be the most ineffectual, worst President in our history. For that destiny, he is working hard and hitting all the mileposts...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
The President....of what?
We have all heard, and probably even stated, that the President is "President of the United States". But it really is deceiving.
First, the President is the head of the Executive Branch of the United States GOVERNMENT. He shares power with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Speaker of the House. What they do not do is control the United States. They are in charge of the government that has certain tasks assigned to it by the Constitution - a document provided by the People as a set of rules GOVERNMENT is to follow. Unlike other countries, there is no oath of allegiance to the President, or to Congress.
Second, the United States is not a single unit. It is a unified collection of 50 sovereign states. The President can not tell California, or New York, or South Dakota or even Illinois what to do. Congress is likewise restricted. It is easy to think of the United States as "one nation, under God" but we are "one nation" in that we all agree to be. That agreement IS subject to change. Granted, such a change, once sought, was forcibly denied - but it does not preclude such an attempt in the future.
I am not calling for, suggesting, or even hinting that such thoughts be manifest - on the contrary - I am stating that what 95% of Americans think is just a little wrong.
Obama is my President. That means he is in charge of the government entrusted with certain duties, not that he can call upon me to act in ways he prefers or desires. The government is a servant, a tool. The government is a landscaping business, hired to maintain our lands. The idea that the gardener has some special claim over the property or some special authority to decide how it should look or be enjoyed is LAUGHABLE.
About Congress: think of the Senate as a Butler and the House as the Maid. Each with their duties, but attempts to assert some type of ownership over the property is so out of place as to be an affront to good behavior and well beyond the list of duties they are intended to carryout.
Of course, the problem with long term help is they begin to think they own the place, that they are in fact co-equals with the REAL owners and therefore have the right to direct and use the property according to their wishes. Stupid servants.
Try to remember that when the gardener steps up to a microphone and proclaims that he has decided what can and can't be done by the owners with their land. Chauncey indeed....
First, the President is the head of the Executive Branch of the United States GOVERNMENT. He shares power with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Speaker of the House. What they do not do is control the United States. They are in charge of the government that has certain tasks assigned to it by the Constitution - a document provided by the People as a set of rules GOVERNMENT is to follow. Unlike other countries, there is no oath of allegiance to the President, or to Congress.
Second, the United States is not a single unit. It is a unified collection of 50 sovereign states. The President can not tell California, or New York, or South Dakota or even Illinois what to do. Congress is likewise restricted. It is easy to think of the United States as "one nation, under God" but we are "one nation" in that we all agree to be. That agreement IS subject to change. Granted, such a change, once sought, was forcibly denied - but it does not preclude such an attempt in the future.
I am not calling for, suggesting, or even hinting that such thoughts be manifest - on the contrary - I am stating that what 95% of Americans think is just a little wrong.
Obama is my President. That means he is in charge of the government entrusted with certain duties, not that he can call upon me to act in ways he prefers or desires. The government is a servant, a tool. The government is a landscaping business, hired to maintain our lands. The idea that the gardener has some special claim over the property or some special authority to decide how it should look or be enjoyed is LAUGHABLE.
About Congress: think of the Senate as a Butler and the House as the Maid. Each with their duties, but attempts to assert some type of ownership over the property is so out of place as to be an affront to good behavior and well beyond the list of duties they are intended to carryout.
Of course, the problem with long term help is they begin to think they own the place, that they are in fact co-equals with the REAL owners and therefore have the right to direct and use the property according to their wishes. Stupid servants.
Try to remember that when the gardener steps up to a microphone and proclaims that he has decided what can and can't be done by the owners with their land. Chauncey indeed....
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Palin, common sense and elitism
"Palin is not qualified to be President."
Stated with such conviction by those on the left AND RIGHT. Do tell dear proponent of such a statement, what qualifications you think she lacks? Balls? Got them more than our helmet wearing, PEE WEE bike riding current occupant of the White House. Common sense? Apparently she has more than all of Washington combined - left AND right.
The quitter meme is so pathetic that it's use is more an indication of the mental deficiencies of the speaker than Palin.
All that said, it is in fact common sense that appears to be the most significant deficiency by those that would lead - or claim a forefront position in picking those that would lead.
There are at least THREE reasons for Palin to have left the Governorship of Alaska that make sense to any ordinary person....which despite my uniqueness and weirdness, I claim to be - an ordinary person. If you can't state them for yourself, don't ask me to bestow some common sense upon you - it is obviously a waste of time and energy.
I came up with a statement while wandering around doing chores yesterday and I am waiting for the right time to use it:
"You must be educated. That level of stupidity can't happen naturally."
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that something like 1/3 of people have a favorable view of socialism. I am willing to believe that 75% or more of those people have college educations. Now, I have a BA degree in Economics but I spent most of my college time refuting the stupidity I was hearing on campus - both by students in the Cafeteria and by instructors in the classroom. Yes, more often than not, the Professor was saying things that objectively were either outright false, or so detached from reality as to be the same as discussing the color of the Easter Bunny's pelt.
"If you change the value of this variable, and all others remain the same, then the outcome is the change in the system based on that variable's change."
Want an example? "If we reduce the population of the Earth 40% and all other variables remain the same, the standard of living of the remainder will be above the poverty line for all others." Yep. Kill off 2.5 BILLION people and everyone else's standard of living goes up.
That is what passes for educated in this country. Socialism is great because it 'helps the less fortunate'....at the expense of everyone else!?! To these types of people, one additional human is a linear change in humanity. Unless of course you are talking about their choices for leaders in the work of improving humanity. Up to their level. Then an Obama is worth two, or ten Sarah Palins, or worth 10 or a hundred 'tea baggers'.
I am sorry for the people that think education bestows some greater worth on some people over others. They are wrong. Like Tiger Woods acknowledging that the rules apply to him just like everyone else, reality is indifferent to education but accessible to common sense.
My Father grew up in Ireland in the 30s and 40s. He did not attend school after what we would consider junior high - he was an apprentice for years in a trade. My Father is a smart man, rich in common sense and over the decades, educated in reality. He 'quit' his country to come to the United States for opportunities for himself and his children. My Father has met Rev Wright of Trinity Church in Chicago. Obama sat for 20 years in the pews. Want to guess who understood the nature of Rev Wright better?
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident...."
But they weren't. Many people did not see the obvious. Is there any other explanation for the need for Thomas Paine to write a pamphlet entitled "Common Sense" other than there was a conspicuous absence of it in the 'ruling' classes?
Ok, enough for what was supposed to be a 280 word post. And before anyone thinks that I believe Conservatives have some extraordinary claim on common sense, Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC yesterday. The damage is severe - common sense is in short supply and I am afraid that people will be agnostic about it's shortage...
Stated with such conviction by those on the left AND RIGHT. Do tell dear proponent of such a statement, what qualifications you think she lacks? Balls? Got them more than our helmet wearing, PEE WEE bike riding current occupant of the White House. Common sense? Apparently she has more than all of Washington combined - left AND right.
The quitter meme is so pathetic that it's use is more an indication of the mental deficiencies of the speaker than Palin.
All that said, it is in fact common sense that appears to be the most significant deficiency by those that would lead - or claim a forefront position in picking those that would lead.
There are at least THREE reasons for Palin to have left the Governorship of Alaska that make sense to any ordinary person....which despite my uniqueness and weirdness, I claim to be - an ordinary person. If you can't state them for yourself, don't ask me to bestow some common sense upon you - it is obviously a waste of time and energy.
I came up with a statement while wandering around doing chores yesterday and I am waiting for the right time to use it:
"You must be educated. That level of stupidity can't happen naturally."
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that something like 1/3 of people have a favorable view of socialism. I am willing to believe that 75% or more of those people have college educations. Now, I have a BA degree in Economics but I spent most of my college time refuting the stupidity I was hearing on campus - both by students in the Cafeteria and by instructors in the classroom. Yes, more often than not, the Professor was saying things that objectively were either outright false, or so detached from reality as to be the same as discussing the color of the Easter Bunny's pelt.
"If you change the value of this variable, and all others remain the same, then the outcome is the change in the system based on that variable's change."
Want an example? "If we reduce the population of the Earth 40% and all other variables remain the same, the standard of living of the remainder will be above the poverty line for all others." Yep. Kill off 2.5 BILLION people and everyone else's standard of living goes up.
That is what passes for educated in this country. Socialism is great because it 'helps the less fortunate'....at the expense of everyone else!?! To these types of people, one additional human is a linear change in humanity. Unless of course you are talking about their choices for leaders in the work of improving humanity. Up to their level. Then an Obama is worth two, or ten Sarah Palins, or worth 10 or a hundred 'tea baggers'.
I am sorry for the people that think education bestows some greater worth on some people over others. They are wrong. Like Tiger Woods acknowledging that the rules apply to him just like everyone else, reality is indifferent to education but accessible to common sense.
My Father grew up in Ireland in the 30s and 40s. He did not attend school after what we would consider junior high - he was an apprentice for years in a trade. My Father is a smart man, rich in common sense and over the decades, educated in reality. He 'quit' his country to come to the United States for opportunities for himself and his children. My Father has met Rev Wright of Trinity Church in Chicago. Obama sat for 20 years in the pews. Want to guess who understood the nature of Rev Wright better?
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident...."
But they weren't. Many people did not see the obvious. Is there any other explanation for the need for Thomas Paine to write a pamphlet entitled "Common Sense" other than there was a conspicuous absence of it in the 'ruling' classes?
Ok, enough for what was supposed to be a 280 word post. And before anyone thinks that I believe Conservatives have some extraordinary claim on common sense, Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC yesterday. The damage is severe - common sense is in short supply and I am afraid that people will be agnostic about it's shortage...
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
My Conservative Statement
CONSERVATISM
My principles of conservatism:
First, the conservative believes that rights are inherent in his/her existence.
In the absence of society or others, an individual’s rights are limited only by their imagination, ability and the available resources. Those rights do not end, or cease to exist because a second person is present. A society that establishes the boundaries between individuals on the basis of inherent rights imposes upon itself a limit to the extent it may interfere in the free expression of those individual rights. Our Founding Fathers sought not to limit individuals, but the government powers that could be called upon by society to limit, infringe or deny the individual’s rights. The specific acknowledgment that government derives its power from the people recognizes that the source of power and rights resides within the individual.
Second, the conservative acknowledges tradition without establishing rituals.
When the choices are the same or similar from generation to generation, we have the ability to learn the consequences of the various choices and select those we seek. Those choices that are repeated in each generation inform our traditions and provide the continuity that binds one generation to another.
When the choices change from generation to generation, it is not enough to avoid making the choice, we must take the lessons we have learned from our parents and our history and apply it in novel ways, hopeful that through careful consideration, the consequences are beneficial to ourselves and our posterity.
Conservatives are champions of the individual’s choice. It is not enough to say, ‘what was good enough for my father, is good enough for me’. Our parents, our ancestors, sought to improve the opportunities and choices for their children. It is a founding principle that the past failed to provide the freedom and liberties our inherent rights need to be freely expressed. We don’t seek traditions because they provide stability, we seek traditions to honor the hardships our parents and their parents suffered so that we might prosper. Traditions for the sake of tradition are empty rituals, devoid of meaning, devoid of understanding.
Some additional thoughts: Society uses traditions to create structure, to define acceptable activities and limits on freedoms. The conservative is not interested in the devil we know - such a detestable situation needs exorcism. We are interested in honoring our past, not living it.
Elementary change in society demands new customs and conventions. By all measures, our Founding Fathers broke with tradition to establish a representative democracy founded upon the rights and liberties of the individual.
When a society can be isolated from change, it does not stabilize, it stagnates. Change happens. To seek to prevent that change from impacting society is to seek a status quo. That by necessity limits personal freedoms and liberties. The society I live in is fundamentally different than that my grandparents lived in. My parents have straddled that difference and found the old so detrimental to the liberty they desired for their children that they left that former society. It is not continuity of society that makes life meaningful, it is individual freedom of choice and association that makes life meaningful.
Third, conservatives are guided by personal responsibility.
