11.24.07
Posted in Liberty at 14:54 by RjZ
I’ve been learning about the candidates a bit. I’ve never thought much for or against Hillary Clinton. All I ever hear is that evangelicals don’t like her because they won’t vote for a woman, and I assume, because she had the gall to actually try to keep her family together. I thought evangelicals we’re for that sort of thing. Meanwhile, I was reading her website, and imagine she might write the following letter:
Dear business owner,
You know, I’ve had it with you. For more than fifty years I’ve asked you for a service and you’ve provided it. You’ve improved efficiency in your efforts and competed with others in the market, but the demand has been strong and you’ve been profitable. How dare you! What’s worse, is that even though demand is increasing for the goods you supply, you refuse to stop producing even when what you make is bad for us! How can you wantonly give us exactly what we ask for?
How you dare to invest money, year after year, just so that you can be successful at giving us what we want, without ever taking a moment to decide what’s best for us; to stop selling exactly what the market demands of you and drive yourself and all those who trusted you with their savings in to ruin, because you should know better.
I thought you knew, that in the United States we don’t have enough sense to know what is best for us. We want to be able to do as we wish. Ah, thank the Lord, I the government, am here, to ensure you do what is best for us all. No doubt, you’re excellent at what you do, and I am impressed. That you have made so much money is proof of your excellence; all you have to do is invest in something else, something you ought to be just as successful with. Sure there are small companies out there developing the technology on their own, but you, you’re a big and successful organization and I know that you can do it again, so long as you receive a bit of my help and advice.
So, this letter is to inform you that I hereby make you an offer you cannot refuse. Not legally anyway.
In 2005, Exxon Mobil’s CEO told Congress that his company’s investment in alternative energy technologies over the prior decade was “negligible.” Hillary believes it is time for oil companies to do their share in funding clean energy technologies. She would give oil companies a choice: invest more in renewable energy technology or pay into a Strategic Energy Fund. The Strategic Energy Fund would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share in royalties when drilling on public lands. This fund would jumpstart a clean energy future by injecting $50 billion over ten years into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels.
Hillary’s got a different way to show that she loves corporations just as much as Bush does. Where the Bush administration maintains handouts to oil companies earned over democratic and republican administrations; the future Clinton administration will rightfully eliminate the handouts, but only by extorting corporations to fund programs
she deems best. The tried and true method where companies were required to earn their success in the market place; the pattern that’s been successful for generations of industrialists, from railroad tycoons to today’s oil companies, is clearly a tired old model. Today those companies who are already successful will be forced to re-tool in the hopes that if they’re good at drilling oil, they’ll be equally good at building solar cells. All the while, companies who’ve plied their technology for decades aren’t even given the opportunity to make the money they’ve worked so hard for.
At first glance, taking from the rich oil companies to help fund a green future sounds like a great idea to get votes. But it’s anti-American to take fairly earned profits from companies just because the government doesn’t think what they’re doing is such a good idea any more, and it’s inefficient to expect those same companies with no prior experience to be more successful than the upstarts who already have the expertise to finally make renewables viable. It’s a clever plan, because she’s pandering both to the those folks who think profits of the rich are theirs for the taking simply because they don’t have them and at the same time, the rich corporations know that if they buy in to her policy (whether they want to or not) at least they’ll be protected from real competition, because the government will use their own money to fun their new “clean energy initiatives.” It’s just unfortunate that the ill gotten governmental gains won’t be better spent on companies that are better suited to success.
169 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a sqaure to vote)
Loading ...
08.20.07
Posted in Liberty at 15:53 by RjZ
Most likely you’ve seen the bumper stickers: “Hang up and drive!” It’s such a common sentiment that several states (and nations) have laws banning individuals from operating a cellphone while driving. Typical nanny-state attitude; control what people do and they won’t hurt themselves. It’s also entirely inconsistent. We don’t ban smoking in cars, even though a dropped cigarette is an accident waiting to happen. We don’t ban radios or iPods although fiddling with them has gotten me into some close calls (and I am sure I am not alone). We don’t ban screaming children in the back seat or puppies in the front.
Worse still, while many think cellphones contribute to accidents, new evidence doesn’t bear this out. According to the New York Times, a University of Berkeley study shows no increase in accidents in spite of the great increase in cell phone use.
