Hello again.
I'm going to try to stay on the topic of marriage and its role as a subject for political debate. While this will necessitate bringing religion into the discussion to a degree (because, let's face it, there's no getting around the fact that marriage is a religious institution), I am attempting to focus mostly on the political issues at hand. With this being said, let us begin.
I want to start by saying that I am personally opposed to homosexual, or same-sex, marriage on the principles of my religion. As a Christian, I cannot support a union that flies in the face holy doctrine. That being said, I would not support a Constitutional ban on any form of marriage, be it traditional, homosexual, or polygamous. I don't want the government involved in any way, shape, or form. In fact, they are too deeply involved now.
Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Because marriage is at its core a religious establishment, nothing pertaining to it should be regulated by Federal Law. Now, stay with me, because here is where things start to get complex. The government began getting involved because of the Federal Income Tax; married people fall under a different tax code than single people, and for good reason - two incomes are going into creating a stable home for a family unit. So the government cuts the couple a bit more slack on tax day to help them out with raising children, who (unlike roommates) would be unable to provide for themselves without their parents' money. Here then, lies the basis for a claim to allow same-sex marriages. If married couples are treated differently in the tax code, and homosexuals are not allowed to marry, then it is discrimination on behalf of the government, because you are denying them the possibility of getting that tax break ever.
This is why I am a supporter of the fair tax. With some other issues, it basically boils down to a national sales tax. With the people paying taxes on consumption, and not on income, there is no need for the tax code, or even the IRS. And if the Income Tax is abolished, the need for government to be involved in marriage at all will be eliminated. Marriages can then be based solely upon the doctrine of the couple's religion.
These are my opinions based on the political aspect of the issue. Now, based on my admittedly limited religious knowledge, outside of my own, I cannot offhandedly think of a religion that actively supports gay marriage. Judaism and Christianity do not, nor does Islam.
21 May 2009
Well, We're In It Now
Hello again.
I'm sitting here at my keyboard because sleep just isn't coming to me that well tonight. It's been awhile since I've posted, but I have the frustration to vent, so why not shove it all on you, the hapless Internet surfer?
If you didn't know, yesterday (20 May) was actor James Stewart's Birthday. The only reason I knew this is because TCM was doing a marathon of his movies to celebrate. In the course of this, one of his best films was shown: Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Although made in 1939, most of the issues raised still ring true today. For those who haven't seen the film, here's the summary. Some great quotes come up in the film that are still mostly correct about our government. In one particularly good scene, an upset Saunders (Smith's secretary) tells Smith, "You should go home. You're halfway decent, you don't belong here." And, of course, the entire filibuster at the end of the movie is probably one of the best scenes in movie history. But I didn't get on to discuss a movie; it simply reminded me of what we're losing in our time.
As our government locomotive is picking up steam on the Socialism Express, the people are going to love our President because he's making the train run on time (yes, that was a Mussolini reference). And as we roll along the track, less and less subtlety is used, until news like the GM (now stands for "Government Motors") takeover comes out, and suddenly the government is running a portion of the marketplace directly. And you know what? I don't even blame Obama for it. I don't agree with him; in fact, I am diametrically opposed to him. But he's doing what is natural to him. I blame you people - the voters. People who looked at him and said "Ooh, a black man. I'll vote for him and be super-progressive and end racism." I swear, if I had one dollar for every Obama voter who could not name a policy of his that they agreed with, I would be able to fund all of the various stimulus packages myself. It was bad enough that it almost made me pro-abortion for the left, so at least they wouldn't have a future generation to pass down their mental defects to. And before anyone labels me as a disgruntled Republican, let me say that I was never a McCain fan, and I did not vote for him. I mean, he was such a terrible candidate that I can't believe he was real; he had to be a fall guy.