Every action has a consequence. In many cases, it is possible to determine the consequences of an action prior to undertaking that action. Conservatives seek to understand those consequences BEFORE acting. When it is not possible to know in advance the consequences, conservatives do not refuse to take action, but to undertake action only as necessary to further their goals. Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger of allowing government to act without understanding the consequences of its actions. The first question government MUST ask is not how much of a law must be made, but whether a law should be made at all. Each law is an infringement, a limit upon the rights of the individual. Conservatives accept the consequences of their choices. Personal responsibility is the acknowledgment that the choice an individual makes is his/hers alone.
Some additional thoughts: Stress on society is caused when change is both forced, and fought against. A child pulling on the arm of an adult will continue to pull until the connection is broken and the child falls OR the adult slowly begins to move in the direction of the child and the child needs less exertion to continue the motion. Society that stands steadfast, risks a break with it’s own offspring, unless it shows a willingness to act in the direction it is being pulled. Only a cautious step forward relieves the stress. Sudden is only the realization that change can no longer be denied. The stress of change begins the day a position is taken. It builds because those supporting a particular position refuse to acknowledge that others have already moved on from that position. While some may argue that pulling a child in a different direction is an option, it is a change in direction nonetheless. The status quo, the unchanging steadfastness, is the issue that I am addressing.
Although Americans have been attached strongly to rights, they have in recent times, begun to abdicate their responsibilities. Government has been substituted, not just as a means of enforcing the boundaries of individual rights, but as the caretaker of consequences. Bad choices are forgiven. Judgment against the few has been replaced by limits on all. The consent of the governed gives way to a standardized process hostile to freedom and liberty.
Fourth, conservatives choose choice.
They feel affection for the vast array of choices available to individuals and societies and seek to increase those choices. Limits upon the rights and liberties of others reduce the choices available. Conflicts increase when choices are limited. For a healthy diversity in any civilization, freedom of choice must be preserved. If natural and institutional choices are destroyed, bondage is the only possible outcome. ‘All men are created equal’. Our society acknowledges a diversity of choices. We do not expect, nor require equality of results.
Fifth, conservatives are imperfect, freedom is messy.
No single choice is correct for all individuals. There is no perfect choice that can be decided for everyone. Society does attempt to limit choices to those acceptable to itself but that tyranny is no different than the demands of a dictator. The range of acceptable choices is bounded only by the limits of imagination and resources. To each individual, their choice is, no matter how often repeated, unique. Each individual will act in ways that have unintended consequences. Their failure is not something to be protected against. A child that is prevented from making choices, fails to learn from their mistakes. Humans are imperfect, bad choices are made. Government, and society, can not protect us from making bad choices without limiting our freedoms.
Some additional thoughts: It has been said that all we can reasonably expect of a society based on an imperfect humanity is “one with some evils, maladjustments and suffering”. Why? Why not work to eliminate evils, maladjustments and suffering? Accept them as the natural consequence of an imperfect humanity? I agree we are imperfect, but that does not give us license to ignore those imperfections. What is worse is to allow institutions WE create to result in evils, maladjustments and suffering by design. Knowing such evils exist and to do nothing but accept the imperfection is to deny our own evil.
Sixth, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and prosperity are linked.
Limit freedom and prosperity dies. The more widespread freedom, the more stable and productive a country becomes. Freedom has been a powerful instrument for teaching responsibility and for providing mankind the ability to move beyond mere survival. The freedom to act allows individuals to explore their imagination, to make choices not made before. The conservative acknowledges that freedom carries benefits and responsibilities; he accepts those obligations cheerfully. Prosperity is a consequence of freedom. Upon the foundation of FREEDOM, great civilizations are built.
Seventh, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power.
Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A conservative, politically speaking, is one that has the right to do as one likes, but limits the free expression of those rights to the boundary of others. When government, either of it’s own lust or at the bidding of others, limits the freedoms and rights of others, it has ceased being the servant, and assumed the mantel of master. When every person claims to be a sovereign, and behaves with both the rights and responsibilities accorded that position, society prospers. When responsibility is abdicated, the individual loses the freedom to exercise his/her rights and society fails. The conservative endeavors to balance the need for freedom, with the responsibility to limit the free expression of his/her rights. The balance is challenged in every generation. The pendulum of unfettered rights to government overstep is seldom quiet. Whether to enforce a community standard, or to remove the boundary that separates individuals, the use of government is the last attempt of a failing movement to impose one standard on everyone. .
Knowing humans have the capacity for good and evil, the conservative does not trust good intentions. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances and adequate enforcement of the laws are the means to limit GOVERNMENT abuse of power. The conservative understands the need for government, but a just government maintains a healthy balance between the enforcement of boundaries and the claims of liberty.
Conservatives understand the desire to limit people when the free expression of their liberties and freedoms have the potential to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of others, but that is not what is desired. Any attempt by the government to infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of the individual is suspect. First and foremost, government is our servant, not our equal and certainly not our master. Even if the master is benevolent and just, it is still a master and that is unacceptable to us - or it should be.
Our rights are inherent, they do not flow from society or government. We have the right to do whatever our desires, our imagination, and our resources allow - PROVIDED - we do not infringe, limit or harm another. Individual rights is the cornerstone on which this nation is built. To deny that, is to deny freedom.
Eighth, the thinking conservative understands that change happens in a prosperous society.
The conservative is not opposed to change. Change is a fundamental characteristic of human life and all of its institutions. To oppose change is to limit freedom. Such force can not be maintained indefinitely. It is the responsibility of a civil society not to prevent change, but to assist those most affected by change to adapt. An increase in freedom of choice gives individuals opportunities to change and adapt. Without change and adaptation, a society stagnates.
Therefore the intelligent conservative seeks to balance change with freedom. The freedom to change, adapt and make new choices. The conservative favors progress, not for progress’ sake, but for the sake of freedom. Freedom of choice is limited by our imaginations, our abilities and our resources. Our liberties are limited by the boundaries of others, justly and with respect.
Some additional thoughts: Permanence doesn’t exist and to attempt to force it is to deny change both as individuals and as a society. The biology of humanity will not change much over the centuries, but just about everything else will, with or without an effort to do so. Institutions are not needed to enforce those things that do not change. You don’t need an institution to promote procreation. And, an institution designed to promote change in something that cannot change will fail, but only after significant damage is done - one child rule in China is ample evidence. Institutions are often created to prevent change, or to establish a specific order to change. Such an institution is built upon shifting sands. The more it attempts to control the change, the more the sand shifts under its foundations.
Ninth, the conservative is part of a diverse society
The individual is sovereign, but not isolated. Many members of society will make different choices, have different abilities and resources. When others make different choices, the conservative celebrates those liberties; as long as those choices do not harm another. In participating in society, the conservative recognizes the sovereignty of others, and does not attempt to limit their liberties and choices. Government enforcement is the last resort, and then only to protect freedom and liberty, not to limit or deny it.
The sovereign individual gives up some of his liberty so that all members of society can participate in the resources and benefits of freedom. Over the years, laws have been created to establish how much liberty must be surrendered for the benefit of all. But as society changes, those laws need to be reconsidered. No individual or group can use laws to limit the liberties of others in order to increase their own liberties.
My principles of conservatism:
First, the conservative believes that rights are inherent in each human’s existence.
Second, the conservative acknowledges tradition without establishing rituals.
Third, conservatives are guided by personal responsibility.
Fourth, conservatives choose choice.
Fifth, conservatives are imperfect, freedom is messy.
Sixth, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and prosperity are linked.
Seventh, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power.
Eighth, the thinking conservative understands that change happens in a prosperous society.
Ninth, the conservative is part of a diverse society
First, the conservative believes that rights are inherent in his/her existence.
In the absence of society or others, an individual’s rights are limited only by their imagination, ability and the available resources. Those rights do not end, or cease to exist because a second person is present. A society that establishes the boundaries between individuals on the basis of inherent rights imposes upon itself a limit to the extent it may interfere in the free expression of those individual rights. Our Founding Fathers sought not to limit individuals, but the government powers that could be called upon by society to limit, infringe or deny the individual’s rights. The specific acknowledgment that government derives its power from the people recognizes that the source of power and rights resides within the individual.
"The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to Georgetown Republicans, 1809.
Second, the conservative acknowledges tradition without establishing rituals.
When the choices are the same or similar from generation to generation, we have the ability to learn the consequences of the various choices and select those we seek. Those choices that are repeated in each generation inform our traditions and provide the continuity that binds one generation to another.
"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813
"[As to] the question whether, by the laws of nature, one generation of men can, by any act of theirs, bind those which are to follow them? I say, by the laws of nature, there being between generation and generation, as between nation and nation, no other obligatory law."
--Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814..
When the choices change from generation to generation, it is not enough to avoid making the choice, we must take the lessons we have learned from our parents and our history and apply it in novel ways, hopeful that through careful consideration, the consequences are beneficial to ourselves and our posterity.
Conservatives are champions of the individual’s choice. It is not enough to say, ‘what was good enough for my father, is good enough for me’. Our parents, our ancestors, sought to improve the opportunities and choices for their children. It is a founding principle that the past failed to provide the freedom and liberties our inherent rights need to be freely expressed. We don’t seek traditions because they provide stability, we seek traditions to honor the hardships our parents and their parents suffered so that we might prosper. Traditions for the sake of tradition are empty rituals, devoid of meaning, devoid of understanding.
"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure."
--Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148
"I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches, and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the human mind by stories of raw-head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, and to repose implicitly on that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality and every other science were in the highest perfection in the ages of the darkest ignorance, and that nothing can ever be decided more perfect than what was established by our forefathers."
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
Some additional thoughts: Society uses traditions to create structure, to define acceptable activities and limits on freedoms. The conservative is not interested in the devil we know - such a detestable situation needs exorcism. We are interested in honoring our past, not living it.
Elementary change in society demands new customs and conventions. By all measures, our Founding Fathers broke with tradition to establish a representative democracy founded upon the rights and liberties of the individual.
When a society can be isolated from change, it does not stabilize, it stagnates. Change happens. To seek to prevent that change from impacting society is to seek a status quo. That by necessity limits personal freedoms and liberties. The society I live in is fundamentally different than that my grandparents lived in. My parents have straddled that difference and found the old so detrimental to the liberty they desired for their children that they left that former society. It is not continuity of society that makes life meaningful, it is individual freedom of choice and association that makes life meaningful.
Third, conservatives are guided by personal responsibility.
Every action has a consequence. In many cases, it is possible to determine the consequences of an action prior to undertaking that action. Conservatives seek to understand those consequences BEFORE acting. When it is not possible to know in advance the consequences, conservatives do not refuse to take action, but to undertake action only as necessary to further their goals. Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger of allowing government to act without understanding the consequences of its actions. The first question government MUST ask is not how much of a law must be made, but whether a law should be made at all. Each law is an infringement, a limit upon the rights of the individual. Conservatives accept the consequences of their choices. Personal responsibility is the acknowledgment that the choice an individual makes is his/hers alone.
Some additional thoughts: Stress on society is caused when change is both forced, and fought against. A child pulling on the arm of an adult will continue to pull until the connection is broken and the child falls OR the adult slowly begins to move in the direction of the child and the child needs less exertion to continue the motion. Society that stands steadfast, risks a break with it’s own offspring, unless it shows a willingness to act in the direction it is being pulled. Only a cautious step forward relieves the stress. Sudden is only the realization that change can no longer be denied. The stress of change begins the day a position is taken. It builds because those supporting a particular position refuse to acknowledge that others have already moved on from that position. While some may argue that pulling a child in a different direction is an option, it is a change in direction nonetheless. The status quo, the unchanging steadfastness, is the issue that I am addressing.
Although Americans have been attached strongly to rights, they have in recent times, begun to abdicate their responsibilities. Government has been substituted, not just as a means of enforcing the boundaries of individual rights, but as the caretaker of consequences. Bad choices are forgiven. Judgment against the few has been replaced by limits on all. The consent of the governed gives way to a standardized process hostile to freedom and liberty.
