There is a trend lately - whether in the world or in the U.S. or both - to demand that the government make us "safe".
"There ought to be a law!" is the battle cry of the folks who seem intent on swaddling the public in legal and regulatory cotton so that nothing harms them. Now, I'm not talking about product safety wherein blatant negligence results in injury or death. We need to have products, food and drugs that contain what the label says without necessarily killing or hurting anyone in the normal use/consumption of said product. There's nothing wrong with insisting on an acceptable level of product safety. But what is acceptable?
This is where the line between reason and insane becomes blurred. To some, acceptable risk is bungee jumping with moth-eaten elastic. To others, they have to weigh the risks between holding one's breath and breathing. But this is on an individual level. People deciding for themselves what their acceptable levels of risk is. This is all well and good. People shoud decide for themselves how much risk they want in their lives. If it kills them (hopefully, BEFORE they procreate), their bad risk assessment abilities aren't passed on to the next generation, or they serve as a good example of how not to do things for the more risk assessment aware. If it stops people from doing anything productive at all, then they do nothing to endanger anyone else and life goes on without them (because eventually, there's too much risk involved in procreation, they stop procreating and die out).
It's a win-win for Darwin and the Human Race.
But somewhere between the two extremes, we have the government. Swaying between aggressive self preservation and avoiding preservation at all costs, what we end up with is a mash-up of utter indifference and over-zealous protectiveness in the form of laws, regulations, procedures and rules that are glaring in their extremes.
When it comes to business, we have regulations that often are at odds with what is in the best interests of the people - regulations and rules that hold the environment and the health of people in what is arguably utter contempt. On the other end, we have laws and regulations that invade the individual person's dignity and person for the sake of "safety".
It is to the latter that that this posting is addressed. There are a myriad of examples of government-mandated safety regulations. From the seat belt to clean water standards, these regulations help keep us safe in a very real manner. They prevent frequent injury, illness and/or death. But some safety regulations go a bit overboard. These are the kind of things you find at public events: Security screenings for hidden weapons or explosives.
Now, I'm not opposed to these, in general. After all, SOMEONE has to get money for all that high-tech security screening gear people are inventing. But when these screenings are both invasive and utterly ineffective, the overboard-ness of the things becomes glaringly apparent. Take, for example, the TSA's latest brain fart: Virtual strip searches and/or public sexual groping.
For people who are unfortunate enough to be forced to endure the "ham in the can" experience of modern aviation, the indignity of air travel today begins at the security gate. There, they will find a vast assortment of advisory notices telling passengers what they can't bring with them. This list includes the usual things like weapons, pocket knives and other things that have obvious weapons potential. It also includes things like nail clippers (Apparently, the victims of the deadly nail clipper attack dies laughing that some schmuck tried to hijack a plane with them) but, curiously, fails to include pens and pencils as well as car and house keys - all of which are taught in most personal self defense classes to be used as weapons.
One wonders what the hell they're thinking there.
Another thing they are told is the amount of liquids they are allowed to bring on the plane in a carry-on. The maximum, I believe, is 3 ounces per item. This is because it is believed that this amount is insufficient to mix with anything else to create a bomb. This belief is, of course, an utter fallacy, but if the TSA doesn't come up with something new to irritate air travelers every year, people might think they're not doing their jobs.
Once at the actual security station, the by now impatient at the two hour long wait passengers are required to surrender their footwear right off the bat. Most people will then be sent through a metal detector, have their carry-ons x-rayed and, dignity pretty much shot, will move into the canning - or rather boarding - process.
The removal of shoes is because one person, one time, attempted but failed, to ignite a small amount of explosives in his shoe. Whoever decided that three ounces was an insufficient amount of liquid to ignite and do any damage should have checked the shoes of this guy since he carried around three ounces of explosives in each one, but, hey, I'm just a blogger who can read. It would appear that the TSA is contradicting itself, either that or they only really object to people blowing up planes with shoe-bombs but not with OTHER cleverly concealed 3 ounce plastic explosives.
The wonders of modern security never ceases to amaze me.
But despite these, thus far utterly useless, endeavors, we have the most brain-dead, bone-headed, nightmare of security procedures: The Scan and Grope.
This entails a randomly selected victim being singled out of the line to undergo "enhanced security screening" procedures. The poor schmuck is forced to stand in a booth, arms over their head as if in surrender while being irradiated in such a way that the return signal displays what is essentially their naked body to someone in another room. Never mind that radiation exposure and damage is cumulative over a lifetime. Never mind that some people have religious nudity taboos. Never mind that not one of these people - not one - has ever concealed anything of consequence.