You see, the answer to our problems is less government, not more. Really, the only jobs the Federal government has are to defend the country with a military, promote interstate commerce (not by regulating, but by aiding), and help when state jurisdiction ends in criminal matters (if a murderer flees California to Wyoming, then the FBI gets to hunt him, because California can't send police to a sovereign state, but Wyoming itself has no reason to arrest the person). Those three things, that's it; these are the only things that they should be using taxes to pay for. Everything else is a State issue. Abortion, Marijuana, health care - all these are off limits to the Federal level. These are things that must be decided amongst a state's citizenry. For example, I view abortion as murder. Now hear me out, before you leave, pro-choicers. It's like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said; the Constitution doesn't ban murder - each State has decided how to deal with it and what punishments are acceptable. Each state also sets the appropriate age for tobacco and alcohol consumption, so why can't they decide marijuana on their own? And national socialized health care would be the worst thing for this country, because it opens the door to, you guessed it, MORE FEDERAL INTERFERENCE. I'll leave the other reasons alone for now; the rationing of care, the long lines for the correct doctor - these are being covered by more than one big name talk radio show. I'll simply say this; if the government is paying for your doctor visits, then they have a financial stake in your private life. You can't expect them to pay for hospital visits and then not want to know what put you there and how to stop it from happening in the future. It's like having your parents pay for college, and then not wanting to tell them your grades - it's just not going to fly. People who want nationalized health care point to Massachusetts as an example of how it can work. Without being an expert on the intricacies of the system, I can say fairly confidently that it works because it's a state program; the people of Mass. got together and decided that they would pay more taxes to allow fellow citizens care. Fellow Mass. citizens, that is. You see, it all boils down to this: Texas doesn't want New York telling it how to work, Vermont doesn't want Utah to interfere with their inner concerns. With a nationalized health system, we would have different states paying for other states' health concerns. I respect that Los Angeles has begun restricting fast food restaurants; but at the same time, I would like LA to recognize that I like to have the occasional greasy cheeseburger with fries. All in all, I don't tell them how to live, they shouldn't tell me how to. Each issue should be a state-controlled item, because when you get down to it, the state level gets pretty close to some kind of consensus on the issue. Now, I realize that there are the people who don't match the majority of the state; I understand that some conservatives do live in Michigan and California, and some liberals reside in Texas and Kansas. But when you look at election results, most of the states are not big surprises. Nobody is shocked to see the New England area blued-out, or the Gulf states entirely in red. Because on larger topics, the state is usually a community of mostly like-minded individuals.
But I've strayed from the point. As each day passes, I am growing in my dislike of the current administration's policies. If that last statement gets me put on a DHS watch list, I just hope they spell my name right (smile and wave to your monitor, Sec. Napolitano is watching). You know, it used to be that the last statement would have been ludicrous; you could gripe about the government without worrying about what happened. But we must not disrespect our Glorious Leader. To doubt him is to invite chaos into our nation, apparently.
I'll leave you with these quote, in honor of Mr. Stewart's birthday and the cause which his character, Mr. Smith, fought for.
"You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that."
"I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for. And he fought for them once, for the only reason any man ever fights for them. Because of just one plain, simple rule: "Love thy neighbor."And in this world today full of hatred, a man who knows that one rule has a great trust. You know that rule, Mr. Paine. And I loved you for it -- just as my father did. And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any others. Yes, you even die for them -- like a man we both knew, Mr. Paine. You think I'm licked. You all think I'm licked! Well, I'm not licked. And I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause, even if this room gets filled with lies like these; and the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place. Somebody will listen to me."
I'm sitting here at my keyboard because sleep just isn't coming to me that well tonight. It's been awhile since I've posted, but I have the frustration to vent, so why not shove it all on you, the hapless Internet surfer?