Fourth, conservatives choose choice.
They feel affection for the vast array of choices available to individuals and societies and seek to increase those choices. Limits upon the rights and liberties of others reduce the choices available. Conflicts increase when choices are limited. For a healthy diversity in any civilization, freedom of choice must be preserved. If natural and institutional choices are destroyed, bondage is the only possible outcome. ‘All men are created equal’. Our society acknowledges a diversity of choices. We do not expect, nor require equality of results.
Fifth, conservatives are imperfect, freedom is messy.
No single choice is correct for all individuals. There is no perfect choice that can be decided for everyone. Society does attempt to limit choices to those acceptable to itself but that tyranny is no different than the demands of a dictator. The range of acceptable choices is bounded only by the limits of imagination and resources. To each individual, their choice is, no matter how often repeated, unique. Each individual will act in ways that have unintended consequences. Their failure is not something to be protected against. A child that is prevented from making choices, fails to learn from their mistakes. Humans are imperfect, bad choices are made. Government, and society, can not protect us from making bad choices without limiting our freedoms.
Some additional thoughts: It has been said that all we can reasonably expect of a society based on an imperfect humanity is “one with some evils, maladjustments and suffering”. Why? Why not work to eliminate evils, maladjustments and suffering? Accept them as the natural consequence of an imperfect humanity? I agree we are imperfect, but that does not give us license to ignore those imperfections. What is worse is to allow institutions WE create to result in evils, maladjustments and suffering by design. Knowing such evils exist and to do nothing but accept the imperfection is to deny our own evil.
Sixth, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and prosperity are linked.
Limit freedom and prosperity dies. The more widespread freedom, the more stable and productive a country becomes. Freedom has been a powerful instrument for teaching responsibility and for providing mankind the ability to move beyond mere survival. The freedom to act allows individuals to explore their imagination, to make choices not made before. The conservative acknowledges that freedom carries benefits and responsibilities; he accepts those obligations cheerfully. Prosperity is a consequence of freedom. Upon the foundation of FREEDOM, great civilizations are built.
Seventh, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power.
Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A conservative, politically speaking, is one that has the right to do as one likes, but limits the free expression of those rights to the boundary of others. When government, either of it’s own lust or at the bidding of others, limits the freedoms and rights of others, it has ceased being the servant, and assumed the mantel of master. When every person claims to be a sovereign, and behaves with both the rights and responsibilities accorded that position, society prospers. When responsibility is abdicated, the individual loses the freedom to exercise his/her rights and society fails. The conservative endeavors to balance the need for freedom, with the responsibility to limit the free expression of his/her rights. The balance is challenged in every generation. The pendulum of unfettered rights to government overstep is seldom quiet. Whether to enforce a community standard, or to remove the boundary that separates individuals, the use of government is the last attempt of a failing movement to impose one standard on everyone. .
Knowing humans have the capacity for good and evil, the conservative does not trust good intentions. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances and adequate enforcement of the laws are the means to limit GOVERNMENT abuse of power. The conservative understands the need for government, but a just government maintains a healthy balance between the enforcement of boundaries and the claims of liberty.
Conservatives understand the desire to limit people when the free expression of their liberties and freedoms have the potential to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of others, but that is not what is desired. Any attempt by the government to infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of the individual is suspect. First and foremost, government is our servant, not our equal and certainly not our master. Even if the master is benevolent and just, it is still a master and that is unacceptable to us - or it should be.
Our rights are inherent, they do not flow from society or government. We have the right to do whatever our desires, our imagination, and our resources allow - PROVIDED - we do not infringe, limit or harm another. Individual rights is the cornerstone on which this nation is built. To deny that, is to deny freedom.
Eighth, the thinking conservative understands that change happens in a prosperous society.
The conservative is not opposed to change. Change is a fundamental characteristic of human life and all of its institutions. To oppose change is to limit freedom. Such force can not be maintained indefinitely. It is the responsibility of a civil society not to prevent change, but to assist those most affected by change to adapt. An increase in freedom of choice gives individuals opportunities to change and adapt. Without change and adaptation, a society stagnates.
Therefore the intelligent conservative seeks to balance change with freedom. The freedom to change, adapt and make new choices. The conservative favors progress, not for progress’ sake, but for the sake of freedom. Freedom of choice is limited by our imaginations, our abilities and our resources. Our liberties are limited by the boundaries of others, justly and with respect.
Some additional thoughts: Permanence doesn’t exist and to attempt to force it is to deny change both as individuals and as a society. The biology of humanity will not change much over the centuries, but just about everything else will, with or without an effort to do so. Institutions are not needed to enforce those things that do not change. You don’t need an institution to promote procreation. And, an institution designed to promote change in something that cannot change will fail, but only after significant damage is done - one child rule in China is ample evidence. Institutions are often created to prevent change, or to establish a specific order to change. Such an institution is built upon shifting sands. The more it attempts to control the change, the more the sand shifts under its foundations.
Ninth, the conservative is part of a diverse society
The individual is sovereign, but not isolated. Many members of society will make different choices, have different abilities and resources. When others make different choices, the conservative celebrates those liberties; as long as those choices do not harm another. In participating in society, the conservative recognizes the sovereignty of others, and does not attempt to limit their liberties and choices. Government enforcement is the last resort, and then only to protect freedom and liberty, not to limit or deny it.
The sovereign individual gives up some of his liberty so that all members of society can participate in the resources and benefits of freedom. Over the years, laws have been created to establish how much liberty must be surrendered for the benefit of all. But as society changes, those laws need to be reconsidered. No individual or group can use laws to limit the liberties of others in order to increase their own liberties.
Mount Vernon redux - or....Kirk at least said something
Russell Kirk listed 10 Conservative Principles - the Mount Vernon Statement announced some conservative platitudes. I still prefer my response to Kirk and it certainly goes further than the Mount Vernon marshmallows:
A COMMENTARY ON KIRK’S CONSERVATISM
Russell Kirk has created ten principles that define conservatism in his book. I disagree with them.
Many of my debates in recent weeks have been the nature of morality in laws. Commonly, and in Kirk’s view, a system or set of moral beliefs is a necessary foundation for a civil society. I have argued, and will continue to do so, that such a foundation is self-affirming and delusional.
First, if a person believes they are moral, and that their actions are beneficial to themselves and others, then their morality should be shared by everyone as it will lead to beneficial actions. In a society where a consistent set of morals is supported and enforced, all positive actions will support the continuing enforcement of those morals. Attempts to extend or modify the morals will be fought strenuously. Any examples of situations, though minor, that argue for a change in the morals will be considered amoral acts. The greater good surpasses all minor evils.
Second, groups with a set of morality different than the predominant groups can and will obtain some freedom to act according to their moral codes, even when such codes are in opposition to the dominant morality. We see this today with Islam and Christianity. The moral code of Islam has fundamental differences with that of the Judeo-Christian code that has dominated the United States for over 200 years. As communities begin to impose an Islamic code, one that is considered equal to the Judeo-Christian code, those communities will find citizens marginalized and in violation of a community moral code, that itself is a violation of our system of laws.
A reliance on a system of moral codes as the basis for law risks significant changes in individual rights if the predominant moral code shifts from Judeo-Christian to Islamic. But in and of itself, changing the dominant code is not inconsistent with this first principle.
I call this the ‘traditionalist’s clause’. It is the most common of conservative arguments against change, almost any change. Despite their knowledge that change is necessary to the orderly flow of society. Elementary change in society, by technological change, demands new customs and conventions. Separation of the races, the women’s movement, civil rights were all significant disruptions in the established society and it’s institutions. But none of those events would be considered ill advised. Only after the fact does society say “well, yes, those were good changes”.
“Order and justice and freedom are the artificial products of a long social experience” belies the founding of our country. By all measures, our Founding Fathers were anti-conservative, liberal to the extreme, to think that a representative democracy founded upon the rights and liberties of the individual could function and prosper. No country in history sought to establish such a government and society.
“The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted” ignores the change that goes on in a dynamic human society at all times. When a society can be isolated from change it does not stabilize, it stagnates. What is good enough for the father is NOT good enough for the child. No parent, wishing their child a long and prosperous life, believes such. How many children have been raised by good parents, supported by jobs, companies and industries that no longer exist? Change happens. To seek to prevent that change from impacting society is to seek a status quo. That by necessity limits personal freedoms and liberties.
Finally, “Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless.” My only link to my grandparents - for almost my entire life - was and is my parent’s recollection of them. I live in a different country than they did. I live in a society that is significantly more technologically advanced than they did. I grew up in a society that was more equal than they did. What continuity existed, exists only in the relationship I have with my parents. The society I live in is fundamentally different than that my grandparents lived in. My parents have straddled that difference and found the old so detrimental to their desires for their children that they left, broke continuity with, that former society. It is not continuity of society that makes life meaningful, it is individual freedom of choice and association that makes life meaningful.
“The individual is foolish, but the species is wise” is fundamentally at odds with individual rights and freedoms. Why would a ‘conservative’ seek to allow individuals freedom when only society (or the species) has the wisdom to ordain future actions? I benefit from all that have proceeded me, but to limit my actions or freedoms because of the limitations antiquity faced is to deny each of us the benefits of their fruits. The idea that property rights find their basis in antiquity limits most concepts of property rights to the Constitution, which was a break from antiquity. This is an attempt to define morality as established and unchanging. The idea that “new discoveries in morals, politics or taste” are unlikely is to ignore HISTORY! A woman or black man as President? Women’s rights? Civil rights? The content of their character, not the color of their skin? These are changes, ‘discoveries’ that were not ‘a ha’ events, but recognition that the past had failed, that the morality of the past had prevented freedom and liberty for ALL.
Something I might agree with? Nope. I would suggest that if ‘after sufficient reflection, having weighted the consequences’ actually resulted in action, then we would benefit from such reflection. But it does not. If you will not change, you will not have sufficient evidence to support a decision for or against the change, except that history will show you the status quo is sufficient. Stress on society is caused when change is both forced, and fought against. A child pulling on the arm of an adult will continue to pull until the connection is broken and the child falls OR the adult slowly begins to move in the direction of the child and the child needs less exertion to continue the motion. Society that stands steadfast, risks a break with it’s own offspring, unless it shows a willingness to act in the direction it is being pulled. Only a cautious step forward relieves the stress. Sudden is only the realization that change can no longer be denied. The stress of change begins the day a position is taken. It builds because those supporting a particular position refuse to acknowledge that others have already moved on from that position.
This contradicts much of what comes before it. It also fails to acknowledge ‘all men are created equal’. It suggests, Kirk suggests, that inequality is something to be encouraged, even sought after: “there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition and many sorts of inequality”. This may be a situation where MY lack of ability or knowledge is causing a misunderstanding. Our society acknowledges a diversity of outcomes. We, our society, does not expect, nor require equality of results. But it also does not actively - or it should not - promote inequality. “All other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.” Isn’t the attempt to establish a uniform moral code, a form of leveling? Isn’t a requirement that all adhere to specific norms, an attempt to level? Isn’t the attempt to limit the liberties of one, to adhere to social continuity, an attempt to level? An attempt to force a particular outcome to be consistent with the rest of society?
If my sinful nature is inherent, by what rights do I try to ignore it, give in and be what I am! Such is the hell Paul(?) considered. If society is imperfect, well, we know, and we should just accept that because any attempt at fixing it might lead to an impossible utopia, or worse, boredom. All we can reasonably expect is “some evils, maladjustments and suffering”. Why? Why not work to eliminate evils, maladjustments and suffering? Accept them as the natural consequence of an imperfect humanity? I agree we are imperfect, but that does not give us license to ignore those imperfections. What is worse, is to allow institutions WE created to result in evils, maladjustments and suffering by design. Knowing such evils exist and to do nothing but accept the imperfection is to deny our own evil.
By definition, the conservative should seek to insure as many as possible in society hold property. Is this consistent with what came before it? I don’t disagree that personal freedom and personal property are linked, but holding personal property does not cause freedom. Freedom allows for the holding of personal property. “Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built.” Only a select few in history ‘owned’ property. Owning property is a consequence of freedom. Upon the foundation of FREEDOM, great civilizations are built.