Never mind that this device will not show anything concealed inside the human body where considerably more than three ounces of explosives (along with the necessary equipment to set it off) can be concealed. The long and short of it is that this personal-privacy-intrusive scan can not detect what it is designed to detect even if that something is NOT inside someone.
But the ultimate indignity is what happens if you refuse the scan: You are sexually molested.
That's right. In public, in front of several hundred silently consenting witnesses, a stranger grabs you by your private parts, checking for hidden explosives.
Please note, all of this is because one person - once - tried, but failed, to set off a bomb concealed in his underwear.
The horror stories of abuses and indignities - from the cancer survivor who was forced, in public, to show the agent her breast prosthesis to the ostomy patient whose urostomy bag was ripped off in the course of the search and was subsequently forced to sit on an airplane in his own urine - are legion. It is patently obvious that this latest assault on our privacy is neither popular or warranted. The truly sad part is that the underwear bomber would most likely have passed both visual and manual inspection.
Now, I do happen to know a little bit about the constitutionality of security at airports and to what standard it is applied. It is required that the security not be overly intrusive (without probable cause, that is) and that it be effective. This is based on past decisions handed down by the Supreme Court over the years to various things the TSA has implemented. X-rayed luggage, metal detectors and even removed footwear are fine, it seems. They, at least, have some reasonable chance of detecting what they are designed to detect and so, even if it's undignified, that part's constitutional.
Unfortunately, the enhanced security screening procedures - both the scanner and the groping - are acknowledged by security specialists around the world to be ineffective at detecting an "underwear bomb". That is precisely what they are SUPPOSED to detect. Of course, the TSA vehemently denies this, but can you really trust an agency that can get its porn for free through a high-tech peep-show of hundreds of people a day to have the best interests of the flying public at heart?
In all seriousness, the new security screening procedures are so unconstitutional as to be a government sanctioned sexual assault every time someone is groped or scanned. The litmus test for the constitutionality of these enhanced screenings came back blatantly against it, but the TSA soldiers on, groping and sexually violating passenger after passenger at dozens of major airports around the country on nearly a minute to minute basis.
This is how the government has opted to keep us SAFE? By utilizing procedures and technology that don't work?
It would seem so.
I know I've said that people are stupid. I stand by that. Point in evidence: A general lack of rioting in the streets (or at least at airports) over these new procedures. They are an affront to the personal dignity and privacy of the average American air traveler, but aside from several vocal people, the vast majority of them just take it in stride, never realizing the magnitude of liberty and freedom - not to mention privacy - they, with their silent consent, have lost.
And so, in the interests of safety, the people of the U.S. continue to be violated in their person and privacy in a process that guarantees nothing but embarrassment, thus proving Franklin's adage, that those who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and lose both.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Politics IS Religion
Let's face it, Politics in the U.S. is no longer about the secular world. It's all about religion.
Recall, now, that I define a religion as a set of dogmatic behaviors. Defining Politics as religion may be stretching this definition a bit, but if you consider the fact you can describe the behaviors of a conservative as well as a liberal within a fairly narrow boundary for each, and that each side is moving to push their people to abide within those boundaries, and that the boundaries are becoming even more restrictive, politics become less about government and the running thereof and more about religion.
There is definitely a belief system involved here. It's already been pretty conclusively proven that neither extreme of the political spectrum (conservative and liberal) has ANY answers. They've moved out of range of actually solving any problems with the party planks they've acquired over the last couple of decades. When people believe in things that can't really happen, you start moving into the realm of religion as well. Though beliefs don't qualify something as a religion in my book (Behaviors do, remember), they definitely have the same area code. And when those beliefs move into the impossible (or extremely improbable), then we're looking at shared zip codes.
Another reason why politics is a religion is because of the reason the effort is put into it. And the reason is secular power. Though one could argue that there is no religious basis for politics, that it's all about social issues and the way governments run, let's look at it from the flip side. Organized religions are all about secular power. They brow-beat their followers with dogmatic platforms demanding compliance to a certain behavioral code. Belief is only a by-product and, in the end, isn't really necessary. Provided the followers go through the motions and say the right things, they "believe" in the eyes of others, whether they actually do or not. Further, while religions have long since insinuated themselves into social issues, more and more lately they've inserted themselves into how governments run as well. The language of government is fraught with religious symbolism and ideology.