If you didn't know, yesterday (20 May) was actor James Stewart's Birthday. The only reason I knew this is because TCM was doing a marathon of his movies to celebrate. In the course of this, one of his best films was shown: Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Although made in 1939, most of the issues raised still ring true today. For those who haven't seen the film, here's the summary. Some great quotes come up in the film that are still mostly correct about our government. In one particularly good scene, an upset Saunders (Smith's secretary) tells Smith, "You should go home. You're halfway decent, you don't belong here." And, of course, the entire filibuster at the end of the movie is probably one of the best scenes in movie history. But I didn't get on to discuss a movie; it simply reminded me of what we're losing in our time.
As our government locomotive is picking up steam on the Socialism Express, the people are going to love our President because he's making the train run on time (yes, that was a Mussolini reference). And as we roll along the track, less and less subtlety is used, until news like the GM (now stands for "Government Motors") takeover comes out, and suddenly the government is running a portion of the marketplace directly. And you know what? I don't even blame Obama for it. I don't agree with him; in fact, I am diametrically opposed to him. But he's doing what is natural to him. I blame you people - the voters. People who looked at him and said "Ooh, a black man. I'll vote for him and be super-progressive and end racism." I swear, if I had one dollar for every Obama voter who could not name a policy of his that they agreed with, I would be able to fund all of the various stimulus packages myself. It was bad enough that it almost made me pro-abortion for the left, so at least they wouldn't have a future generation to pass down their mental defects to. And before anyone labels me as a disgruntled Republican, let me say that I was never a McCain fan, and I did not vote for him. I mean, he was such a terrible candidate that I can't believe he was real; he had to be a fall guy.
You see, the answer to our problems is less government, not more. Really, the only jobs the Federal government has are to defend the country with a military, promote interstate commerce (not by regulating, but by aiding), and help when state jurisdiction ends in criminal matters (if a murderer flees California to Wyoming, then the FBI gets to hunt him, because California can't send police to a sovereign state, but Wyoming itself has no reason to arrest the person). Those three things, that's it; these are the only things that they should be using taxes to pay for. Everything else is a State issue. Abortion, Marijuana, health care - all these are off limits to the Federal level. These are things that must be decided amongst a state's citizenry. For example, I view abortion as murder. Now hear me out, before you leave, pro-choicers. It's like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said; the Constitution doesn't ban murder - each State has decided how to deal with it and what punishments are acceptable. Each state also sets the appropriate age for tobacco and alcohol consumption, so why can't they decide marijuana on their own? And national socialized health care would be the worst thing for this country, because it opens the door to, you guessed it, MORE FEDERAL INTERFERENCE. I'll leave the other reasons alone for now; the rationing of care, the long lines for the correct doctor - these are being covered by more than one big name talk radio show. I'll simply say this; if the government is paying for your doctor visits, then they have a financial stake in your private life. You can't expect them to pay for hospital visits and then not want to know what put you there and how to stop it from happening in the future. It's like having your parents pay for college, and then not wanting to tell them your grades - it's just not going to fly. People who want nationalized health care point to Massachusetts as an example of how it can work. Without being an expert on the intricacies of the system, I can say fairly confidently that it works because it's a state program; the people of Mass. got together and decided that they would pay more taxes to allow fellow citizens care. Fellow Mass. citizens, that is. You see, it all boils down to this: Texas doesn't want New York telling it how to work, Vermont doesn't want Utah to interfere with their inner concerns. With a nationalized health system, we would have different states paying for other states' health concerns. I respect that Los Angeles has begun restricting fast food restaurants; but at the same time, I would like LA to recognize that I like to have the occasional greasy cheeseburger with fries. All in all, I don't tell them how to live, they shouldn't tell me how to. Each issue should be a state-controlled item, because when you get down to it, the state level gets pretty close to some kind of consensus on the issue. Now, I realize that there are the people who don't match the majority of the state; I understand that some conservatives do live in Michigan and California, and some liberals reside in Texas and Kansas. But when you look at election results, most of the states are not big surprises. Nobody is shocked to see the New England area blued-out, or the Gulf states entirely in red. Because on larger topics, the state is usually a community of mostly like-minded individuals.