I saw another bumper sticker once: “I drive like you do.” We all make mistakes out there. It’s your responsibility to drive carefully and pay attention to those who are not. Let’s hope everyone else does when you’re the one not paying attention.
144 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a sqaure to vote)
Loading ...
06.25.07
Posted in Liberty, Society at 13:50 by RjZ
I remain perplexed about what is right and reasonable for religious and cultural practices. As I wrote here, in cultures such as Egypt where it is the standard, women don’t actually abide very strictly by the religious tradition that motivates wearing a veil. All across Europe, however, while the number of women wearing the niqab (full face covering) is dramatically fewer than in Cairo, the impact is greater. Particularly in Britain, where no laws have yet been passed restricting this behavior, many people on both sides of the debate are feeling the challenges.
What do you think? Should women in Britain, or the United States be entitled to wear the niqab if the so desire? Sounds like an easy question. Perhaps you think: of course they should, it’s their right in a free country to express themselves. It’s freedom of religion! Even the most conservative amongst us have a hard time justifying making the headscarf illegal simply because these people ought to fit in and integrate just as they ought to (whatever that means) learn English. Oh sure, they ought to; like our grandparents did, but must we have a law restricting clothing?
On the other hand, we already do! People may not claim that it is their religious rights to walk around naked, because, that right would offend the prude majority. Satan worship is allowed, but virgin sacrifice isn’t, regardless of your religious persuasion or beliefs. But what’s the harm of women covering their faces? In a society where women are discouraged or prohibited from closing contracts without male family members, there really isn’t any problem not being able to identify them. In the west, women are provided with rights to buy cars and houses, so it’s not unreasonable that those closing those deals might wish to verify the identity of their business partners.
What about teaching, withdrawing money from a bank, being caught speeding, using a credit card? It disturbs me to limit someone’s freedom, certainly their religious freedom (a theme on which the United States was founded) and especially for such a trivial notion as clothing, but the customs, and economic function of Western society make it difficult to do otherwise. At some point during nearly all of these transactions, we’ll need to see her face.
Women must be allowed to dress anyway they wish (men too) whether they are motivated by religion or mere style. It’s just that the government and business partners have a reasonable expectation to expect to see more than eyes behind a veil. Do what you wish, but don’t expect to participate in society at large without some compromises.
What do you think?
145 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a sqaure to vote)
Loading ...
12.28.06
Posted in Liberty at 12:16 by RjZ
The TSA has added snow globes of any size to its list of items prohibited as airplane carry on. Do you feel safe now? Does it help you to know that the alleged “‘Terror Plot’ foiled on the morning of Wednesday, 10th August 2006″ of jihadists bringing down planes destined for the United States armed with a sports drink, nail polish remover (acetone) and an MP3 player has not amounted to convictions, or even proof of a real plot?
Most of the media has been pretty silent about it, but NBC news did report that a “an attack was not imminent” as had been suggested by police. This commentary discusses various sources and revelations about the likelihood of this latest terrorist attack. It’s very interesting reading, so I won’t repeat it here. Not only was the attack not imminent, it wasn’t plausible. If that doesn’t convince you, here’s another source, (with still more links) that explains that the suggested explosive, TATP, would sooner kill the alleged terrorist than bring down a plane.
So why all this attention on inconveniencing air passengers when the supposed plots aren’t feasible, reasonable, imminent, or even likely? Simple answer: politics. Elected officials have a better chance of winning if they’re doing something that keeps you safe. Even if we don’t agree, well, at least “he’s doing what he can.” It isn’t true only for elected officials and it isn’t true only in the United States. When NY Subway officials said they would perform random searches, travelers did not cry out about the stupidity of it all (they’d catch 1 in 10,000, even there were terrorists boarding the New York subway.) British authorities raised the “threat level” to critical after the alleged plot in August, even though there turned out to be no threat at all, and they didn’t retract their warnings after the investigation proceeded, because, well, it’s safer if people keep vigilant.
Lobbyists chasing after ever growing Homeland Security dollars, aren’t motivated to search out the truth of their claims that Red Bull and nail polish remover are the next major threat–it might endanger something more important than the freedom to travel: their jobs. A system where we reward politicians for the appearance of safety and action in spite of their effectiveness costs us more than inconvenience. It strips us of liberty, privacy and money.
