Month: January 2008

Categories
politics

Liberty Or Death

How many people, like me, are only familiar with little more than the final sentence of this speech by Patrick Henry? It contains very little in the way of political policy or ideas, but a very good sketch of the character of the men who built our nation. How many citizens today are too busy to be bothered with understanding or maintaining the liberty which those men held in such high regard?

. . . it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth . . . For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

As I read the words of the speech I began to ask myself, would we even recognize if our freedom were under assault today as theirs was then? It is especially important considering that our freedom is most likely to be abridged, not by a government based across the ocean from us, but one in our own land; one often held up as an example of government over what many call the most liberated society in history.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

If we do recognize a real danger will we have the courage to take action or is our character such that we would bow to the conventional wisdom which would undoubtedly tell us that we are too weak to make a change?

It should be no wonder to any of us that a patriot would say “give me liberty, or give me death,” if they have seen, as our founders had, that the war was already begun and that the options for an equitable peace had already been exhausted.

Categories
life

An Exciting Change

I have been asked to take on a new responsibility in scouts. Instead of serving in the presidency of our ward young men’s organization I will now be working with the Webelos. For those who are not familiar with the cub scout program, the Webelos are the oldest group among the Cub Scouts. This is a chance for me to help prepare the boys who will be joining the scout program. I definitely like the sound of that as I have seen what a difference good preparation before joining the troop can make for the boys and the troop.

From my own cub scout days I have no clear memories of what we did – just a leather “skin” full of awards that I earned. I remember being in Webelos, but anything I knew about the goals of the program have long since abandoned my memory. The first question I asked myself as I start this is, “what is a webelo?” How did they choose that name? I started doing some searching and learning more about the purposes that I will be trying to accomplish. My excitement has continued to grow the more I have learned.

First, WEBELOS means: “WE‘ll BE LOyal Scouts” – knowing this is one of the requirements of getting the first Cub Scout rank – the Bobcat. Hopefully by the time I start working with these boys they will have been learning the basic attitudes of scouting for a couple of years. Webelos is specifically meant to start bridging the gap between cub scouts and boy scouts. In my searching I have found a great resource for Webelos and the rest of the scouting program.

Categories
culture National politics

Promote Job Creation

Bob Herbert and I often differ in our views but I really like what he said about economic stimulus as is being discussed in D.C.

There is no question that some kind of stimulus package geared to the needs of ordinary Americans is in order. But that won’t begin to solve the fundamental problem.

Good jobs at good wages — lots of them, growing like spring flowers in an endlessly fertile field — is the absolutely essential basis for a thriving American economy and a broad-based rise in standards of living.

Forget all the CNBC chatter about Fed policy and bargain stocks. For ordinary Americans, jobs are the be-all and end-all. And an America awash in new jobs will require a political environment that respects and rewards work and aggressively pursues creative policies designed to radically expand employment.

I’d start with a broad program to rebuild the American infrastructure. This would have the dual benefit of putting large numbers of people to work and answering a crying need. The infrastructure is in sorry shape. New Orleans comes to mind, and the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis. (emphasis added)

What is a political environment that respects and rewards work? The answer is – one where we don’t perpetually give money to people who don’t work (I’m talking welfare here, not pensions or social security as those are supposed to be earned benefits). What we currently have is a policy that discourages people from taking work that is “beneath them.” If I am receiving unemployment I lose the benefits if I take work that pays me less than I’m worth and thus it is in my interest to turn down temporary or lower paying work so long as I can receive those benefits.

Even unemployment could be considered an earned benefit. People on government welfare can stay there as long as they are willing to live at that level of poverty – their health care is free to them even if it’s somewhat limited, and they never have to worry about going hungry even if Food Stamps don’t provide any luxuries. For those who lack the skills to get a job that pays noticeably more than welfare hands them, there is no incentive to go work when staying home gives them the same economic standard of living.

Herbert is right, economic stimulus should come in the form of work programs not unlike the WPA which would provide income and training for  those in need of new or improved skills. As the economy grew the program could be terminated (again) but until then people would have work and the nation would be improved in whatever ways were deemed necessary at the time. This would be much better than a one time tax rebate or extension of unemployment benefits. It would be more valuable than manipulating bankruptcy laws to save a few people from foreclosure. On-the-job training would even be more effective than paying people to seek new or improved skills in an academic setting.

Categories
National politics

Mapping Politics

Thanks to the observations and perspective of Obi wan Liberali I think I can accurately place some political parties on my 2 dimensional political spectrum.