All of this describes a political rally, although I'm inclined to say that at a political rally, the followers are far more likely to believe in their nonsense than someone in a church.
And what that nonsense has the same impact: That is to say regardless of who's in power, nothing really changes. The progressives try to move forward while the conservatives try to move backward. There may be some movement at times while one or the other is in "power", but the fact remains that as much as the progressives move forward while in power, the conservatives move backward. Like a religion, it doesn't matter what you believe politically because the end result is always the same - nothing changes, no one new is converted, no one who believes stops believing.
Finally, and most telling of them all, is the fact that politics includes violence against others to force them to "behave" the same way as those inflicting the violence. Religion is fraught with examples of coerced conversions. Politics is fraught with the same thing.
Pundits exhort their rabid fans in vague terms (which in reality can only be interpreted one way) to go out and save the country from the bad guys (who are invariable the politically polar opposite of them). The violent imagery involved in these exhortations is subtle, but apparent to those who have a discerning eye or are too simple-minded to understand that the images aren't meant to be taken literally. While cause and effect isn't always linear, the fact remains that political rhetoric, passing off politics as a religion that is to be followed with no questions and no resistance and to call those who don't the enemy who should be "targeted", is widespread and that people have died who were targeted because of their differing political ideology.
This puts politics down there with religion. The only difference I can see is that unlike religion, with politics, the people vote for who their gods will be.
Recall, now, that I define a religion as a set of dogmatic behaviors. Defining Politics as religion may be stretching this definition a bit, but if you consider the fact you can describe the behaviors of a conservative as well as a liberal within a fairly narrow boundary for each, and that each side is moving to push their people to abide within those boundaries, and that the boundaries are becoming even more restrictive, politics become less about government and the running thereof and more about religion.
There is definitely a belief system involved here. It's already been pretty conclusively proven that neither extreme of the political spectrum (conservative and liberal) has ANY answers. They've moved out of range of actually solving any problems with the party planks they've acquired over the last couple of decades. When people believe in things that can't really happen, you start moving into the realm of religion as well. Though beliefs don't qualify something as a religion in my book (Behaviors do, remember), they definitely have the same area code. And when those beliefs move into the impossible (or extremely improbable), then we're looking at shared zip codes.
Another reason why politics is a religion is because of the reason the effort is put into it. And the reason is secular power. Though one could argue that there is no religious basis for politics, that it's all about social issues and the way governments run, let's look at it from the flip side. Organized religions are all about secular power. They brow-beat their followers with dogmatic platforms demanding compliance to a certain behavioral code. Belief is only a by-product and, in the end, isn't really necessary. Provided the followers go through the motions and say the right things, they "believe" in the eyes of others, whether they actually do or not. Further, while religions have long since insinuated themselves into social issues, more and more lately they've inserted themselves into how governments run as well. The language of government is fraught with religious symbolism and ideology.
All of this describes a political rally, although I'm inclined to say that at a political rally, the followers are far more likely to believe in their nonsense than someone in a church.
And what that nonsense has the same impact: That is to say regardless of who's in power, nothing really changes. The progressives try to move forward while the conservatives try to move backward. There may be some movement at times while one or the other is in "power", but the fact remains that as much as the progressives move forward while in power, the conservatives move backward. Like a religion, it doesn't matter what you believe politically because the end result is always the same - nothing changes, no one new is converted, no one who believes stops believing.
Finally, and most telling of them all, is the fact that politics includes violence against others to force them to "behave" the same way as those inflicting the violence. Religion is fraught with examples of coerced conversions. Politics is fraught with the same thing.
Pundits exhort their rabid fans in vague terms (which in reality can only be interpreted one way) to go out and save the country from the bad guys (who are invariable the politically polar opposite of them). The violent imagery involved in these exhortations is subtle, but apparent to those who have a discerning eye or are too simple-minded to understand that the images aren't meant to be taken literally. While cause and effect isn't always linear, the fact remains that political rhetoric, passing off politics as a religion that is to be followed with no questions and no resistance and to call those who don't the enemy who should be "targeted", is widespread and that people have died who were targeted because of their differing political ideology.