The TSA isn’t cheap. They requested $5 billion alone for aviation risks in 2006. Compare that with $69 billion for the United States mandatory and discretionary budget for education. It seems strange to me that education is only seven times the budget for people who won’t allow us to bring shampoo or snow globes on planes which, of course, does nothing for our safety. But at least we feel safe, don’t we?
So why aren’t we complaining? Because there is a huge disconnect between those demanding our toothpaste and those making the policy. When we’re about to step on a plane we have no choice but to endure the indignity of removing shoes and showing off our “personal lubricants” in “a clear one quart zip-lock bag” we can’t really complain because they have every authority to keep us from flying if we do. Meanwhile, the policy makers are keeping us safe and hording Homeland Security dollars at our request.
Keep this in mind when politicians tell you they want to keep you safe and protect you from terrorists. Ask them not only what they’re going to do, but how they’re going to see if what they’re doing actually works! If your auto mechanic said he was going to change your oil every 50 miles because it’s better for your car, you’d question his motivation. It’s probably not bad for your car to change oil every 50 miles, but it’s not going to make it last any longer either. And it is going to cost you a fortune and loads of inconvenience.
There are hundreds of ways to blow up a plane, and hundreds other terrorists plots that could scare us, but we let our governments do the scaring instead. We really are letting the terrorists win. Keep this in mind while you shuffle through airport security getting your socks dirty. Snow globes are hardly our biggest threat.
183 views Permalink
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ...
12.11.06
Posted in 2¢, Liberty at 16:51 by RjZ
During a recent interview, the creators of South Park had this response to Reason Magazine:
Reason: When you say libertarian, what do you mean?
Stone: I had Birkenstocks in high school. I was that guy. And I was sure that those people on the other side of the political spectrum were trying to control my life. And then I went to Boulder [Colorado] and got rid of my Birkenstocks immediately, because everyone else had them and I realized that these people over here want to control my life too. I guess that defines my political philosophy. If anybody’s telling me what I should do, then you’ve got to really convince me that it’s worth doing.
I think they may have a point.
184 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a sqaure to vote)
Loading ...
10.24.06
Posted in Liberty at 15:29 by RjZ
Political debates look like formal official affairs. With all the fanfare and importance attached to them it would be easy to assume that they’re a certified, legal part of our election process. We don’t even think about who arranges political candidates’ debates.
Is it the media?
Is it the government?
Nope. Acually, it’s the candidates themselves who arrange the debates. There is no public authority responsible for these things at all.
It goes something like this. One of the candidates, the democrat say, announces in one of his media events that he hopes there will be an opportunity to speak about the real issues with his republican opponent in an open forum. He sounds very serious and confident about this and challenges his opponent to a debate.
But that certainly doesn’t guarantee one. What happens next is that the two campaigns negotiate the details of their meeting. Will it be a formal debate with point and rebuttal? (Answer: not likely!) What kinds of questions will be asked? Who will moderate? Will the media be allowed time for commentary or analysis? Will the candidates have to field questions from the audience? Who, exactly, will be allowed in that audience? In short, every possible scenario will be negotiated to ensure that the candidates can’t embarass themselves, and that nothing of substance will happen. Once the campaign managers have agreed what they’ll allow their candidates say, they can present it to the media as a take-it-or-leave-it affair. Follow our rules, or you don’t get to show the debate at all. The all-powerful, left leaning but biased to the right, corporate owned, media doesn’t have nearly as much say as the candidates imply.
One more point that’s all but certain: the Libertarian (or Green or independant for that matter) candidate will not be invited. Even though each of these candidates has jumped through all the necessary hoops to have her name legally on the ballot in her state or district, we won’t hear her views debated by the two main candidates. Even though she’s convinced the requisite number of citizens to sign petitions nominating her and she’s met all the legal requirements, no one is going to call.
Inviting alternative opinions to the debate is just another chance for the candidates to actually have to answer a real question or address a diferent topic and there is simply no motivation for either candidate to do this. It’s a lose-lose situation for them.