An argument for Federalism I will not dispute. I will note, from On Liberty:
Communities can be little terror pits too, with their own rules and demands, limits and infringements. It is not enough to accept that a community can state, and enforce standards upon all of its members. Individuals, when free, can and will diverge from the norm on occasion.
Let me rephrase and see if the result is still to your liking:
Is this what we want? I understand the desire to limit people when the free expression of their liberties and freedoms have the potential to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of others, but that is not what is being claimed. “A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty’ is an affront to this country and everything the Founding Fathers stood for. To them, any attempt by the government to infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of the individual was suspect. First and foremost, government is our servant, not our equal and certainly not our master. Even if the master is benevolent and just, it is still a master and that is unacceptable to us - or it should be.
“Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite” are all meant to be restraints not on individuals, but upon GOVERNMENT.
“When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy” is unfortunate because the individual is sovereign is the foundation of this country. My rights are inherent, they do not flow from society or government. I have the right to do whatever my desires, my imagination, and my resources allow - PROVIDED - I do not infringe, limit or harm another. Individual rights is the cornerstone on which we as a nation are built. To deny that, is to deny freedom.
Permanence is a false belief. It doesn’t exist and to attempt to force it is to deny change both as individuals and as a society. The biology of humanity will not change much over the centuries, but just about everything else will, with or without an effort to do so. Institutions are not needed to enforce those things that do not change. You don’t need an institution to promote procreation. And, an institution designed to promote change in something that cannot change, will fail, but only after significant damage is done - one child rule in China is ample evidence. Institutions are created to prevent change, or to establish a specific order to change. Such an institution, based on human freedoms, is built upon shifting sands. The more it attempts to control the change, the more the sand shifts under it’s foundations. “The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress;” recalls a previous comment where if reasoned and temperate progress were being made, calls for more change would be chastened. But, too often, there is too much reason, and no progress. A society must change. Humans change. Events change both. A society that tries to prevent change, or throttle it to a manageable pace introduces stress and fractures where no need to have been.
“Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change”...is not something that can be determined in advance, or by reasoned debate. Society changes, only reasoned debate can help society adjust to that change in a way that helps all it’s members, those that oppose the change, and those that welcome it.
Too bad. These are principles that attempt to define conservatism in a way that limits individuals by the dictates of society. Too much freedom scares people. Someone in a debate argued my definition of rights (anything I can do based upon the limits of my abilities, imagination and resources) gives anyone license to do anything! And with the limitation that I can not infringe, limit or harm another, they are correct. THIS is the foundation of our country! Individual rights, freedoms, liberties is boundless except where it crosses another.
If you think that Conservatism, as a political philosophy, is more correctly stated by Kirk, then, please, follow your own path. I prefer Conservatism, as a political philosophy, is more correctly stated by our Founding Fathers through the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
A COMMENTARY ON KIRK’S CONSERVATISM
Russell Kirk has created ten principles that define conservatism in his book. I disagree with them.
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.
Many of my debates in recent weeks have been the nature of morality in laws. Commonly, and in Kirk’s view, a system or set of moral beliefs is a necessary foundation for a civil society. I have argued, and will continue to do so, that such a foundation is self-affirming and delusional.
First, if a person believes they are moral, and that their actions are beneficial to themselves and others, then their morality should be shared by everyone as it will lead to beneficial actions. In a society where a consistent set of morals is supported and enforced, all positive actions will support the continuing enforcement of those morals. Attempts to extend or modify the morals will be fought strenuously. Any examples of situations, though minor, that argue for a change in the morals will be considered amoral acts. The greater good surpasses all minor evils.
Second, groups with a set of morality different than the predominant groups can and will obtain some freedom to act according to their moral codes, even when such codes are in opposition to the dominant morality. We see this today with Islam and Christianity. The moral code of Islam has fundamental differences with that of the Judeo-Christian code that has dominated the United States for over 200 years. As communities begin to impose an Islamic code, one that is considered equal to the Judeo-Christian code, those communities will find citizens marginalized and in violation of a community moral code, that itself is a violation of our system of laws.
A reliance on a system of moral codes as the basis for law risks significant changes in individual rights if the predominant moral code shifts from Judeo-Christian to Islamic. But in and of itself, changing the dominant code is not inconsistent with this first principle.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.
I call this the ‘traditionalist’s clause’. It is the most common of conservative arguments against change, almost any change. Despite their knowledge that change is necessary to the orderly flow of society. Elementary change in society, by technological change, demands new customs and conventions. Separation of the races, the women’s movement, civil rights were all significant disruptions in the established society and it’s institutions. But none of those events would be considered ill advised. Only after the fact does society say “well, yes, those were good changes”.
“Order and justice and freedom are the artificial products of a long social experience” belies the founding of our country. By all measures, our Founding Fathers were anti-conservative, liberal to the extreme, to think that a representative democracy founded upon the rights and liberties of the individual could function and prosper. No country in history sought to establish such a government and society.
“The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted” ignores the change that goes on in a dynamic human society at all times. When a society can be isolated from change it does not stabilize, it stagnates. What is good enough for the father is NOT good enough for the child. No parent, wishing their child a long and prosperous life, believes such. How many children have been raised by good parents, supported by jobs, companies and industries that no longer exist? Change happens. To seek to prevent that change from impacting society is to seek a status quo. That by necessity limits personal freedoms and liberties.
Finally, “Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless.” My only link to my grandparents - for almost my entire life - was and is my parent’s recollection of them. I live in a different country than they did. I live in a society that is significantly more technologically advanced than they did. I grew up in a society that was more equal than they did. What continuity existed, exists only in the relationship I have with my parents. The society I live in is fundamentally different than that my grandparents lived in. My parents have straddled that difference and found the old so detrimental to their desires for their children that they left, broke continuity with, that former society. It is not continuity of society that makes life meaningful, it is individual freedom of choice and association that makes life meaningful.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.
“The individual is foolish, but the species is wise” is fundamentally at odds with individual rights and freedoms. Why would a ‘conservative’ seek to allow individuals freedom when only society (or the species) has the wisdom to ordain future actions? I benefit from all that have proceeded me, but to limit my actions or freedoms because of the limitations antiquity faced is to deny each of us the benefits of their fruits. The idea that property rights find their basis in antiquity limits most concepts of property rights to the Constitution, which was a break from antiquity. This is an attempt to define morality as established and unchanging. The idea that “new discoveries in morals, politics or taste” are unlikely is to ignore HISTORY! A woman or black man as President? Women’s rights? Civil rights? The content of their character, not the color of their skin? These are changes, ‘discoveries’ that were not ‘a ha’ events, but recognition that the past had failed, that the morality of the past had prevented freedom and liberty for ALL.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.
Something I might agree with? Nope. I would suggest that if ‘after sufficient reflection, having weighted the consequences’ actually resulted in action, then we would benefit from such reflection. But it does not. If you will not change, you will not have sufficient evidence to support a decision for or against the change, except that history will show you the status quo is sufficient. Stress on society is caused when change is both forced, and fought against. A child pulling on the arm of an adult will continue to pull until the connection is broken and the child falls OR the adult slowly begins to move in the direction of the child and the child needs less exertion to continue the motion. Society that stands steadfast, risks a break with it’s own offspring, unless it shows a willingness to act in the direction it is being pulled. Only a cautious step forward relieves the stress. Sudden is only the realization that change can no longer be denied. The stress of change begins the day a position is taken. It builds because those supporting a particular position refuse to acknowledge that others have already moved on from that position.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.
This contradicts much of what comes before it. It also fails to acknowledge ‘all men are created equal’. It suggests, Kirk suggests, that inequality is something to be encouraged, even sought after: “there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition and many sorts of inequality”. This may be a situation where MY lack of ability or knowledge is causing a misunderstanding. Our society acknowledges a diversity of outcomes. We, our society, does not expect, nor require equality of results. But it also does not actively - or it should not - promote inequality. “All other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.” Isn’t the attempt to establish a uniform moral code, a form of leveling? Isn’t a requirement that all adhere to specific norms, an attempt to level? Isn’t the attempt to limit the liberties of one, to adhere to social continuity, an attempt to level? An attempt to force a particular outcome to be consistent with the rest of society?
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.
If my sinful nature is inherent, by what rights do I try to ignore it, give in and be what I am! Such is the hell Paul(?) considered. If society is imperfect, well, we know, and we should just accept that because any attempt at fixing it might lead to an impossible utopia, or worse, boredom. All we can reasonably expect is “some evils, maladjustments and suffering”. Why? Why not work to eliminate evils, maladjustments and suffering? Accept them as the natural consequence of an imperfect humanity? I agree we are imperfect, but that does not give us license to ignore those imperfections. What is worse, is to allow institutions WE created to result in evils, maladjustments and suffering by design. Knowing such evils exist and to do nothing but accept the imperfection is to deny our own evil.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic leveling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.
Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.
By definition, the conservative should seek to insure as many as possible in society hold property. Is this consistent with what came before it? I don’t disagree that personal freedom and personal property are linked, but holding personal property does not cause freedom. Freedom allows for the holding of personal property. “Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built.” Only a select few in history ‘owned’ property. Owning property is a consequence of freedom. Upon the foundation of FREEDOM, great civilizations are built.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.
For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.
An argument for Federalism I will not dispute. I will note, from On Liberty:
“Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them”
Communities can be little terror pits too, with their own rules and demands, limits and infringements. It is not enough to accept that a community can state, and enforce standards upon all of its members. Individuals, when free, can and will diverge from the norm on occasion.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.
Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.
Let me rephrase and see if the result is still to your liking:
‘The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon human liberties and freedoms.’
Is this what we want? I understand the desire to limit people when the free expression of their liberties and freedoms have the potential to infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of others, but that is not what is being claimed. “A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty’ is an affront to this country and everything the Founding Fathers stood for. To them, any attempt by the government to infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of the individual was suspect. First and foremost, government is our servant, not our equal and certainly not our master. Even if the master is benevolent and just, it is still a master and that is unacceptable to us - or it should be.
“Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite” are all meant to be restraints not on individuals, but upon GOVERNMENT.
“When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy” is unfortunate because the individual is sovereign is the foundation of this country. My rights are inherent, they do not flow from society or government. I have the right to do whatever my desires, my imagination, and my resources allow - PROVIDED - I do not infringe, limit or harm another. Individual rights is the cornerstone on which we as a nation are built. To deny that, is to deny freedom.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.
Permanence is a false belief. It doesn’t exist and to attempt to force it is to deny change both as individuals and as a society. The biology of humanity will not change much over the centuries, but just about everything else will, with or without an effort to do so. Institutions are not needed to enforce those things that do not change. You don’t need an institution to promote procreation. And, an institution designed to promote change in something that cannot change, will fail, but only after significant damage is done - one child rule in China is ample evidence. Institutions are created to prevent change, or to establish a specific order to change. Such an institution, based on human freedoms, is built upon shifting sands. The more it attempts to control the change, the more the sand shifts under it’s foundations. “The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress;” recalls a previous comment where if reasoned and temperate progress were being made, calls for more change would be chastened. But, too often, there is too much reason, and no progress. A society must change. Humans change. Events change both. A society that tries to prevent change, or throttle it to a manageable pace introduces stress and fractures where no need to have been.
“Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change”...is not something that can be determined in advance, or by reasoned debate. Society changes, only reasoned debate can help society adjust to that change in a way that helps all it’s members, those that oppose the change, and those that welcome it.
Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought.
Too bad. These are principles that attempt to define conservatism in a way that limits individuals by the dictates of society. Too much freedom scares people. Someone in a debate argued my definition of rights (anything I can do based upon the limits of my abilities, imagination and resources) gives anyone license to do anything! And with the limitation that I can not infringe, limit or harm another, they are correct. THIS is the foundation of our country! Individual rights, freedoms, liberties is boundless except where it crosses another.