This puts politics down there with religion. The only difference I can see is that unlike religion, with politics, the people vote for who their gods will be.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Media Mischief Un-Managed
In case no one's noticed, this blog isn't "monetized". I don't make a thing from it. I'm not blogging here to make money. (Edit added 9/26/2011: Okay, I added AdSense as of today. I don't endorse, sponsor or promote any ads here. Do with them (or not) as you will. The point is, I'm not "bought" by anyone. But I made my Significant Other happy by at least trying to make my time and efforts here pay something - even if I make nothing. As I said, I'm not blogging here to make money. If I do, it's a happy by-product and nothing more.)
(Edited added 02/24/2012: Okay, I have moved the blog to my new persona, and no longer have AdSense, as that requires me to use my real name, so I am no longer monetized on this blog. Funny how that works, huh? At least I'm back to staying true to the message, without any financial compensation for it (sigh). )
What I have here is an editorial blog. It's designed to convince, sway, influence and inform - probably in that order. I have my ups and downs and make no apologies for them (unless, of course, I apologize). I update things as situations evolve and become clearer (at least to me), but I make no bones about why I do this. There is no deliberate deception. I have no hidden agendas.
Believe it or not, this makes what I say far more reliable than what passes for news these days from the major media outlets in the United States. Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, the AP, INS, and most of the other news organizations have two handicaps I don't have:
1. They have to cater to a consuming public
2. They have to sell advertising to make money.
Now, this wouldn't seem to be much of a handicap on the surface of it. After all, all businesses need and want to make money. This is well and good. However the business we're talking about here is the NEWS, and that's where the whole "businesses making money" part goes badly wrong. In the pursuit of staying in business, the news is no longer the news. It becomes entertainment.
Again, news can be presented in an entertaining fashion, but it's not what's happening. The news is secondary to the entertainment. It's a by-product. I've seem headlines and news teasers that were the equivalent of saying, "Deadly plague sweeping the planet!!!!", but the story is about the latest round of flu shots being available and lasts less time than the teasers took to air. The news is no longer a place to go to get the facts of the day. It's a place to go to become flooded with sensationalistic hype, leaving you as terrified, sweaty and exhausted as you'd be if you were fleeing a pack of rabid weasels.
But even if you overlooked the sensationalism, we get to the fact that the news isn't just news. It's a perspective. In the pursuit of sensationalism, the news becomes (intentionally and unintentionally) increasingly biased. I wrote a post about this back in 2008. It was how biased blogs were being passed off as "news". The problem, as I expected, got worse. Now it seems that news and bias go hand in hand. News was less important than getting the point across as to how one should feel about that news. What's worse, there is a general blindness on the part of the public and the media to accept that their US news sources are ALL blatantly biased these days.
Fox News is so right-wing, viewers having the stomach to watch it should be rewarded with free memberships to the KKK, NRA and RNC. MSNBC is so left-wing, it should require its viewers to be card carrying members of PETA, Greenpeace and Earth First!. The rest (From the Drudge Report on the right to the San Francisco Chronicle on the left) are so biased that news takes a back seat to trying to convince people that they must believe a certain way about what the stories cover. And this all ties in to sensationalism and the need to make money on the part of these news organizations. Sensationalism sells. Playing it up, slanting it this way or that, making even the mundane sound earth-shaking (or at least implying it's earth-shaking) is what the news is all about these days.
The problem is now endemic in the US and I don't see that it's going to get any better. No news organization that I've found in the US is unbiased. This wouldn't be much of a problem if people didn't stick to one news organization from which they get their information. But they do. And often times, these news organizations try to play on the fears people have that their news might be biased. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" bullshit is a great example. I could say the sun is simply a very large heat lamp plugged into a socket in Soho. But just saying it doesn't make it true. Fox News is as blatantly rightist as MSNBC is blatantly leftist. Only MSNBC admits its bias from time to time.
The only way to deal with the flood of opinionated stories is to hear a lot of them, find what facts are involved and glean the truth of the matter from the sensationalism. It's more work, of course, and I'm sure, given the inherent stupidity of mankind, most people won't do it. But most people are sheep. They want the sensationalism. It's entertaining to them. They can then feel justified in their ignorance of reality because their biased news organization has told them the things they want to hear because it fits their belief system.
This isn't news. It's religion.
Whatever ethical motives our once-great news organizations had in the past to present the who, what, when, where, how and (maybe) why has gone the way of the wind-up watch and Walter Cronkite. We no longer have serious men (and women) giving us the news in a straight-forward manner. We are being "entertained", suckered in by sensationalism, and fed a diet of bias that has helped polarize the country. This is all done to ensure a constant stream of news consumers who will see the advertising and buy the advertiser's products so the advertisers continue to sponsor the Evening Bias Hour.