Is there anything we can do about this? A few, mostly ineffective ideas come to mind. For example, we could start by informing ourselves about all of the candidates. It’s easier these days, thanks to their websites. Then we can vote for whom we think best meets our principles and ideas, regardless of which party they are in and their chance of winning. It’s a novel idea, I know, but perhaps it will slowly send a message to the media that there is interest outside of the front runners and then, when these other parties come asking about debates the media might just start thinking they could sell some ad time by letting these folks speak.
It’s our party. We should be able to invite whoever we want!
168 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a sqaure to vote)
Loading ...
10.17.06
Posted in Liberty at 17:30 by RjZ
According to the map in the sidebar of Traveling Hypothesis people come here from far and wide and, in general, places outside of Colorado. When it comes time for folks in various forms of democracies to vote, we’re frequently faced with a choice that could most easily described as bad or worse. Perhaps the following discussion will be instructive for those outside as Colorado as well.
On the 7th of November, Colorado will elect a new governor as Bill Ownes (R) steps down due to term limits. It’s not an easy choice. We could vote for Bob Beauprez (R). He claims to be fiscally conservative and plans to uphold the Tax Payer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Furthermore, he understands that while we need alternative forms of energy a “stop-everything” approach is neither tractable nor wise.
Mr. Beauprez is also a strong supporter of faith-based initiatives that take state tax dollars and invest them in churches. If you’re Catholic, you can be sure that some Evangelicals, many of whom are outspoken in their claim that Catholics belong to a cult, are getting that money. Evangelicals can be sure that some Mormons and Unitarians might even have access to it. If you’re not religious, well, you’re out of luck. No matter who you are, If you’re a Colorado citizen, your tax dollars are being invested to do wonderful things for people, but also to proselytize folks, who are often weak and vulnerable, to believe in something you don’t. That’s unconstitutional and it’s also un-American.
Mr. Beauprez will inject a serious dose of religion into politics. His running-mate believes “All religions are welcomed in schools except Christianity” and that creationist mythology should be taught as science at taxpayer’s expense. If Mr. Beauprez is elected governor, he will oppose granting rights of marriage for all Coloradans (which is alreay a statute) and he will strongly oppose a woman’s right to choose (which isn’t a law yet.)
Well then, we could vote for Bill Ritter (D). Mr. Ritter supports important priorities. He wants to invest in education, and invest in health care for all Coloradans. For the most part, he’s a very smart liberal and you’re likely to agree with just about everything he’d like to do. Unfortunately, he’d like to do a just about everything. He “will bring every government agency with a role in economic development together with business and education leaders to create a coherent economic development strategy.” He believes in “streamlining government to be more responsive” but he wants to add more offices such as a ” a Colorado Jobs Cabinet as part of the Executive Branch.” How does that streamline government?
Mr. Ritter’s website barely mentions that he’s pro-life (although he does not propose changes to women’s rights in Colorado) and that as Attorney General he has a track record of a prosecutor who questioned the rights of juries because they thwart convictions (isn’t that the point of a jury?) Mr. Ritter seems to beleive that more power for the government is always a good thing. Mr. Ritter believes in forcing immunizations on children (he claims this will save money, and he may even be right, but how is he going to pull all this off without increasing government services, costs, offices, people and bloat?)
One of the biggest mistakes U.S. Americans make when they try to select a candidate is that they assume that they have to agree with everything on the candidate’s platform. I won’t vote for this guy because he wants us all to drive potato powered vehicles. I can’t vote for that guy because he thinks SUVs are our inalienable right. There are issues that are deal-breakers for us, but in general we have a representative republic. What we should be searching for are people who, when faced with the complex, often competeting, issues, will choose, most of the time, they way we would. We don’t have the time to look at every nuance of every vote, but we actually pay our elected officials to read and understand them for us. We must attempt to select a person who we think represents us best, not simply someone who agrees with our hot-button issues.
Many of us are smart enough to see that we can’t completely agree with our candidate. After all, there are only two to choose from and it’s not likely that we would agree with one of the other. We’ve grown accustomed to picking the lesser of two evils. There’s good news. We can send a message to all the incumbants and vote our conscience at the same time!