Labels on the Political Spectrum

Not only can I place the labels for our two major parties and some other political philosophies but I would also go on to say that the Republican party (GOP) started off approximately level with the Democratis party (DNC) vertically and that GOP party leadership seems to have been drifting downward. American society as a whole seems to have been drifting leftward – a trend which is also visible when looking at the GOP candidates. If left unchecked, these two forces would combine to land the GOP in the area of Fascism – though I don’t believe that it will be left unchecked.

The supposed breakup of the Reagan coalition is more like the abandonment of the Reagan position (somewhere near the intersection of the GOP, DNC and Libertarian positions on this spectrum) by the party that once represented that position, leaving most moderate members of that quadrant undecided on who to support.

Categories
politics

Political Spectrum

I liked the discussion over at KVNU’s For The People about how labels can be misleading regarding someone’s political philosophy. As always, there are quizzes to help someone figure out their own philosophy. KVNU linked to The Political Compass. Another popular one is Worlds Smallest Political Quiz.

I’ve seen both of them before, but it’s always interesting to see how I score on a particular day. As I took each test I was reminded about the biases inherent in one, and the frustration that I always feel because of the vague questions on the other. The other thing that caught my attention was the way that their scales are not directly compatible with each other. Here are my two scores from the same time today:

Political Compass ScoreWorlds Smallest Political Quiz Score

After looking at the results I wondered what it would take to accurately compare the two. So I did some manipulation.

Continue reading “Political Spectrum”
Categories
culture politics

Conspiracy of Confusion

Diet is about as far from my normal topics as I can imagine. Part of the reason for this is that I generally follow the world’s simplest diet:

“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” (Michael Pollan January 28, 2007)

I have followed that basic idea for years without knowing anything about Michael Pollan or what he had written. Today I stumbled upon An Omnivore Defends Real Food and could not help but make some connections between the confusion surrounding nutrition (as opposed to the apparent simplicity of the dietary plan above) and the confusion surrounding so many other social, economic, and political issues.

I would not make the argument that everything could be simplified as much as that maxim on diet (or even that everything should be so simple in a perfect world) but the thing that struck me, and the very purpose of my advocacy for liberty, is that we need to be free to our own level of complexity or simplicity in most things. With diet I can choose to ignore all the advertising about the latest health fad, or I can choose to test or follow any given news about the dangers of whole milk or the virtue of Omega3 fatty-acids. On the other hand I am not free to opt out of social security and many politicians are talking about making it illegal for me to choose not to have health insurance.

The argument is that if I don’t get health insurance and something happens to me then I become a financial burden to society as I use government funded health care. The same argument is applied to whether I am allowed to pay in to unemployment taxes – what if I lose my job. The real problem is that government has created a system whereby people can freeload on the system so it does not matter how much someone protests that they won’t. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past because Uncle Sam can/will bail you out. Personal liberty is also reduced because everyone is required to participate (at least on the paying in portion – you can opt out on the receiving benefits side of most programs).

I can’t think of any of the entitlement programs that the government runs that would be a bad thing if they were based on voluntary participation. The universal problems they share are their coercive nature and the complexity that makes themboth inefficient and exploitable.

Categories
politics State

Comments Window Closing

For those affected by the MountainView Corridor, I am reminded that the window of opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is closing next week. Comments must be received no later than January 24th. Now is the time to make your voices heard if you have any interest in this project.

Instructions on submitting comments can be found by clicking the link above.

Categories
culture politics

The Electability Trap

In what is probably the best non-partisan political commentary I’ve read recently, Ron Klain at Campaign Stops (a New York Times blog) writes about the dangers of choosing a candidate based on electability.

Whether you are looking for the person you think would be the best president or the person with whom you agree on key issues; the person whose experience is best suited to the job or the person who is most likely to bring change to Washington, there are many good reasons to choose a particular candidate. Character, personality, leadership skills, resume or accomplishments are also good things to consider. Almost any reason will do, just please don’t pick someone because you think that he or she is the most “electable” candidate that your party can nominate.

Of course we would all like to vote for the winner, but voting is our chance as citizens to make a statement. We should be standing for what we believe by the way we vote, not hazarding a guess as to what the majority believes. Again, I like the way Ron makes his closing argument:

Taking something as sacred as your presidential preference and turning it into an act of political prognostication cheapens your choice: being a voter is a more important job in our system than being a pundit or a consultant. Why should you cast your vote based on how you think others will vote (even if you could guess that accurately)? Why should their choice matter more than your own?

Yes, ultimately, presidential campaigns are about winning: a candidate who does not win cannot achieve policy changes or make the country a better place. And being mindful of the consequences of our votes is important, as many people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 — only to put George Bush in the White House, instead of Al Gore — have painfully learned.