The fact is, no US news organization has a lock on the news as fact. They will dress it up until even the victims of the event couldn't recognize it and present it, freshly spun in the direction the organization's bias leans. So if you want the REAL news, read between the lines. Ignore the adjectives. Focus on the facts. Better yet, read the news from overseas - especially from countries which are unfriendly toward the US. You already know the news is biased, and can find the facts a bit easier to decipher with that presumption. Above all, DO NOT USE JUST ONE SOURCE FOR YOUR NEWS and ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND whatever you do read, view and/or hear IS BIASED.
If you're ever interested in finding out the real truth out there, this is what you have to do these days. Otherwise, please unplug your mind completely because whatever reality you will be living in will be controlled by the news organization you choose to believe.
(Edited added 02/24/2012: Okay, I have moved the blog to my new persona, and no longer have AdSense, as that requires me to use my real name, so I am no longer monetized on this blog. Funny how that works, huh? At least I'm back to staying true to the message, without any financial compensation for it (sigh). )
What I have here is an editorial blog. It's designed to convince, sway, influence and inform - probably in that order. I have my ups and downs and make no apologies for them (unless, of course, I apologize). I update things as situations evolve and become clearer (at least to me), but I make no bones about why I do this. There is no deliberate deception. I have no hidden agendas.
Believe it or not, this makes what I say far more reliable than what passes for news these days from the major media outlets in the United States. Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, the AP, INS, and most of the other news organizations have two handicaps I don't have:
1. They have to cater to a consuming public
2. They have to sell advertising to make money.
Now, this wouldn't seem to be much of a handicap on the surface of it. After all, all businesses need and want to make money. This is well and good. However the business we're talking about here is the NEWS, and that's where the whole "businesses making money" part goes badly wrong. In the pursuit of staying in business, the news is no longer the news. It becomes entertainment.
Again, news can be presented in an entertaining fashion, but it's not what's happening. The news is secondary to the entertainment. It's a by-product. I've seem headlines and news teasers that were the equivalent of saying, "Deadly plague sweeping the planet!!!!", but the story is about the latest round of flu shots being available and lasts less time than the teasers took to air. The news is no longer a place to go to get the facts of the day. It's a place to go to become flooded with sensationalistic hype, leaving you as terrified, sweaty and exhausted as you'd be if you were fleeing a pack of rabid weasels.
But even if you overlooked the sensationalism, we get to the fact that the news isn't just news. It's a perspective. In the pursuit of sensationalism, the news becomes (intentionally and unintentionally) increasingly biased. I wrote a post about this back in 2008. It was how biased blogs were being passed off as "news". The problem, as I expected, got worse. Now it seems that news and bias go hand in hand. News was less important than getting the point across as to how one should feel about that news. What's worse, there is a general blindness on the part of the public and the media to accept that their US news sources are ALL blatantly biased these days.
Fox News is so right-wing, viewers having the stomach to watch it should be rewarded with free memberships to the KKK, NRA and RNC. MSNBC is so left-wing, it should require its viewers to be card carrying members of PETA, Greenpeace and Earth First!. The rest (From the Drudge Report on the right to the San Francisco Chronicle on the left) are so biased that news takes a back seat to trying to convince people that they must believe a certain way about what the stories cover. And this all ties in to sensationalism and the need to make money on the part of these news organizations. Sensationalism sells. Playing it up, slanting it this way or that, making even the mundane sound earth-shaking (or at least implying it's earth-shaking) is what the news is all about these days.
The problem is now endemic in the US and I don't see that it's going to get any better. No news organization that I've found in the US is unbiased. This wouldn't be much of a problem if people didn't stick to one news organization from which they get their information. But they do. And often times, these news organizations try to play on the fears people have that their news might be biased. Fox's "Fair and Balanced" bullshit is a great example. I could say the sun is simply a very large heat lamp plugged into a socket in Soho. But just saying it doesn't make it true. Fox News is as blatantly rightist as MSNBC is blatantly leftist. Only MSNBC admits its bias from time to time.
The only way to deal with the flood of opinionated stories is to hear a lot of them, find what facts are involved and glean the truth of the matter from the sensationalism. It's more work, of course, and I'm sure, given the inherent stupidity of mankind, most people won't do it. But most people are sheep. They want the sensationalism. It's entertaining to them. They can then feel justified in their ignorance of reality because their biased news organization has told them the things they want to hear because it fits their belief system.