The Boulder Weekly seems to have fallen into the trap that many of us face. They have decided to back Bill Ritter even though he’s not their type of liberal and “Ritter’s record as Denver D.A. is equally concerning for some, who remember … the 70 cases that involved questionable police force and resulted in citizens being either injured or killed by cops.” That’s OK, “he’ll be a vast improvement over Gov. Bill Owens’ conservative extremism”
Eventhough the Weekly mentions her almost completely without comment, perhaps we should have a look at Dawn Winkler. Unlike the other candidates Ms. Winkler believes that you should run your life, not the government. She is the only candidate who does not believe that the state should decide the definition of marriage (and that churches shouldn’t, because when the state claims that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman they accept a claim that other religions may not. Unitarians, for example, oppose this strict view of marriage and regularly marry homosexuals.)
Winkler is the only candidate that believes, and will fight for, a woman’s right to choose.
Read Ms. Winkler’s issues. You may not agree with all of them, but ask yourself if you would like her to represent you. Would she represent what you believe and would she contribute to a government that would be manageable and understandable by all of us.
Beauprez says he’ll shrink government but he thinks government should enter our churches and get in between a woman and her doctor. Ritter wants to streamline government but he makes promise after promise about all the things government should do to protect you and make Colorado stronger.
Meanwhile, Ms. Winkler has something none of the other candidates has. She has faith in her constituents that they will make a stronger Colorado on their own and that they know what’s best for themselves without the help of a select few in Denver.
Whatever you do, try to vote on the 7th.
Check out the candidates websites:
Bob Beauprez
Bill Ritter
Dawn Winkler
Don’t miss God’s candidate: Clyde Harkins. It’d be funnier how misguided their reading of the U.S. Constitution is if it weren’t so scary.
You can also hear each of the candidate speak on KCFR.
219 views Permalink
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
10.11.06
Posted in Liberty, Society at 12:07 by RjZ
There may actually be good news in the creepy revelations about ex-congressman Mark Foley (R-Florida). Sure, a significant, but loud, minority will claim that his homosexuality is somehow related to his interest in minors, as if there is a greater likelihood of pedophilia among homosexuals. Actually, according to several sources, there is a huge media conspiracy to hide this ‘fact’. I found dozens of articles claiming that there is a link, but strangely, they were all from conservative or religious sites. I hate to commit a genetic fallacy here, but one ought to wonder about a claim, when a group with a fairly obvious bias seems so hell-bent against evidence to the contrary.
Suspecting their claims doesn’t support the opposite either. I did find scholarly articles such as this one with quotes from scientific literature:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
The problem is, that link comes from “work by Dr. Gregory Herek, an internationally recognized authority on sexual prejudice (also called homophobia), hate crimes, and AIDS stigma. It provides factual information to promote the use of scientific knowledge for education and enlightened public policy related to sexual orientation….” I imagine Dr. Gregory Herek might be just as biased the other way. Oh well, that’s another post.
Back to Foley though. He finally outed himself as a gay man, but only after it was alleged that he’s a hebephile. Technically hebephile is used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty which isn’t exactly the same thing as pedophilia. These ‘kids’ are actually above the age of consent in nearly every state of the union. That’s not to say his behavior was OK, moral, or even legal, it’s just not the same as him chasing after little kids. By outing himself he’s only more firmly entrenched the view of conservatives and the religious right that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. According to Herek’s article, “many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women.” In other words, Foley probably isn’t really gay in the first place. That won’t stop people from further linking these issues. I can imagine that homesexuals are rather angry at Mr. Foley. Damn, it’s getting difficult to find that silver lining.
Maybe there is one thing. Foley isn’t the first gay man to be elected to public office in the U.S. He’s not even the first one to have been caught in a scandal and he’s not even the first republican in this situation. See, there are private matters one ought not put on one’s blog. Foley didn’t write about his interest in young men and most other bloggers regrain from discussing their interest in smoking pot or polygamy or witchcraft. You don’t know who’s reading your thoughts and how what you say might effect your friends, your professional life, or…even a future political career. I am as guilty of self-censorship as the next blogger, although not for anything as salacious as Mr. Foley (too bad, it’d make for good reading I am sure). Meanwhile, a gay-republican was elected to public office. Perhaps I really can write whatever I wish here without fear of it impacting my potential future campaigning?