But I've strayed from the point. As each day passes, I am growing in my dislike of the current administration's policies. If that last statement gets me put on a DHS watch list, I just hope they spell my name right (smile and wave to your monitor, Sec. Napolitano is watching). You know, it used to be that the last statement would have been ludicrous; you could gripe about the government without worrying about what happened. But we must not disrespect our Glorious Leader. To doubt him is to invite chaos into our nation, apparently.
I'll leave you with these quote, in honor of Mr. Stewart's birthday and the cause which his character, Mr. Smith, fought for.
"You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that."
"I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for. And he fought for them once, for the only reason any man ever fights for them. Because of just one plain, simple rule: "Love thy neighbor."And in this world today full of hatred, a man who knows that one rule has a great trust. You know that rule, Mr. Paine. And I loved you for it -- just as my father did. And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any others. Yes, you even die for them -- like a man we both knew, Mr. Paine. You think I'm licked. You all think I'm licked! Well, I'm not licked. And I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause, even if this room gets filled with lies like these; and the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place. Somebody will listen to me."
01 October 2008
Why Socialism Will Never Really Work
I feel it necessary to comment on this subject before going on to discuss the presidential candidates. Socialism is a form of economics which believes that all resources and production firms should belong to the community as a whole (http://www.dictionary.com/). In theory, this sounds perfect; in practice, an entirely different picture is painted. When everything belongs to the State, then the State has to dictate how the market acts. Rather than being guided by the "invisible hand", as a free-market economy is, market prices for goods are fixed, as are the amount produced. In other words, instead of allowing supply and demand set prices, the economy depends on people setting them. If the price is set too low, then there will be a shortage as people rush to buy up all that they can; conversely, if the price is set to high, no one can purchase the product, and all of the capital that went to making the product is wasted, assuming that a quality product was made. This leads to the other part of the problem. Socialism dictates how much a person is paid, and usually people are paid much closer to equal wages than in other economies: in other words, a doctor, after going through eight years of higher education, will not make much more than a trash collector or a janitor. So, what incentive does anyone have to enter a high-skill job, when they can make close to the same amount of money flipping burgers? If someone is only making $15,000 a year, and he can't get a better salary elsewhere, he's only going to do a $15,000 a year quality job. This equal-salary policy is done to rid an economy of social classes; the theory is that if everyone makes the same amount of money, then everyone will be in the same class. The only problem with this is that the different classes is what drive us to better ourselves. If we only had one class, we would stagnate and die off. The incentive of bettering our economic status is what drives innovation and leads to scientific breakthroughs. If we remove the incentive, we remove the drive to better ourselves. This leads to requiring the government to force us to do tasks, most likely under some kind of threat. The end result is something like Cuba or the former Soviet Union: labor camps under strict guard forcing the citizenry to work.
29 September 2008
Are They Serious?!?
Ok, I think of myself as an independent; neither party has all of the correct answers, and lately both have been blending to the point where they are indistinguishable. As such, I will be calling the leaders out when I've caught them in a bind.
Today, my ire is directed toward the Democratic Party in general, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - California) specifically. On Saturday, in referring to negotiations over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), Nancy Pelosi said, "I'm glad that the Republicans have finally come to the table. I thought it was very unpatriotic of them not to show up, not to show up, in some ways boycotting the meetings earlier in the week" (see it at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/27/video-pelosi-calls-house-gop-unpatriotic/). Is she serious? Let me see if I understand her point: it is unpatriotic for congressional representatives to not attend meetings about issues that they dislike or want to fail because they believe the issue is wrong. Is that a fair assessment? I find that grossly hypocritical, especially coming from the person who broke the House for a vacation when the issue of solving $4/gal. gasoline came to the floor. Or is she choosing to forget that little incident, hoping that the American population will too?