This isn't news. It's religion.
Whatever ethical motives our once-great news organizations had in the past to present the who, what, when, where, how and (maybe) why has gone the way of the wind-up watch and Walter Cronkite. We no longer have serious men (and women) giving us the news in a straight-forward manner. We are being "entertained", suckered in by sensationalism, and fed a diet of bias that has helped polarize the country. This is all done to ensure a constant stream of news consumers who will see the advertising and buy the advertiser's products so the advertisers continue to sponsor the Evening Bias Hour.
The fact is, no US news organization has a lock on the news as fact. They will dress it up until even the victims of the event couldn't recognize it and present it, freshly spun in the direction the organization's bias leans. So if you want the REAL news, read between the lines. Ignore the adjectives. Focus on the facts. Better yet, read the news from overseas - especially from countries which are unfriendly toward the US. You already know the news is biased, and can find the facts a bit easier to decipher with that presumption. Above all, DO NOT USE JUST ONE SOURCE FOR YOUR NEWS and ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND whatever you do read, view and/or hear IS BIASED.
If you're ever interested in finding out the real truth out there, this is what you have to do these days. Otherwise, please unplug your mind completely because whatever reality you will be living in will be controlled by the news organization you choose to believe.
Why Planks Don't Build Bridges
It dawned on me, not too long ago, that the whole problem with politics today is "position". Party platforms. Planks of policy. Agendas of the asses (Not a typo.).
Let's face it, politicians get elected because people want to know where they stand on the "issues". The problem here is that taking a stand on the issue isn't going to solve it. Politics isn't about politicians fulfilling campaign promises. It's about getting elected. Politicians, as individuals, usually have almost no power at all. It's only through cooperation, deal-making and other such things that anything actually gets accomplished at all. Campaign promises to "fix this" or "undo that" or "oppose this" or "stop that" are all BS. No one person can promise that. No political party can promise anything. They can't deliver on their agendas without cooperation or a dictatorship. Given the polarized political landscape today, where cooperation is viewed as being weak and betraying the 'values' of the member's political party, the only way to deliver a campaign promise is the dictator route.
Planks may be great for bullet points to inflame the passions of the masses, but in practical terms, planks accomplish nothing but putting up roadblocks to getting anything done. They delineate the limits of compromise toward the other side - which is to say none. They're not even viable starting points. Platforms are merely ideas, tokens of position on a political map that is as malleable as clay to those who unfold it. If it will get those who unfold it into power, they'll put that token anywhere. They mean NOTHING to these people other than as a means to an end - which is to get into and stay in power. That much is pretty obvious.
No matter the platform point, the policy position or the agenda, the one question that none of these things can answer is, "How?" How are you going to get that done? Ram-rod it down people's throats so your side "wins"? Force your agenda on an unwilling half of the country? 'Spin' it so it sounds like a deal it isn't? (We call that lying where I come from) Frankly, I'd rather avoid dictatorships again. So assuming the two parties will continue to remain opposed to one another's platform points, and no compromise will ever be forthcoming (which is NOT as unreasonable an assumption as you might think), and dictatorships won't be tolerated by the masses, what's the only way to get things done?
First of all, we need another major political party. One in the center, for whom agendas and planks and such mean nothing. These people will be elected simply because they won't paint over themselves with whatever convenient political color is out there to get elected. Their one political campaign promise is to get the job done. What does getting the job done mean?
Basically by applying the bullshit meter to things.
If the bullshit meter points too far to the left or the right, it goes BZZZZZZZ! and the business is sent back to be fixed. It's pretty easy to spot bullshit in politics. They're called party platforms.
Moderation means doing things so that no one is happy. By no one, I mean the left and the right. If a compromise is worked out which leaves both sides yelping with equal volume, you probably have a good compromise. You know the platform points. you know where both sides stand - the core 'values' of each party. But the reality - the solution to dealing with these issues and their plank positions - is somewhere in the middle. It always has been. And that's where our American Moderate Party works: in the middle, hashing out the solutions so that both sides scream with the same pitch.
Let's face it, extremism doesn't provide lasting solutions. It never has. We can't build a bridge with planks that can't meet in the middle. We have to have enough overlap in our political positions to encompass all but the more extreme views. We have to find solutions that stand a chance at lasting longer than the next national election when the political pendulum swings the other way. And that won't happen - ever - with the political climate we've had in Washington DC the last two decades.