Contrary to many arguments I’ve made in the past, maybe one can be elected in the United States without an attractive wife, happy looking family and long track record of church-based (or religious-institution based) community service. (I’m not married, have no children, and don’t belong to a religious institution, so I’d always figured any political aspirations were done from the start—oops, there I’ve gone and admitted everything I was hiding up until now.)
Wait. That’s not true at all. Foley wasn’t forthcoming about his aleged homosexuality or alcoholism. Mark Foley, now an admitted homosexual, alcoholic and alleged child molester, was, in fact, a Roman Catholic, married with children. He was elected or re-elected six times as a republican to federal office.
Damn, there’s no silver lining here after all. Unless, it’s the apparent fact that no matter who you are, as long as you’re willing to lie about it and can hide it well, you can be elected and re-elected over and over again. Either way, I may have blown my political career just by writing this blog, don’t you think?
171 views Permalink
(no ratings yet, click a sqaure to vote)
Loading ...
06.05.06
Posted in Liberty at 16:18 by RjZ
Try this. Do a web search on “Homeland Security Pork.” You’ll get articles about “homeland-security rescue and communications equipment” for North Pole, Alaska, or fake nuclear power plants in Nevada. You can read how FEMA was stripped to pay for big spending elsewhere and “that $38 million went to cover fire claims related to the April 2001 Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico.”
In the name of protecting U. S. citizens, congress has spent nearly $207 billion since September 11, 2001. President Bush used this spending to demonstrate how strong he was against terror. The sales of loafers and sandals have probably increased since the Transportation Security Administration (TSA is part of the department of Homeland Security) now requires that we remove our shoes before boarding airplanes, but our nation’s ports complain that they’re not safer than they were before “the day everything changed” and that they need help.
The problem though is that a (no longer) brand-new government organization is ill-suited to solve the problems of security or terrorism and much more capable spending money on pork-barrel projects. The central government taxes the people and then the states must go to the central government to beg and justify that their citizens need some of their money back to protect themselves.
It’s not surprising, then, that New York City is upset that they’re handout funding was cut 40%. It’s not surprising that Bush appointee and secretary of Homeland Security, Micheal Cherthof is being described as “embattled” as he tries to alternately justify and defend the 2007 funding.
Homeland Security funding turns out to be good evidence why the central government shouldn’t be trusted with doling out money for local activities. The cities and states know better how to spend their money. The system we have in place results in what I call the “race for the bottom.” When the authorities have control over resources then those who should receive them race to show who is more needy than the next. Failing that, they’ll be forced to bribe, cheat, or steal to get the money they are confident they deserve in the first place. There is zero motivation for Omaha to hand over money to New York City and Los Angeles doesn’t care what happens in St. Louis. Adding insult to this injury, the layer of bureaucracy in the middle must be padded with reports on justifications and requirements and the dollars associated with writing and reading all of them.
Of course there are activities for which the central government is best suited (few of them, true, but the military is an obvious example…) but it’s difficult, in the face of recent history not to see the department of Homeland Security as more than political posturing and an unfortunate opportunity for more spending by politicians than a sincere and effective agency to prevent terrorism at home. We may not like it, but spending is always rewarded. It’s our money, and we like getting it back, even if the president and congress like to make us be for it.
Alas states and cities aren’t necessarily much better at spending money wisely but my voice might get heard at home; it’s very unlikely to be heard in Washington. In addition to having an ill-advised government bureaucracy called Homeland Security we have local governments spending to defend their citizens from terrorist acts at any cost. Local city councils aren’t cynical Washington insiders. They’re doing their sincere best to defend us because the Bush administration has told them to be afraid, very afraid. We should expect to hear more about being afraid as we approach November and U. S. citizens consider whether they will keep the current congress (most of which voted to go to war with Iraq, for the patriot act, for the creation of the department of Homeland Security and for the pork it created).
Be afraid, be very afraid.
174 views Permalink
(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
05.24.06
Posted in Liberty, Society at 8:45 by RjZ
It’s a decade now since President Clinton signed the “1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” The intention of this bill was to ensure that welfare recipients don’t become entrenched in the system and never find work. Supporters at the time claimed that women, in particular single mothers, were motivated to have children and not to get married, simply so that they could receive money.
That’s rubbish, of course.