If you want to back a winner in 2008, focus on persuading your neighbor to come over to your choice, instead of guessing how he will vote.

Categories
politics State

Excessively Complex

Witness the Achilles Heel of bureaucracy as demonstrated by my local elementary school (and probably many others in the state as well). Members of the legislature are working (in vain) to ensure that our children get an excellent education. Leaders of the NEA/UEA are working (probably in vain as well) to ensure that teachers do not get overworked in the process. The result is that legislators make laws governing those things that they are able to measure such as the amount of time that students spend in schools. Naturally, more time in school means a better education so they set minimum standards for how long children must be in class each year. In the other corner, the teachers unions are pressing to minimize the amount of time that is required for teachers to be in the classroom – more specifically they are working to make sure that the teachers have adequate time for lesson preparation without having to work 90 hour weeks (seems like a fair request to me). These two competing demand collide each Monday at our local school where, in order to allow the teachers more time to prepare – and in order to not go under the minimum classroom hours for the yea – the students start school 7 minutes early for the students and ends an hour early.

That is the complexity that I can make sense of. Then there is the complexity that seems entirely unnecessary – our school is also burdened by having an early track and a late track. The best I can figure out is that they are trying to stagger students arrivals, recess, and lunch times. Combined with early-out Monday it makes for a schedule that the parents are lucky to grasp let alone the students. Why do we have students starting at 8 minutes after the hour, because starting on the hour would mean that they get 4 hours less instruction over the course of a year, which would obviously not look good when the numbers were reported to the legislature. Someone up there came up with a nice round number and called it the minimum acceptable standard for hours of instruction. Starting at the quarter hour would mean that the teachers get 4 hours less preparation time over the course of a year (which is probably more detrimental than the previous option). I wonder why I get the feeling that we are a bit over-regulated in our public education.

Categories
culture

Case for Absitnence

I was surprised as I read this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Caitlin Flanagan. I doubt it was her intent, but I found a very strong argument in favor of abstinence as the preferred attitude toward extra-marital sex. She argues that there is a double standard related to the burdens of teenage pregnancy that falls more heavily on girls than on boys.

. . . the last scene [of “Juno”] brought tears to my eyes. To see a young daughter, faced with the terrible fact of a pregnancy, unscathed by it and completely her old self again was magical.

And that’s why “Juno” is a fairy tale. As any woman who has ever chosen (or been forced) [to give a child up for adoption] can tell you, surrendering a baby whom you will never know comes with a steep and lifelong cost. Nor is an abortion psychologically or physically simple. It is an invasive and frightening procedure, and for some adolescent girls it constitutes part of their first gynecological exam. I know grown women who’ve wept bitterly after abortions, no matter how sound their decisions were. How much harder are these procedures for girls, whose moral and emotional universe is just taking shape?

Of course those who disapprove of abstinence education also want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. On that everyone is agreed. The problem that they ignore is the fundamental fact that the natural result of sexual activity is pregnancy. We can lower the chances, but we can’t eliminate them. Regardless of what they may wish, there are side effects to abortion as well.

It would be helpful for the pro-life groups to admit that their preference for adoption over abortion is not without side-effects either. The reality is that regardless of the course taken afterwards, the universal result of unwanted pregnancies is emotional pain and suffering for the mother if not for anyone else.

Ms. Flanagan wonders if there is a way to level the difference in the burdens between teenage fathers who can escape the consequences in many cases and teenage mothers who can’t. Even her own words seem to promise that the answer is no.

Pregnancy robs a teenager of her girlhood. This stark fact is one reason girls used to be so carefully guarded and protected — in a system that at once limited their horizons and safeguarded them from devastating consequences. The feminist historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has written that “however prudish and ‘uptight’ the Victorians were, our ancestors had a deep commitment to girls.”

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

The trauma that will always accompany unwanted pregnancy has become more common as we first accept that “boys will be boys” and then we glorify that attitude, excusing (and demeaning) young men as being unable to control themselves. We have followed that moral irresponsibility by trying to teach our girls to be boys in adopting a callous attitude about sex. Sexual activity was never meant to be taken lightly which is why it was meant to be reserved for a marriage relationship. Any other relationship and it does not matter what precautions you take, you are flirting with the consequences of pregnancy and STDs.

This is why we must teach young women to guard themselves and we must teach young men to guard the young women they care about. This teaching is not meant to be done publicly. It should be undertaken within the setting of family. No other setting can ever be fully satisfactory for the intimacy of discussion that is warranted on this subject.