EVERYONE is fed up with congress (by everyone, I mean enough people to ratify amendments and over-turn vetoes, AKA a super-majority). But we still play into that "if you're not with us you're a traitor and against us" attitude the Antichrist (Karl Rove) brought to us during the Bush years.
We have to get over that. The best way is by organizing the silent middle into a new political party. One whose purpose is to finish building bridges, not with the thin planks of extremism and fragile ropes of expedience, but with the steel and concrete of the kind of practical cooperation that is at the heart and spirit of a UNITED States of America. We need enduring solutions, not political party plank patches. We need the American Moderate Party. It's too late for this election, but in two years...?
I think we can do it.
Let's face it, politicians get elected because people want to know where they stand on the "issues". The problem here is that taking a stand on the issue isn't going to solve it. Politics isn't about politicians fulfilling campaign promises. It's about getting elected. Politicians, as individuals, usually have almost no power at all. It's only through cooperation, deal-making and other such things that anything actually gets accomplished at all. Campaign promises to "fix this" or "undo that" or "oppose this" or "stop that" are all BS. No one person can promise that. No political party can promise anything. They can't deliver on their agendas without cooperation or a dictatorship. Given the polarized political landscape today, where cooperation is viewed as being weak and betraying the 'values' of the member's political party, the only way to deliver a campaign promise is the dictator route.
Planks may be great for bullet points to inflame the passions of the masses, but in practical terms, planks accomplish nothing but putting up roadblocks to getting anything done. They delineate the limits of compromise toward the other side - which is to say none. They're not even viable starting points. Platforms are merely ideas, tokens of position on a political map that is as malleable as clay to those who unfold it. If it will get those who unfold it into power, they'll put that token anywhere. They mean NOTHING to these people other than as a means to an end - which is to get into and stay in power. That much is pretty obvious.
No matter the platform point, the policy position or the agenda, the one question that none of these things can answer is, "How?" How are you going to get that done? Ram-rod it down people's throats so your side "wins"? Force your agenda on an unwilling half of the country? 'Spin' it so it sounds like a deal it isn't? (We call that lying where I come from) Frankly, I'd rather avoid dictatorships again. So assuming the two parties will continue to remain opposed to one another's platform points, and no compromise will ever be forthcoming (which is NOT as unreasonable an assumption as you might think), and dictatorships won't be tolerated by the masses, what's the only way to get things done?
First of all, we need another major political party. One in the center, for whom agendas and planks and such mean nothing. These people will be elected simply because they won't paint over themselves with whatever convenient political color is out there to get elected. Their one political campaign promise is to get the job done. What does getting the job done mean?
Basically by applying the bullshit meter to things.
If the bullshit meter points too far to the left or the right, it goes BZZZZZZZ! and the business is sent back to be fixed. It's pretty easy to spot bullshit in politics. They're called party platforms.
Moderation means doing things so that no one is happy. By no one, I mean the left and the right. If a compromise is worked out which leaves both sides yelping with equal volume, you probably have a good compromise. You know the platform points. you know where both sides stand - the core 'values' of each party. But the reality - the solution to dealing with these issues and their plank positions - is somewhere in the middle. It always has been. And that's where our American Moderate Party works: in the middle, hashing out the solutions so that both sides scream with the same pitch.
Let's face it, extremism doesn't provide lasting solutions. It never has. We can't build a bridge with planks that can't meet in the middle. We have to have enough overlap in our political positions to encompass all but the more extreme views. We have to find solutions that stand a chance at lasting longer than the next national election when the political pendulum swings the other way. And that won't happen - ever - with the political climate we've had in Washington DC the last two decades.
EVERYONE is fed up with congress (by everyone, I mean enough people to ratify amendments and over-turn vetoes, AKA a super-majority). But we still play into that "if you're not with us you're a traitor and against us" attitude the Antichrist (Karl Rove) brought to us during the Bush years.
We have to get over that. The best way is by organizing the silent middle into a new political party. One whose purpose is to finish building bridges, not with the thin planks of extremism and fragile ropes of expedience, but with the steel and concrete of the kind of practical cooperation that is at the heart and spirit of a UNITED States of America. We need enduring solutions, not political party plank patches. We need the American Moderate Party. It's too late for this election, but in two years...?
I think we can do it.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Putting Your Money Where Your Values Are
This is a simple solution, so in contrast to my usual posts, this one will be much shorter.
It's dawned on me that I have a solution to the whole Right-To-Life/Pro-Choice issue. It's simple, effective, and takes care of the entire issue without passing any bans and only one law.