Today, after the legislation was voted down - with both Democrats and Republicans voting against it - Pelosi tried to cover over her party's split by placing the blame entirely on Republicans. Now Pelosi is saying that the House, which was scheduled to take a break soon for the presidential campaign, will not break until this issue has been solved. So, because she wants this bill to pass, the House will stay in session, but whenever an issue is raised that she does not like, it will never see the floor. I do not agree with the EESA, and feel exactly how Rep. Jeb Hansarling (R-Texas) said: “In my heart and in my mind, I believe that this plan is fraught with unintended consequences, would force generations of taxpayers to pick up the tab for Wall Street losses and could permanently and fundamentally change the role of government in the American free enterprise system” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14050_Page2.html). This plan is a giant step towards socialism, and socialist economies never work and never will work, but that's a subject for another post. Both presidential nominees, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, have endorsed this plan, which is a brand new reason for why I can not vote for either.
Today, my ire is directed toward the Democratic Party in general, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - California) specifically. On Saturday, in referring to negotiations over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), Nancy Pelosi said, "I'm glad that the Republicans have finally come to the table. I thought it was very unpatriotic of them not to show up, not to show up, in some ways boycotting the meetings earlier in the week" (see it at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/27/video-pelosi-calls-house-gop-unpatriotic/). Is she serious? Let me see if I understand her point: it is unpatriotic for congressional representatives to not attend meetings about issues that they dislike or want to fail because they believe the issue is wrong. Is that a fair assessment? I find that grossly hypocritical, especially coming from the person who broke the House for a vacation when the issue of solving $4/gal. gasoline came to the floor. Or is she choosing to forget that little incident, hoping that the American population will too?
Today, after the legislation was voted down - with both Democrats and Republicans voting against it - Pelosi tried to cover over her party's split by placing the blame entirely on Republicans. Now Pelosi is saying that the House, which was scheduled to take a break soon for the presidential campaign, will not break until this issue has been solved. So, because she wants this bill to pass, the House will stay in session, but whenever an issue is raised that she does not like, it will never see the floor. I do not agree with the EESA, and feel exactly how Rep. Jeb Hansarling (R-Texas) said: “In my heart and in my mind, I believe that this plan is fraught with unintended consequences, would force generations of taxpayers to pick up the tab for Wall Street losses and could permanently and fundamentally change the role of government in the American free enterprise system” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14050_Page2.html). This plan is a giant step towards socialism, and socialist economies never work and never will work, but that's a subject for another post. Both presidential nominees, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, have endorsed this plan, which is a brand new reason for why I can not vote for either.
28 September 2008
How Voting Should Work
Above all, allow me to state that I believe voting is a moral responsibility for all American citizens, and the population should vote based upon what they believe is the correct path for the nation; people often complain that the government should not legislate morality on the citizens, but this is impossible: if the government makes a decision one way or the other on any issue, it is handing down a decision based on morality one way or the other. No one should vote for a candidate simply because he/she is "the lesser of two evils" or because he/she will be breaking some standard. Yes those were shots at Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, respectively.
The lack of information in this election is appalling; sixty percent (60%) of the population that is likely to vote does not want to vote for either candidate, and yet only these two receive any coverage. Allow me to repeat that: the majority of the voting population does not want either candidate elected, and yet only these two are given media coverage, are invited to presidential debates, or are discussed in any forum beyond the confines of the private computers of anonymous web surfers. For example, in the debate in Oxford, who was present: McCain, Obama, and Jim Lehrer as Moderator. Where were the other candidates? What about Robert (Bob) Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, or Cyntia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, to name a few? You may say, "Well, they have no support, so why invite them?" Why do you think they have so little support? If nobody knows about them, how can they have any support? We've entered into a "Chicken and the Egg" scenario; as long as they have no support, the media can get away with not covering third parties and independants, but as long as they get no coverage, the third parties and independants will get no support.