If you think that Conservatism, as a political philosophy, is more correctly stated by Kirk, then, please, follow your own path. I prefer Conservatism, as a political philosophy, is more correctly stated by our Founding Fathers through the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Marriage
We were having a conversation on the radio show (BTR Show) about marriage and Bill, my co-host suggested I put my thoughts down into words to share. Here they come..
Why do many gays want marriage? It is not to destroy tradition marriage, it is to honor it. Yep. For many of us, our relationships have reached a serious point that we seek to commit them to God, family and friends. We acknowledge, actually agree with the principle that certain relationships have reached a point where the commitment of two people is such that only one institution accurately reflects that level of commitment: commitment to love, cherish, respect, care for each other for as long as we both shall live.
We don't seek to destroy the institution of marriage, but to embrace it. Many people say gays just want recognition for their lifestyle. That is a simplistic point of view. It is not the lifestyle, but the relationship that we HAVE that we want to share, that we, WE, want to acknowledge.
Marriage says that two people have made a commitment to each other at fundamental levels. I have that commitment to Victoria, and she to me.
Why do many gays want marriage? It is not to destroy tradition marriage, it is to honor it. Yep. For many of us, our relationships have reached a serious point that we seek to commit them to God, family and friends. We acknowledge, actually agree with the principle that certain relationships have reached a point where the commitment of two people is such that only one institution accurately reflects that level of commitment: commitment to love, cherish, respect, care for each other for as long as we both shall live.
We don't seek to destroy the institution of marriage, but to embrace it. Many people say gays just want recognition for their lifestyle. That is a simplistic point of view. It is not the lifestyle, but the relationship that we HAVE that we want to share, that we, WE, want to acknowledge.
Marriage says that two people have made a commitment to each other at fundamental levels. I have that commitment to Victoria, and she to me.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Dear Senator Feingold,
I oppose the so called health care reform non-legislation currently pending in the Senate. It is unConstitutional - who gave you the authority to demand I purchase health insurance?? Auto insurance is part of the priviledge of driving - NOT the same thing.
Who gave the Congress the authority to provide for the individual? This is not a federal issue? Common welfare relates to the UNITED STATES....not the citizens.
I oppose the bill in the Senate and by your own statements - you should also.
Where is the transparency? Where is the opportunity to review the legislation prior to voting? Where is the LEGISLATION??? This is the worse type of closed doors, back room deal making the Senate has engaged in. You and your fellow senators are NOT doing the people's work. This is bribes and extortion. Why do the people of Wisconsin have to protect the people of Nebraska's medicare costs?
After years of demanding Medicare and Medicad cuts due to fraud that have NEVER occurred, we expect to find $500b NOW?
This non-legislation is a lie. It is a lie in what it will cost; it is a lie in what it will promote; it is a lie in what it will cover; it is a lie that it is for the good of all Americans.
Vote against it. It is wrong and to vote for it violates the very oath of office you swore to.
Who gave the Congress the authority to provide for the individual? This is not a federal issue? Common welfare relates to the UNITED STATES....not the citizens.
I oppose the bill in the Senate and by your own statements - you should also.
Where is the transparency? Where is the opportunity to review the legislation prior to voting? Where is the LEGISLATION??? This is the worse type of closed doors, back room deal making the Senate has engaged in. You and your fellow senators are NOT doing the people's work. This is bribes and extortion. Why do the people of Wisconsin have to protect the people of Nebraska's medicare costs?
After years of demanding Medicare and Medicad cuts due to fraud that have NEVER occurred, we expect to find $500b NOW?
This non-legislation is a lie. It is a lie in what it will cost; it is a lie in what it will promote; it is a lie in what it will cover; it is a lie that it is for the good of all Americans.
Vote against it. It is wrong and to vote for it violates the very oath of office you swore to.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Individual rights, until....
Doug Hoffman is a conservative running for Congress in the NY 23rd District. Not as a Republican, as an independent. The Republican is a liberal in RINO clothing. I am supporting him despite the fact that one of the items on his plank is 'traditional marriage'. He doesn't claim anything further, so I don't know, but expect, that he supports DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). He might not. He seems to be a big fan of individual rights. That's right. I believe you can not support DOMA, and be opposed to gay marriage, IF you support individual rights and the Constitution. Those positions are mutually exclusive.
Many of my friends in the Conservative movement 'agree' with me that gay marriage does not belong in the Federal or national political arena. I do not for a moment believe the majority of them hold that position because of a fundamental principle of individual rights. No, they are quick to join me that the topic doesn't belong at the national level. But, when a state Supreme Court has overturned state bans on gay marriage, I have heard NONE OF THEM support that result. In every case, they have joined the chorus of 'judicial activism'. Further, to those that voiced an opinion to me (and many did not), they supported the movement in California to place the ban of gay marriage into the California Constitution. So much for individual rights.
So. Lets cover how Iowa's Supreme Court dealt with the common issues raised against gay marriage:
With the exception of the gender of one of the parties, we have a marriage in everything but name. Raising kids, legal and life issues, economic and political issues. Community and religious issues. There tends to be no daylight between the life of a straight couple and the life of a gay couple of similar circumstances. So the Court found:
Every conversation I have had with Conservatives starts with the agreement that individual rights are the cornerstone of our country. But, bring up gay marriage and individual rights go right out the door. Back to Iowa for one more issue:
Finally, there is one piece left:
Conservatives WANT to address each issue individually. It prevents a result they oppose. But how can a Conservative, one that strongly supports individual rights, so resolutely dismiss them in this area? I don't know. Every conversation returns to something OTHER than individual rights.
Be it tradition, or procreation, or definition, the individual right to marry a person of my choice is not one Conservatives are willing to accept, nor defend. They will not address the issue. Individual rights are subordinate to 'tradition', or arguments that at the state level, a majority oppose it - as if "well, there you have it. The majority oppose it, so, the hell with individual rights" is some type of excuse for THEM.
There are millions of Conservatives. Most will quickly agree that individual rights are inherent, that the Constitution is a document to prevent government from unduly restricting those rights, but when those individual rights include actions they disagree with, they will latch on anything and everything as justification to restrict those 'fundamental individual rights' to 'acceptable norms'.
I have decided and stated to a number of people that we have bigger problems than a lack of gay marriage in this country. And as such, gay marriage will not be a litmus test for me in supporting conservatives needed to repair the damage Obama and Co (and Bush and Co before them) are doing. But don't for a second think that I am willing to concede MY individual rights, nor the fundamental premise that those rights are inherent and the Constitution is designed to PROTECT them, not restrict them.
In the area of gay marriage, the Conservative movement is statist. The state, used by society, is an appropriate tool to restrict the rights and freedoms of a small group because the majority wishes to do so. The Constitution of California was changed to explicitly restrict the liberty of a minority based on the desires of a majority. No greater threat to us as a people, to us as a Nation exists than the desire and use of 'legal measures' to keep a minority limited in their freedoms.
I stand for individual rights. A classical liberal in the same mold as our Founding Fathers can hold no better position than to state the use of government against the individual is an evil the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid by giving us a Constitution specifically created to prevent such a use.
I stand for individual rights. Every Conservative that opposes the Lefts attempts to use the power of the state to force a minority group to fund it's every whim, should oppose any attempt of a majority to impose upon a minority restrictions in their liberties because they think it is just.
I stand for individual rights at the national level, at the state level, at the local level and in my neighborhood. That is the characteristic of a 'principle'. That it applies everywhere, to everyone. A principle of convenience, of tradition, is no principle at all.
I stand for individual rights, the question for the Conservative movement is, why don't you?
Many of my friends in the Conservative movement 'agree' with me that gay marriage does not belong in the Federal or national political arena. I do not for a moment believe the majority of them hold that position because of a fundamental principle of individual rights. No, they are quick to join me that the topic doesn't belong at the national level. But, when a state Supreme Court has overturned state bans on gay marriage, I have heard NONE OF THEM support that result. In every case, they have joined the chorus of 'judicial activism'. Further, to those that voiced an opinion to me (and many did not), they supported the movement in California to place the ban of gay marriage into the California Constitution. So much for individual rights.
So. Lets cover how Iowa's Supreme Court dealt with the common issues raised against gay marriage:
Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their
fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for
heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing samesex
couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the
power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples
With the exception of the gender of one of the parties, we have a marriage in everything but name. Raising kids, legal and life issues, economic and political issues. Community and religious issues. There tends to be no daylight between the life of a straight couple and the life of a gay couple of similar circumstances. So the Court found:
Therefore, with respect to the government’s purpose of “providing an institutional basisHere are the most common arguments against gay marriage, made in the Iowa case:
for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of
persons,” same–sex couples are similarly situated to opposite–sex couples.9
The County has proffered a number ofWhile I could recount the 30 pages the Court uses to dismantle the arguments made, here is their summary:
objectives supporting the marriage statute. These objectives include support
for the “traditional” institution of marriage, the optimal procreation and
rearing of children, and financial considerations.24
Having examined each proffered governmentalThe Court however, recognized that there was one argument against gay marriage that had been left out of the case, and they considered it to be a fundamental objection and wanted to raise it, and deal with it:
objective through the appropriate lens of intermediate scrutiny, we conclude
the sexual-orientation-based classification under the marriage statute does
not substantially further any of the objectives. While the objectives asserted
may be important (and many undoubtedly are important), none are
furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from
civil marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been
offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban
under the statute.
I. Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Now that we haveThe key point is that individual rights are not subject to the whims of tradition. Standing for individual rights means STANDING FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to
justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for
the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by
the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence
reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa
Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if
not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the
views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the
notion of same-sex marriage unsettling.29 Consequently, we address the
religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means
to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the
marriage statute.
It is quite understandable that religiously motivated opposition to
same-sex civil marriage shapes the basis for legal opposition to same-sex
marriage, even if only indirectly. Religious objections to same-sex marriage
are supported by thousands of years of tradition and biblical
interpretation.30 The belief that the “sanctity of marriage” would be
undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples bears a striking
conceptual resemblance to the expressed secular rationale for maintaining
the tradition of marriage as a union between dual-gender couples, but better
identifies the source of the opposition. Whether expressly or impliedly,
much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—
even fundamental—religious belief.
Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As
demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in
Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the
opposite conclusion.31
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of
any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex
marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government
to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of
ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general
assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”).
The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage
for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil
contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus,
in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed
from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept
of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class
of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil
marriage.
We, of course, have a constitutional mandate to protect the free
exercise of religion in Iowa, which includes the freedom of a religious
organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and
a woman. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no
law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . .”). This mission to
protect religious freedom is consistent with our task to prevent government
from endorsing any religious view. State government can have no religious
views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation.
Knowlton v. Baumhover, 182 Iowa 691, 710, 166 N.W. 202, 208 (1918). This
proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.
As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional
standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the
religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or
denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in
marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the
constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal
protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our
constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether [the statute]Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483, 54 S. Ct. 231, 256,
is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues . . . cannot save it; if it
is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If
the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they
pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be
abandoned.
78 L. Ed. 413, 452 (1934) (Sutherland, J. dissenting).
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the
issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our
constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize
both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views
contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to
associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious
denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or
other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does
not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil
marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete
understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our
constitution requires.
Every conversation I have had with Conservatives starts with the agreement that individual rights are the cornerstone of our country. But, bring up gay marriage and individual rights go right out the door. Back to Iowa for one more issue:
This precise situation is presented by the County’s claim that theConservatives hold that because the tradition is one of discrimination, that the historical definition encompasses a restriction on individual rights, that individual rights are trumped because they were in the past. Gays can't marry now, because they never were allowed in the past. Great argument to justify virtually ANY long standing discrimination or restriction on individual rights.
statute in this case exists to preserve the traditional understanding of
marriage. The governmental objective identified by the County—to maintain
the traditional understanding of marriage—is simply another way of saying
the governmental objective is to limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Opposite-sex marriage, however, is the classification made under the
statute, and this classification must comply with our principles of equal
protection. Thus, the use of traditional marriage as both the governmental
objective and the classification of the statute transforms the equal protection
analysis into the question of whether restricting marriage to opposite-sex
couples accomplishes the governmental objective of maintaining opposite-sex
marriage.