Here's how it would work: You're free to "protest" against abortions in any legal way, shape or form, but by doing so, your name goes on a list. This is just a list of people who think Abortions must stop and who have taken that extra step of going out an saying so to others in a very public manner. The list is available for people to volunteer to sign up for as well. You are on the list for a month after which, you can then request to be taken off the list, provided no one has been assigned to you and you have not engaged in any protest activities for a month. The most recent protesters go to the FRONT of the list.
When you get on the list, you are entering into a binding, legal status saying that you take all responsibility for the consequences of your intervention - financial, personal, professional. Your intervention is going to stop an abortion - period. No if's, ands or buts about it.
By being on this list, however, you agree to pay for all medical bills and expenses that are due to the pregnancy, delivery and postpartum period - including psychology bills, or damages, if necessary - for the woman who wanted the abortion. You then adopt the child, or arrange for the child to be adopted. Whoever adopts them must raise them and assume all parental responsibilities. If the woman needed the abortion to live, you are liable for her death and will pay all expenses and restitution to the family. If the child dies, you pay all funeral expenses.
For women who want an abortion, they have to check the list first. If someone is on the list, they are assigned to that woman and the woman must carry the child to term under medical supervision. If there's no one on the list, they can have the abortion.
This is a self-correcting issue. When the idiots who think Abortions shouldn't be allowed and want a law banning them are forced to get personally involved in the consequences of their demands, I suspect they'll begin to understand the gravity of the situation. There may always be a list, but as time goes on, I suspect fewer and fewer people will be on it. My guess is, if this arrangement became the law of the land, there would be no names on the list within a month and only a handful every month after that.
But those who had their name on the list and was assigned would be personally responsible for stopping an abortion.
It's easy to stand out and about and say "We want this to STOP!" when you don't have a personal stake in it. The right-wing is all about personal responsibility and less government. Well, guys, here's a way to put your money where your values are. If you want to assume the financial, legal and moral responsibility of stopping abortions, all the power to you and abortions will stop - assuming there is always a name on the list. But until that day happens when you take personal responsibility for the consequences of your demands, the law of the land is choice.
It's dawned on me that I have a solution to the whole Right-To-Life/Pro-Choice issue. It's simple, effective, and takes care of the entire issue without passing any bans and only one law.
Here's how it would work: You're free to "protest" against abortions in any legal way, shape or form, but by doing so, your name goes on a list. This is just a list of people who think Abortions must stop and who have taken that extra step of going out an saying so to others in a very public manner. The list is available for people to volunteer to sign up for as well. You are on the list for a month after which, you can then request to be taken off the list, provided no one has been assigned to you and you have not engaged in any protest activities for a month. The most recent protesters go to the FRONT of the list.
When you get on the list, you are entering into a binding, legal status saying that you take all responsibility for the consequences of your intervention - financial, personal, professional. Your intervention is going to stop an abortion - period. No if's, ands or buts about it.
By being on this list, however, you agree to pay for all medical bills and expenses that are due to the pregnancy, delivery and postpartum period - including psychology bills, or damages, if necessary - for the woman who wanted the abortion. You then adopt the child, or arrange for the child to be adopted. Whoever adopts them must raise them and assume all parental responsibilities. If the woman needed the abortion to live, you are liable for her death and will pay all expenses and restitution to the family. If the child dies, you pay all funeral expenses.
For women who want an abortion, they have to check the list first. If someone is on the list, they are assigned to that woman and the woman must carry the child to term under medical supervision. If there's no one on the list, they can have the abortion.
This is a self-correcting issue. When the idiots who think Abortions shouldn't be allowed and want a law banning them are forced to get personally involved in the consequences of their demands, I suspect they'll begin to understand the gravity of the situation. There may always be a list, but as time goes on, I suspect fewer and fewer people will be on it. My guess is, if this arrangement became the law of the land, there would be no names on the list within a month and only a handful every month after that.
But those who had their name on the list and was assigned would be personally responsible for stopping an abortion.
It's easy to stand out and about and say "We want this to STOP!" when you don't have a personal stake in it. The right-wing is all about personal responsibility and less government. Well, guys, here's a way to put your money where your values are. If you want to assume the financial, legal and moral responsibility of stopping abortions, all the power to you and abortions will stop - assuming there is always a name on the list. But until that day happens when you take personal responsibility for the consequences of your demands, the law of the land is choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)