I can not morally vote for either candidate, and I've made up my mind on who to vote for (I'll cover that later). Regardless, whenever I tell my family members or friends about this, they all inevitably ask me why I would be throwing away my vote on someone who won't win. This is the most hypocritical, inane question, and I apologize to my family and friends for saying this, but it is how I feel. The only votes that are thrown away are the ones that aren't cast, or are cast for someone the voter doesn't honestly believe in. Voting should not, and was not originally intended to be, a popularity contest. You should not vote for someone just so you can be right about who won. You are an intelligent person; make a decision for yourself.
I can understand former generations only voting Republican or Democrat; with only television and radio for information, it was easy to control what people heard and saw. But now, with the advent of the internet, there is no excuse for voters being uninformed, other than sheer laziness. Five minutes on any search engine will yield results on any candidate or party that is running. I'll admit, I was once guilty of this: just one year ago, I was asked who I would vote for, and I replied that I would vote for whoever my party named as a candidate. I didn't even consider the primaries. But my roommate encouraged me to begin researching a certain candidate, and once I started with him, I began researching everyone running for the party nomination, and moved on to other parties as well. I did this because it was my responsibility to be as informed as possible before casting a vote for someone; this is your responsibility as well.
I am utterly amazed by what I hear around my college campus regarding politics. I've heard people say, "I don't like McCain, but he's better than Obama," and "I'm voting for Obama because we need a black president to get past the racism in this country." I don't blame the candidates for this; the fault lies with these people for not taking enough of an interest to do some research. Liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist, you can find anything you need if you are only willing to do a little bit of searching.
The lack of information in this election is appalling; sixty percent (60%) of the population that is likely to vote does not want to vote for either candidate, and yet only these two receive any coverage. Allow me to repeat that: the majority of the voting population does not want either candidate elected, and yet only these two are given media coverage, are invited to presidential debates, or are discussed in any forum beyond the confines of the private computers of anonymous web surfers. For example, in the debate in Oxford, who was present: McCain, Obama, and Jim Lehrer as Moderator. Where were the other candidates? What about Robert (Bob) Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, or Cyntia McKinney, the Green Party candidate, to name a few? You may say, "Well, they have no support, so why invite them?" Why do you think they have so little support? If nobody knows about them, how can they have any support? We've entered into a "Chicken and the Egg" scenario; as long as they have no support, the media can get away with not covering third parties and independants, but as long as they get no coverage, the third parties and independants will get no support.
I can not morally vote for either candidate, and I've made up my mind on who to vote for (I'll cover that later). Regardless, whenever I tell my family members or friends about this, they all inevitably ask me why I would be throwing away my vote on someone who won't win. This is the most hypocritical, inane question, and I apologize to my family and friends for saying this, but it is how I feel. The only votes that are thrown away are the ones that aren't cast, or are cast for someone the voter doesn't honestly believe in. Voting should not, and was not originally intended to be, a popularity contest. You should not vote for someone just so you can be right about who won. You are an intelligent person; make a decision for yourself.
I can understand former generations only voting Republican or Democrat; with only television and radio for information, it was easy to control what people heard and saw. But now, with the advent of the internet, there is no excuse for voters being uninformed, other than sheer laziness. Five minutes on any search engine will yield results on any candidate or party that is running. I'll admit, I was once guilty of this: just one year ago, I was asked who I would vote for, and I replied that I would vote for whoever my party named as a candidate. I didn't even consider the primaries. But my roommate encouraged me to begin researching a certain candidate, and once I started with him, I began researching everyone running for the party nomination, and moved on to other parties as well. I did this because it was my responsibility to be as informed as possible before casting a vote for someone; this is your responsibility as well.
I am utterly amazed by what I hear around my college campus regarding politics. I've heard people say, "I don't like McCain, but he's better than Obama," and "I'm voting for Obama because we need a black president to get past the racism in this country." I don't blame the candidates for this; the fault lies with these people for not taking enough of an interest to do some research. Liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist, you can find anything you need if you are only willing to do a little bit of searching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)