This approach is, of course, an empty analysis. It permits a
classification to be maintained “ ‘for its own sake.’ ” Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at
478 (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 635, 116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at
868). Moreover, it can allow discrimination to become acceptable as
tradition and helps to explain how discrimination can exist for such a long
time. If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal
protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious
racial and gender classifications would have failed. Consequently, equal
protection demands that “ ‘the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay
[persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate
from the classification itself.’ ” Id. (quoting Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d
1, 33 (N.Y. 2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting)); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635,
116 S. Ct. at 1629, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 868
Finally, there is one piece left:
Of course, “[r]eform may take one step at a time, addressing itself toI can not take Victoria to court should she seek to prevent me from seeing CJ. Wisconsin has determined I do not have standing even to make a motion to seek visitation. Almost every Conservative I have ever talked to about this situation says that it is wrong, and that it could be addressed without full fledged marriage. How many issues will we address (times 50 states) individually instead of one change, all done?
the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.”
Knepper v. Monticello State Bank, 450 N.W.2d 833, 837 (Iowa 1990) (citing
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., 348 U.S. 483, 489, 75 S. Ct. 461, 465, 99
L. Ed. 563, 573 (1955)). Thus, “[t]he legislature may select one phase of one
field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others.” Williamson, 348 U.S.
at 489, 75 S. Ct. at 465, 99 L. Ed. at 573. While a statute does not
automatically violate equal protection merely by being under-inclusive, the
degree of under-inclusion nonetheless indicates the substantiality of the
relationship between the legislative means and end.
Conservatives WANT to address each issue individually. It prevents a result they oppose. But how can a Conservative, one that strongly supports individual rights, so resolutely dismiss them in this area? I don't know. Every conversation returns to something OTHER than individual rights.
Be it tradition, or procreation, or definition, the individual right to marry a person of my choice is not one Conservatives are willing to accept, nor defend. They will not address the issue. Individual rights are subordinate to 'tradition', or arguments that at the state level, a majority oppose it - as if "well, there you have it. The majority oppose it, so, the hell with individual rights" is some type of excuse for THEM.
There are millions of Conservatives. Most will quickly agree that individual rights are inherent, that the Constitution is a document to prevent government from unduly restricting those rights, but when those individual rights include actions they disagree with, they will latch on anything and everything as justification to restrict those 'fundamental individual rights' to 'acceptable norms'.
I have decided and stated to a number of people that we have bigger problems than a lack of gay marriage in this country. And as such, gay marriage will not be a litmus test for me in supporting conservatives needed to repair the damage Obama and Co (and Bush and Co before them) are doing. But don't for a second think that I am willing to concede MY individual rights, nor the fundamental premise that those rights are inherent and the Constitution is designed to PROTECT them, not restrict them.
In the area of gay marriage, the Conservative movement is statist. The state, used by society, is an appropriate tool to restrict the rights and freedoms of a small group because the majority wishes to do so. The Constitution of California was changed to explicitly restrict the liberty of a minority based on the desires of a majority. No greater threat to us as a people, to us as a Nation exists than the desire and use of 'legal measures' to keep a minority limited in their freedoms.
I stand for individual rights. A classical liberal in the same mold as our Founding Fathers can hold no better position than to state the use of government against the individual is an evil the Founding Fathers attempted to avoid by giving us a Constitution specifically created to prevent such a use.
I stand for individual rights. Every Conservative that opposes the Lefts attempts to use the power of the state to force a minority group to fund it's every whim, should oppose any attempt of a majority to impose upon a minority restrictions in their liberties because they think it is just.
I stand for individual rights at the national level, at the state level, at the local level and in my neighborhood. That is the characteristic of a 'principle'. That it applies everywhere, to everyone. A principle of convenience, of tradition, is no principle at all.
I stand for individual rights, the question for the Conservative movement is, why don't you?
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Anti
I have been dealing with three different political issues that are not things I can change (ha!) or even necessarily address, but they are creating disturbances in the Force!
First. The left has been trying to smear the Tea Party movement with racism charges almost since the beginning. There are always fringe elements in politics. We have accused the left because of them, so we are getting the same treatment. However, the difference is that mainstream leftists have a tendency to accept the fringe element as the 'speaking truth to power'. We need to disavow the right fringe, but we have a problem. What IS the fringe? Ignore the stupid 'hitler' bunch - most of them are Lefty Democrat LaRouches that are opposing Obama because he is black. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
My problem is the ID/Creationist wing of the the Right. ID is NOT science. It is saying that what can't be explained is obviously the result of 'intelligent design'. The problem is that we are imbeciles. We have two chapters of the book of life and think we KNOW something of the Universe. We have one example of life on a planet and think that we can point to a universe of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets similar to ours and KNOW anything. Two thousand years ago, we were the center of the Universe. A thousand years ago, demons inhabited the mentally ill - hell, that was 150 years ago. We think today we are the pinnacle of human evolution and knowledge but we infants in the Universe. Microscopic amoebas.
"Intelligent design" is the current age version of the pagans worshiping the Sun and nothing more.
I believe people NEED their belief systems. What I don't want and what we don't need is to use those belief systems to determine our secular systems. But it appears that is not possible for many on the Right. So it puts me in a quandary. I have argued that it is Conservative, in a founding fathers, individual rights way to promote individual liberty and responsibility, to limit government to those specific responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. That conserving traditions and allowing society to trump individual liberties is a classical conservative position that is INCOMPATIBLE with such an individual liberty political system.
We have two political parties that are illiterates, economically, scientifically and socially. To the Left, government can fix all our problems. To the Right, getting right with God takes care of the issues. Neither position lays the responsibility ON US, as individuals to do the adult things. Both want to use government to 'fix' us. The only difference is what fix will be forced upon the rest of us. All of what is wrong with capitalism has set the table for a nightmare banquet of financial disasters that will reduce our economy to ashes. However, the saviors of the Left, are going to take every disproven, failed policy ever tried in these situations and apply them at ten times the rate ever before tried and we are going to gorge ourselves on the carcass of our economy. The planet will suffer and it will take decades to recover.
We don't need an asteroid the size of Manhattan, or a swine-flu pandemic with 80% fatality rate, or aliens to come and destroy our society - we are doing everything in our power to do it to ourselves!
The right fix is for government to get out of the way. For the Left to stop trying to make us better people, for the Right to stop trying to makes us all, righteous people. Individual choice MEANS individual choice - to decide what each of us wants to do, even if everyone around is calling it 'wrong'.
The second political issue is 'others'. We have a couple morons running around creating havoc in their neighborhoods. First, we have Iran and the Taliban and the Saudi's. Either we impose our power and will on that part of the world, or we help Israel against all foes and otherwise get the hell out. I am opposed to pulling out - but Obama's dithering is killing people and WE have to call him on it. Further, Chavez is mucking up South America and needs to have his head handed to him. Playing some pathetic 'hands off' crap is going to create more problems, not solve any. The rest of the world could pretend to be morally superior to the US, wring it's hands at our obviously 'cowboy' ways because it KNEW we were going to in the end do the right thing alone and they could just smirk and relax. Well, we have a pansy, a ball-less wonder at the helm and he just might let the Europeans hang in the wind. Maybe it will wake them up, but I doubt it. The few that know the world is stable because WE take responsibility for it, will try to warn of the danger of a wimpy US, but others will think we finally are acting appropriately and wonder what hit them.
Finally, I am tired of the children running the insane asylum. There has to be a way to establish adulthood prior to anyone accepting (or being offered) any positions of authority. It is time this human race began to grow up, and I'd like to see it in my lifetime.
First. The left has been trying to smear the Tea Party movement with racism charges almost since the beginning. There are always fringe elements in politics. We have accused the left because of them, so we are getting the same treatment. However, the difference is that mainstream leftists have a tendency to accept the fringe element as the 'speaking truth to power'. We need to disavow the right fringe, but we have a problem. What IS the fringe? Ignore the stupid 'hitler' bunch - most of them are Lefty Democrat LaRouches that are opposing Obama because he is black. Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
My problem is the ID/Creationist wing of the the Right. ID is NOT science. It is saying that what can't be explained is obviously the result of 'intelligent design'. The problem is that we are imbeciles. We have two chapters of the book of life and think we KNOW something of the Universe. We have one example of life on a planet and think that we can point to a universe of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets similar to ours and KNOW anything. Two thousand years ago, we were the center of the Universe. A thousand years ago, demons inhabited the mentally ill - hell, that was 150 years ago. We think today we are the pinnacle of human evolution and knowledge but we infants in the Universe. Microscopic amoebas.
"Intelligent design" is the current age version of the pagans worshiping the Sun and nothing more.
I believe people NEED their belief systems. What I don't want and what we don't need is to use those belief systems to determine our secular systems. But it appears that is not possible for many on the Right. So it puts me in a quandary. I have argued that it is Conservative, in a founding fathers, individual rights way to promote individual liberty and responsibility, to limit government to those specific responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. That conserving traditions and allowing society to trump individual liberties is a classical conservative position that is INCOMPATIBLE with such an individual liberty political system.
We have two political parties that are illiterates, economically, scientifically and socially. To the Left, government can fix all our problems. To the Right, getting right with God takes care of the issues. Neither position lays the responsibility ON US, as individuals to do the adult things. Both want to use government to 'fix' us. The only difference is what fix will be forced upon the rest of us. All of what is wrong with capitalism has set the table for a nightmare banquet of financial disasters that will reduce our economy to ashes. However, the saviors of the Left, are going to take every disproven, failed policy ever tried in these situations and apply them at ten times the rate ever before tried and we are going to gorge ourselves on the carcass of our economy. The planet will suffer and it will take decades to recover.
We don't need an asteroid the size of Manhattan, or a swine-flu pandemic with 80% fatality rate, or aliens to come and destroy our society - we are doing everything in our power to do it to ourselves!
The right fix is for government to get out of the way. For the Left to stop trying to make us better people, for the Right to stop trying to makes us all, righteous people. Individual choice MEANS individual choice - to decide what each of us wants to do, even if everyone around is calling it 'wrong'.
The second political issue is 'others'. We have a couple morons running around creating havoc in their neighborhoods. First, we have Iran and the Taliban and the Saudi's. Either we impose our power and will on that part of the world, or we help Israel against all foes and otherwise get the hell out. I am opposed to pulling out - but Obama's dithering is killing people and WE have to call him on it. Further, Chavez is mucking up South America and needs to have his head handed to him. Playing some pathetic 'hands off' crap is going to create more problems, not solve any. The rest of the world could pretend to be morally superior to the US, wring it's hands at our obviously 'cowboy' ways because it KNEW we were going to in the end do the right thing alone and they could just smirk and relax. Well, we have a pansy, a ball-less wonder at the helm and he just might let the Europeans hang in the wind. Maybe it will wake them up, but I doubt it. The few that know the world is stable because WE take responsibility for it, will try to warn of the danger of a wimpy US, but others will think we finally are acting appropriately and wonder what hit them.
Finally, I am tired of the children running the insane asylum. There has to be a way to establish adulthood prior to anyone accepting (or being offered) any positions of authority. It is time this human race began to grow up, and I'd like to see it in my lifetime.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Hey Tammy....
You asked me to complete your survey. I did. I also sent you an email, reproduced below. What is your response?
I oppose the Fed Gov providing health care of any form to individuals - and any attempt to provide 'insurance' in competition with private insurers is, in my opinion, so unconstitutional as to be a violation of your oath of office.
My partner needs health care insurance and if YOU and Congress would offer pool insurance to the uninsurable, many, probably a super majority, would support that, but the 'Obamacare' is an affront to American values and our system of government.
Come out and meet with your constituents. I will be happy to be there and NO ONE will be paying me to be there - but we do pay for YOU to be there.
--------------
I'll be waiting.....