Kathryn Edin is a sociologist at University of Pennsylvania and she co-wrote what many experts agree is a leading text on poverty Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood before Marriage. In it she points out what ought to be obvious. Poor women don’t have children in order to get a pittance from welfare, and they don’t avoid marriage because they have shaky morals. Instead, these women have children because it’s one of the few forms of empowerment they have open to them. Furthermore, they dream of getting married, but they hold marriage in such high regard, that they hold off until they are in love and confident that their marriages will last. In short, these women aren’t examples of the decay of morals in society. They share the same conservative views as most of their neighbors in the suburbs of big cities and in the heartland of the United States.
In spite of that, the first line of of the 1996 welfare reform act is “Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.” The law openly intended social tinkering with a goal of restoring the nuclear family and help lift single parent families out of poverty. It’s easy to see that single parents have a harder time making ends meet than couples. How is the woman to nurse her three month old while working at Wal*mart (or anywhere, for that matter?) And the State (that means you!) definitely has stock in this matter, because it costs money to support people on welfare.
It’s this kind of argument, along with threats of decay of moral society that are spawning an almost war-like posturing “in defense of marriage.” I happen to agree that welfare costs taxpayers a lot of money and that when people share the burden of raising a child, there is a greater chance of success for them (and a much happier child!) I can see how the State, then, would have an interest in encouraging this behavior. What doesn’t follow is why the State is involved in supporting what is essentially a religious rite.
State needs only to encourage that two (or more) people live together in a semi-permanent bond that spreads economic burden between them. Whether these people are married in a church or friends for the past 20 years is immaterial. Whether people choose to live in a commune or a same-sex partnership is certainly unimportant to the State, who’s only interest need be that young citizens grow up in a nurturing environments where they go to school and get enough to eat. Whether people acknowledge their bond in front of God, Buddha, Flying Spaghetti Monster or no one at all, is really none of the government’s business.
The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.
What the State should support are stable relationships, for these are what is best for its young citizens. Why would a couple, married in a church six months ago, deserve more rights than a same-sex partnership that has lasted 12 years? Odds are that the married couple won’t be together seven years from now, but after surviving 12 years so far, the gay pair will probably be able to stick it out longer still. Which would have been a more economically stable environment for a child?
What if instead the government were to offer the rights and privileges to, I’ll call it “legal partnerships” on the condition that they, just for example, have demonstrated successful co-habitation for two years or more? Any couple (or group for that matter) who has shown that they can successfully live together for this period, provided they wish the economic and tax advantages of partnership, must now go through the same legal wrangling if they choose to dissolve the partnership. This “legal partnership” should have the benefits and challenges associated with what we call marriage today. But entry into it should not be restricted to those who believe in a certain religions. Entry into this partnership should be offered to those who have demonstrated a chance at success, because that is what the government needs to promote: stable economic relationships that will lift families out of poverty.
Social conservatives (none of whom probably read this blog in the first place ) are probably screaming now! They should be cheering. This proposal is truly a defense of marriage. If your church or belief-system thinks that homosexuals are devil’s spawn and that marriage cannot be desecrated by having gay unions, well, you’re entitled to that view and the government of the United States certainly shouldn’t tell you otherwise. (That’s essentially how social conservatives see Massachusetts’ supreme court decision.) Marriage, a religious rite, should be defined within the bounds of the church in which it is practiced. One church thinks gays can marry, another does not. Who am I (or the government) to say which should be allowed and which not. If I have lived with my partner for the last 20 years but we don’t have a sexual relationship, does that mean that I can’t see her in the hospital if she becomes ill? The government can keep its nose out of my business and in doing so, the sanctity of marriage is actually better maintained; exactly where it belongs: in the churches and temples where it is ordained.
It’s true that single parents have it harder. There are dozens of studies showing children raised in these conditions have a more difficult time than those raised by two parents. In addition to being a just proposal that is fair to all religious and non-religious citizens, such a legal partnership might enable some of those poor women to encourage an economic partnership while still maintaining their high regard for marriage. Regardless, it’s still none of the government’s business what the situation is by which these partners have chosen a legal bond. The sooner the government get’s out of the marriage business the better it will be for marriages and children alike.
378 views Permalink
(3 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
« Previous entries