I oppose the Fed Gov providing health care of any form to individuals - and any attempt to provide 'insurance' in competition with private insurers is, in my opinion, so unconstitutional as to be a violation of your oath of office.
My partner needs health care insurance and if YOU and Congress would offer pool insurance to the uninsurable, many, probably a super majority, would support that, but the 'Obamacare' is an affront to American values and our system of government.
Come out and meet with your constituents. I will be happy to be there and NO ONE will be paying me to be there - but we do pay for YOU to be there.
--------------
I'll be waiting.....
Sunday, July 05, 2009
I'll work with you
Dear Sarah Palin,
I will work with you on bringing American values back into the political process.
I will work with you on restoring America.
Tracy Coyle
I will work with you on bringing American values back into the political process.
I will work with you on restoring America.
Tracy Coyle
Thursday, July 02, 2009
A thought experiment
If I fill a large cup with water to about 1/2" below the rim, then add a large ice cube to the cup so that the water is just below the rim.
Now, wait.
As the ice cube melts, will the cup overflow?
The vast majority of the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets ARE on water. If they melt...the oceans won't rise.....right?
Now, wait.
As the ice cube melts, will the cup overflow?
The vast majority of the Arctic and Antarctic Ice Sheets ARE on water. If they melt...the oceans won't rise.....right?
Monday, June 29, 2009
End of the world, comin' round the mountain...
Today we were at 341 meetings. For those that do know, 341 refers to the section of the bankruptcy code that gives creditors an opportunity to question debtors that have filed bankruptcy. Generally, no creditor bothers in Chapter 7. The hearings are administrative (generally) and a formality. The average hearing lasts less than 5 minutes including the swearing in part.
I listened to about a dozen. Only one or two did not own real estate, the rest were all way underwater on their homes. Only a couple were losing their homes, most were going to be able to keep them - but you have to wonder....
10 to 20% underwater appeared to be average. I would be willing to bet a bunch of them were in adjustable rate mortgages which have NOT been failing as much as predicted over the last several months BECAUSE interest rates have been so low. But rates are going to go up long before prices recover and all those people are going get squeezed big time. Filing bankruptcy now will probably keep some of them in their homes, others will be able to hang on longer, but the majority of them will still end up losing their home and largest investment before this is over.
The housing problem is not over. It is not even stabilizing. It is a pause, the eye of the hurricane. People buying homes right now in many places figure that at worse they might lose a couple of percentage points but "no one can pick the bottom right?" Right.
I listened to about a dozen. Only one or two did not own real estate, the rest were all way underwater on their homes. Only a couple were losing their homes, most were going to be able to keep them - but you have to wonder....
10 to 20% underwater appeared to be average. I would be willing to bet a bunch of them were in adjustable rate mortgages which have NOT been failing as much as predicted over the last several months BECAUSE interest rates have been so low. But rates are going to go up long before prices recover and all those people are going get squeezed big time. Filing bankruptcy now will probably keep some of them in their homes, others will be able to hang on longer, but the majority of them will still end up losing their home and largest investment before this is over.
The housing problem is not over. It is not even stabilizing. It is a pause, the eye of the hurricane. People buying homes right now in many places figure that at worse they might lose a couple of percentage points but "no one can pick the bottom right?" Right.
Friday, June 26, 2009
From one polluter to another....
Dear Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin:
Congratulations on your vote for the largest tax increase on the American Economy EVER! It will be great to see all the new jobs that Wisconsin will get building windmills and solar panels! I heard there is a big factory in Janesville available! And the BUREAUCRACY this bill will create should be good for at least 10,000 new jobs in Wisconsin to oversee the CO2 polluters adherence to government mandates - I did want to know if people that run will be taxed higher than people that walk...??
Oh, I just wanted to know your reading speed...1000 pages plus another 300 today...wow! Amazing.
Can you tell me what part you found most interesting? The hampering of economic growth or the part where this law will reduce the TEMPERATURE of the planet..you know, more than the SUN has done in the last 8-9 years?
I am sure many of my fellow Wisconsin 2nd district citizens are going to be amazed at your explanation for higher electric bills, higher taxes and higher costs in general! After all, if Washington can't fix the economy, well, IT CAN'T.
I am extremely disappointed in your vote today - it was ill-informed and NOT beneficial to your constituents. But you probably got a thank you from Speaker Pelosi...right? I mean, she at least NODDED in your direction.
I am off to lower my carbon footprint....for 30 seconds or so as I hold my breath to stop from screaming at this message.
Your fellow Wisconsin 2nd district resident (oopppss - yea, I LIVE here....)
Tracy Coyle
too much snark?
Congratulations on your vote for the largest tax increase on the American Economy EVER! It will be great to see all the new jobs that Wisconsin will get building windmills and solar panels! I heard there is a big factory in Janesville available! And the BUREAUCRACY this bill will create should be good for at least 10,000 new jobs in Wisconsin to oversee the CO2 polluters adherence to government mandates - I did want to know if people that run will be taxed higher than people that walk...??
Oh, I just wanted to know your reading speed...1000 pages plus another 300 today...wow! Amazing.
Can you tell me what part you found most interesting? The hampering of economic growth or the part where this law will reduce the TEMPERATURE of the planet..you know, more than the SUN has done in the last 8-9 years?
I am sure many of my fellow Wisconsin 2nd district citizens are going to be amazed at your explanation for higher electric bills, higher taxes and higher costs in general! After all, if Washington can't fix the economy, well, IT CAN'T.
I am extremely disappointed in your vote today - it was ill-informed and NOT beneficial to your constituents. But you probably got a thank you from Speaker Pelosi...right? I mean, she at least NODDED in your direction.
I am off to lower my carbon footprint....for 30 seconds or so as I hold my breath to stop from screaming at this message.
Your fellow Wisconsin 2nd district resident (oopppss - yea, I LIVE here....)
Tracy Coyle
too much snark?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Comparative Culture Analysis
For many years we have been told that our culture is no better or worse than another country's culture - that all are equally valid. I have routinely said 'bullshit' to anyone stupid enough to offer that crap in my presence or earshot.
The culture of the United States, our society, stands heads and shoulders above virtually every other culture or society on the planet - I will concede that Australia, parts of Canada, England, and Israel and maybe a part of ...no, not them... have many of the same benefits, characteristics and values we share. Maybe France and Germany have a chance if their current leaders can effect permanent change...
Compare the United States to Iran and the differences are so apparent you'd need to have the IQ of a hot dog not to see them. It is pathetic to call a country sovereign and then ignore its brutality and EVIL system. Iran is an evil country - that there are non-evil citizens there doesn't change it. Lot and his family lived in Sodom.
Our Country IS BETTER than other countries. Our Culture IS BETTER than others. I am tired of people holding out a plate of shit and asking me to pretend it is pâté.
The culture of the United States, our society, stands heads and shoulders above virtually every other culture or society on the planet - I will concede that Australia, parts of Canada, England, and Israel and maybe a part of ...no, not them... have many of the same benefits, characteristics and values we share. Maybe France and Germany have a chance if their current leaders can effect permanent change...
Compare the United States to Iran and the differences are so apparent you'd need to have the IQ of a hot dog not to see them. It is pathetic to call a country sovereign and then ignore its brutality and EVIL system. Iran is an evil country - that there are non-evil citizens there doesn't change it. Lot and his family lived in Sodom.
Our Country IS BETTER than other countries. Our Culture IS BETTER than others. I am tired of people holding out a plate of shit and asking me to pretend it is pâté.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A comment on 'The Correct Response'
I attempted to answer wdporter's comment on the post and got stymied by the comment limit...so, here is my comment:
Eventually, I return.
Your First paragraph: I have the right to marry whomever I want - neither you, nor the government can stop me. However, the government bestows upon couples it recognizes as married certain benefits and how and when and why it bestows those benefits by it's recognition is the issue.
As you suggest, I can not demand recognition, however, I can and do demand that government treat married couples equally AND if it established criteria for that definition, I can and do demand it do so in a non-discriminatory way. Let me define 'non-discriminatory' so that we are clear: the state MAY discriminate among groups and classes when it has a compelling interest in doing so - such that it can establish age cohorts for legal contracts, government benefits and the exercising of certain rights and privileges. When it has no compelling interest, it can not discriminate.
In this case, the government must show a compelling interest to discriminate against gay couples that marry and seek those government benefits. As the Iowa Supreme Court found, there is no compelling interest found in such a discrimination in the area of gay vs straight marriage.
Your opening paragraph: if I am asking for recognition, but I don't have the right to ask for recognition, then when recognition is denied, I am not being discriminated is a nice piece of circular logic. If recognition is being denied, I ask what is the reason - your response is I don't have the right to ask for it. If I ask why I do not have the right to ask for recognition, you seem to suggest I that I am not being discriminated against.
Comparing gay to interracial marriage is less foolishness than you allow. I am sure you, from this safe distance in time, believe that 'of course' interracial marriage should be allowed on the basis of...what? Man and woman? Are you suggesting that for centuries here in the United States, the people of those days could not distinguish between men and women of different races? Of course not. Everyone knew a black man and a black woman were EXACTLY the same as a white man and a white woman...except, you know, their 'color' and their 'sensibilities' and their 'intelligence'...right? So it was not a man/woman issue, or even a shssshhh sexual issue, but rather...the children would be well, not white. It was absolutely a procreation issue, not that they couldn't, but that they COULD! And that couldn't be allowed. Until it was - by judicial activism. And for many years (in some places still) bi-racial couples were treated terribly by both races as race traitors. The issue was: can someone marry whom they choose or not and would the state recognize that marriage.
Our issue is much smaller than 'civil rights', it is government discrimination. Now, some people will either dismiss my claim of the right to marry whomever I want BECAUSE, to them, such a right without government recognition is meaningless. I want you to think about that for a moment - a right is meaningless unless and until government recognizes it. Is that what is meant by 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'? No, not at all. It means before there is government recognition, before there is government, our rights exist.
Let me address the "has to do with evolution and the propagation of the damn species". One, gay marriage - hell, any marriage is not required to propagate the damn species: Palin/Johnson proves that, and so do the other 40% of births out of wedlock. Human beings create human beings, now, and for millions of years, without the benefit of a government recognized marriage. Whether gays marry or not will not change that. So, as Iowa Supreme Court found, straights will continue to get married, continue to have children, the species will continue to live and EVEN if that were absolutely false in the United States, there are WHOLE continents where marriages barely exist and species propagation is flourishing.
But, you seem hell bent on keeping the issue marriage and children, "disconnecting MARRIAGE and CHILDREN, in my opinion is not a good sign in a society" absolutely IGNORES the fact that gays are raising children and seek 'government recognition' in many cases FOR THE BENEFIT of those children!
But the children/marriage issue is really just another non-issue, otherwise, why allow seniors to get married? Or those not capable of having children? or WORSE, people that want to get married BUT DON'T WANT CHILDREN!
Not a single straight marriage is prevented by gay marriage. Not a single straight couple seeking to have children, will be prevented from having children by gay marriage. Not a single child, born of straight, married parents, will be left homeless and destitute because of gay marriage.
And because millions of straight couples will continue to marry, have children and gay couples will marry, and have children, the family unit will be strengthened. The alternative is a whole generation will grow up and say:
my parents got divorced and it was a mess - who wants that,
or
my parents never got married and I turned out ok, why bother...
Oh wait...we already HAVE that...long before gay marriage was on the radar. Marriage sucks, let's oppose more people WANTING it! Brilliant idea. How about letting MORE people that want marriage HAVE marriage - maybe we will have less people going it alone.... or without...
My rights are not being abridged, but I am being discriminated against. The government confers benefits to one couple and denies them to another couple on the basis of a biological characteristic. There is no compelling reason made why such discrimination is necessary.
As for the suggestion that I move to find more respect - why isn't that just peachy! If we could just put all 'those types' over there somewhere out of sight, out of mind and let us be....
How about just end the discrimination instead of pretending it doesn't exist by banishing those that seek to end it...
(Apparently, California believes that the popular will is more important than individual rights - but we knew that was a fundamental problem with mob...er, majority rule...didn't we...)
Eventually, I return.
Your First paragraph: I have the right to marry whomever I want - neither you, nor the government can stop me. However, the government bestows upon couples it recognizes as married certain benefits and how and when and why it bestows those benefits by it's recognition is the issue.
As you suggest, I can not demand recognition, however, I can and do demand that government treat married couples equally AND if it established criteria for that definition, I can and do demand it do so in a non-discriminatory way. Let me define 'non-discriminatory' so that we are clear: the state MAY discriminate among groups and classes when it has a compelling interest in doing so - such that it can establish age cohorts for legal contracts, government benefits and the exercising of certain rights and privileges. When it has no compelling interest, it can not discriminate.
In this case, the government must show a compelling interest to discriminate against gay couples that marry and seek those government benefits. As the Iowa Supreme Court found, there is no compelling interest found in such a discrimination in the area of gay vs straight marriage.
Your opening paragraph: if I am asking for recognition, but I don't have the right to ask for recognition, then when recognition is denied, I am not being discriminated is a nice piece of circular logic. If recognition is being denied, I ask what is the reason - your response is I don't have the right to ask for it. If I ask why I do not have the right to ask for recognition, you seem to suggest I that I am not being discriminated against.
Comparing gay to interracial marriage is less foolishness than you allow. I am sure you, from this safe distance in time, believe that 'of course' interracial marriage should be allowed on the basis of...what? Man and woman? Are you suggesting that for centuries here in the United States, the people of those days could not distinguish between men and women of different races? Of course not. Everyone knew a black man and a black woman were EXACTLY the same as a white man and a white woman...except, you know, their 'color' and their 'sensibilities' and their 'intelligence'...right? So it was not a man/woman issue, or even a shssshhh sexual issue, but rather...the children would be well, not white. It was absolutely a procreation issue, not that they couldn't, but that they COULD! And that couldn't be allowed. Until it was - by judicial activism. And for many years (in some places still) bi-racial couples were treated terribly by both races as race traitors. The issue was: can someone marry whom they choose or not and would the state recognize that marriage.
Our issue is much smaller than 'civil rights', it is government discrimination. Now, some people will either dismiss my claim of the right to marry whomever I want BECAUSE, to them, such a right without government recognition is meaningless. I want you to think about that for a moment - a right is meaningless unless and until government recognizes it. Is that what is meant by 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'? No, not at all. It means before there is government recognition, before there is government, our rights exist.
Let me address the "has to do with evolution and the propagation of the damn species". One, gay marriage - hell, any marriage is not required to propagate the damn species: Palin/Johnson proves that, and so do the other 40% of births out of wedlock. Human beings create human beings, now, and for millions of years, without the benefit of a government recognized marriage. Whether gays marry or not will not change that. So, as Iowa Supreme Court found, straights will continue to get married, continue to have children, the species will continue to live and EVEN if that were absolutely false in the United States, there are WHOLE continents where marriages barely exist and species propagation is flourishing.
But, you seem hell bent on keeping the issue marriage and children, "disconnecting MARRIAGE and CHILDREN, in my opinion is not a good sign in a society" absolutely IGNORES the fact that gays are raising children and seek 'government recognition' in many cases FOR THE BENEFIT of those children!
But the children/marriage issue is really just another non-issue, otherwise, why allow seniors to get married? Or those not capable of having children? or WORSE, people that want to get married BUT DON'T WANT CHILDREN!
Not a single straight marriage is prevented by gay marriage. Not a single straight couple seeking to have children, will be prevented from having children by gay marriage. Not a single child, born of straight, married parents, will be left homeless and destitute because of gay marriage.
And because millions of straight couples will continue to marry, have children and gay couples will marry, and have children, the family unit will be strengthened. The alternative is a whole generation will grow up and say:
my parents got divorced and it was a mess - who wants that,
or
my parents never got married and I turned out ok, why bother...
Oh wait...we already HAVE that...long before gay marriage was on the radar. Marriage sucks, let's oppose more people WANTING it! Brilliant idea. How about letting MORE people that want marriage HAVE marriage - maybe we will have less people going it alone.... or without...
My rights are not being abridged, but I am being discriminated against. The government confers benefits to one couple and denies them to another couple on the basis of a biological characteristic. There is no compelling reason made why such discrimination is necessary.
As for the suggestion that I move to find more respect - why isn't that just peachy! If we could just put all 'those types' over there somewhere out of sight, out of mind and let us be....
How about just end the discrimination instead of pretending it doesn't exist by banishing those that seek to end it...
(Apparently, California believes that the popular will is more important than individual rights - but we knew that was a fundamental problem with mob...er, majority rule...didn't we...)
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Iran, Democracy and Moslems
On the radio show on Tuesday I talked about my indifference to Iran as a blow up over the election between a really bad man and a really crazy man. It is clear that while that might have been day one or two, the IRANIANS realized that the fraud was the one the Mullahs perpetuated with the concept of free elections. The Iranian people have realized that 1) they WANT real democracy, not a false choice between two chosen candidates; 2) that their government ISN'T their government - it is a theocracy that imposes on the people what it will not abide upon itself, adherence to principles (not principles I would ever ascribe to, but the point of having principles is to live by them).
"Hey you cheated my candidate" has become "the whole thing is a farce - you have been cheating US."
I welcome such a change and with a nod to President Bush, acknowledge the principle that democracy is an inherent right and when people can see the benefits, they will want it. Establishing democracy in the heart of the Middle East is going to have positive results for a long time (before ANYONE suggests that democracy has been in the Middle East for a long time - namely Israel - Moslems don't recognize Jews as people and therefore would not want anything that Israel has except the land it sits on) But Moslems having democracy? Well, that is a different thing. Which brings me to my last point.
The most common thing Moslems - especially the fanatical types - do to other Moslems is kill them. Moslems kill and impoverish Moslems in much greater numbers than Jews or Christians do. At some point people, mostly Moslems, are going to realize that Jews and Christians have democracy and prosperity and if Islam is the right religion, something is very wrong.
Iranians have reached a point in their nation's life where they want what others have. Freedom and democracy and IF the President of the United States can't, or will not stand up for them, then something is very wrong here.
"Hey you cheated my candidate" has become "the whole thing is a farce - you have been cheating US."
I welcome such a change and with a nod to President Bush, acknowledge the principle that democracy is an inherent right and when people can see the benefits, they will want it. Establishing democracy in the heart of the Middle East is going to have positive results for a long time (before ANYONE suggests that democracy has been in the Middle East for a long time - namely Israel - Moslems don't recognize Jews as people and therefore would not want anything that Israel has except the land it sits on) But Moslems having democracy? Well, that is a different thing. Which brings me to my last point.
The most common thing Moslems - especially the fanatical types - do to other Moslems is kill them. Moslems kill and impoverish Moslems in much greater numbers than Jews or Christians do. At some point people, mostly Moslems, are going to realize that Jews and Christians have democracy and prosperity and if Islam is the right religion, something is very wrong.
Iranians have reached a point in their nation's life where they want what others have. Freedom and democracy and IF the President of the United States can't, or will not stand up for them, then something is very wrong here.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Apologies
Obama has spent the last 100 days apologizing for the United States behavior towards other countries (while ignoring what we have done for them) but based on HIS actions, we as a nation are going to spend the next decade apologizing for OBAMA.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Correct Response
On Tuesday (May 26), the California Supreme Court will issue it's opinion on the legality of Prop 8, an amendment to eliminate 'gay marriage' as allowed by the same California Supreme Court just last summer. Let's look at the possibilities:
If the Court rejects the amendment as inconsistent with the California Constitution, the Right will argue that it was judicial activism overturning popular will.
If the Court upholds the amendment, the Left will argue the Court succumbed to pressure and did not uphold it's mandate.
Both will be wrong.
First, the Court reads the law and applies it. I read the Supreme Court's decision last summer and it rested almost entirely on the fact, FACT, that the California Constitution does NOT allow separate but equal institutions and when the California Legislature created exactly equal systems for gays and straights to get married, but called one Civil Unions and the other Marriage, it created a separate but equal institution. The Court rightly called them on it.
The Right howled and put an amendment on the ballot that asked for people to, by popular vote, re institute a separate but equal system. The people of California did just that. And understand, it is clear that the California Constitution and the United States Constitution clearly allow popular will to create laws that are on their face discriminatory AND allow for the creation of laws that specifically deny fundamental rights.
I expect the Court to uphold Prop 8. Californians can, and have said that certain people can not be allowed to get married based solely on the sex of their partner of choice.
The biggest mistake the Left can make on Tuesday and the days that follow is to give the Right ammunition for the argument that Gays can not be trusted to be full partners in society. And virtually ANY acts of anger will do so.
Too many people, especially on the Left think that judicial outcomes should be determined on the basis of what the outcome should be. The law is the law and judges, generally, adhere to it. There is as much judicial activism on the Right as there is on the Left.
However, too many people on the Right think that because a majority wills it, it is right. It is possible for the majority to be anti-minority and our Constitutions (state and federal) demand equality under the law for all.
Today, in every place in the United States I have the right to marry a member of the same sex. No one can stop us. However, I have no right to demand recognition of that marriage. If the State chooses to become involved in the process of recognizing that personal choice, it must do so for all couples without discrimination. The popular will of California is discrimination.
Throughout human history, slavery was practiced (it still is in a few places); just 150 years ago, our Country stopped the practice. Women did not have the right to vote until just about 100 years ago. 60 years ago, blacks and whites could not marry each other as if race had some meaningful distinction between humans. Human history is full of examples where basic rights were denied until upheaval in society forced change.
"After careful consideration" is the phrase used by 'conservatives' to demand change be withheld. Here is my final question: how long does careful consideration take? Just so I know whether I will benefit from the result, or if my grandchildren will.
If the Court rejects the amendment as inconsistent with the California Constitution, the Right will argue that it was judicial activism overturning popular will.
If the Court upholds the amendment, the Left will argue the Court succumbed to pressure and did not uphold it's mandate.
Both will be wrong.
First, the Court reads the law and applies it. I read the Supreme Court's decision last summer and it rested almost entirely on the fact, FACT, that the California Constitution does NOT allow separate but equal institutions and when the California Legislature created exactly equal systems for gays and straights to get married, but called one Civil Unions and the other Marriage, it created a separate but equal institution. The Court rightly called them on it.
The Right howled and put an amendment on the ballot that asked for people to, by popular vote, re institute a separate but equal system. The people of California did just that. And understand, it is clear that the California Constitution and the United States Constitution clearly allow popular will to create laws that are on their face discriminatory AND allow for the creation of laws that specifically deny fundamental rights.
I expect the Court to uphold Prop 8. Californians can, and have said that certain people can not be allowed to get married based solely on the sex of their partner of choice.
The biggest mistake the Left can make on Tuesday and the days that follow is to give the Right ammunition for the argument that Gays can not be trusted to be full partners in society. And virtually ANY acts of anger will do so.
Too many people, especially on the Left think that judicial outcomes should be determined on the basis of what the outcome should be. The law is the law and judges, generally, adhere to it. There is as much judicial activism on the Right as there is on the Left.
However, too many people on the Right think that because a majority wills it, it is right. It is possible for the majority to be anti-minority and our Constitutions (state and federal) demand equality under the law for all.
Today, in every place in the United States I have the right to marry a member of the same sex. No one can stop us. However, I have no right to demand recognition of that marriage. If the State chooses to become involved in the process of recognizing that personal choice, it must do so for all couples without discrimination. The popular will of California is discrimination.
Throughout human history, slavery was practiced (it still is in a few places); just 150 years ago, our Country stopped the practice. Women did not have the right to vote until just about 100 years ago. 60 years ago, blacks and whites could not marry each other as if race had some meaningful distinction between humans. Human history is full of examples where basic rights were denied until upheaval in society forced change.
"After careful consideration" is the phrase used by 'conservatives' to demand change be withheld. Here is my final question: how long does careful consideration take? Just so I know whether I will benefit from the result, or if my grandchildren will.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)