I just finished Burton Folsom Jr.’s “New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.” This book centers on Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to combat the Great Depression. The overwhelming majority of historians and literature on the New Deal paints it very favorably and often hails FDR as among the greatest presidents of all time. Folsom offers a compelling contrarian take and effectively shows that not only has the New Deal proven to be a disaster for the USA, but also that FDR should be viewed as one of the worst presidents ever. It’s a highly worthwhile read and is written in a very easy-to-follow manner. And it’s only 270 pages.
The general theme is a critical attack of FDR’s New Deal policies to demonstrate that not only were they bad economics, but many of them were also politics at its worst. The New Deal didn’t just fail to cure the Great Depression. It actually made things worse.
Folsom starts by discussing FDR’s background and rise to power. He then discusses briefly the Roaring 20’s, the time before the Great Depression, and the causes of the Great Depression. The popular view is that the excesses and uneven distribution of wealth of the Roaring 20’s along with underconsumption soon after caused the Great Depression, but Folsom (and I) disagree, citing instead the massive war debts incurred by Europe during World War 1, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and the Federal Reserve constricting money supply.
From there, business was about to pick up (as in FDR’s New Deal, not actually business activity – that came to a screeching halt). Folsom discussed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA was eventually shortened to NRA). This overthrew America’s traditional free market system and instead had industry collaborating with government to regulate everything from hours to wages to prices. It was unanimously ruled unconstitutional in a couple years, but the damage was already done.
Next was the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA). It’s like a farming NRA, but with subsidies for farmers not to produce and some other details. Then, we find the Works Progress Administration (WPA) that had federal spending balloon for local and state projects. Folsom detailed some other policies, such as the Air Mail Act that put the Army in charge of air mail, Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) blunders, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Folsom breaks from his assault to give FDR some credit for doing some good stuff, or at least not catastrophically bad stuff, in his discussion of financial actions, such as intervening in gold, silver, stocks, bonds, tariffs, and banks. But, Folsom’s back on the warpath in the next chapter, attacking minimum wage laws, social security, and labor relations.
Next, Folsom discusses tax policy (income, excise, and corporate) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He shows the damage FDR’s tax increases caused to the economy and how FDR used the IRS against his political enemies. Folsom then shows how FDR used political patronage and deceit to secure votes, acting in his best interest versus the nation’s. FDR even tried to take control of the Supreme Court and purge “disloyal” democrats from the party.
He closes by discussing the long-lasting damage FDR did to the office of the presidency and the nation, what he probably should have done to combat the Great Depression (tax cuts and a business-friendly environment), how the Great Depression finally ended (Folsom credits World War 2 for ending the Great Depression and Truman’s post-war leadership for putting America back onto the path to prosperity once again), and why it matters today.
People need to see this contrarian (and largely correct, in my opinion) view of the New Deal. Present-day conservatives and liberals should read this book, but for different reasons. Conservatives should read it so that they can back their attacks on liberal policies with historical proof that they failed miserably. Liberals should read it so they can see where past ideas went astray, subsequently improve them, and defend them better.
The parallels between then and now are frightening. I am reminded of the quote by Howard Simons below.
“Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Alas, those who study history and inflict it upon others are condemned to repeat it, too, and suffer the additional burden of understanding the gruesome parallels unfolding in their lives.”
Such is my agony. I hope you’ll share my pain, as insane and masochistic as that might sound. And, on that note, Happy New Year.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
(Lame) Duck Season Scorecard
Lame duck season reminds me of the old Bugs Bunny cartoons. He tries to convince Elmer Fudd that it’s duck season while Daffy Duck claims it’s rabbit season. Zaniness ensues. It also reminds me of Duck Hunt and the laughing dog when you miss.
This is my lame duck season scorecard. Most topics could be separate posts in and of themselves.
The Good – We’re not getting our taxes increased to start the New Year. The Bush tax rates were extended for two years. Remember, this issue was not about tax cuts. It was about preventing tax increases. We also receive a reduction in social security taxes for a year. I was sad to see the Energy Star credit wasn’t extended for another year. Not simply because I’m putting central air into my house next year, but because it was a great tax credit that encouraged investment. The deal wasn’t perfect, but it was better than the alternative of increased taxes in 2011. I wanted the Energy Star credit, but the social security relief softens that blow. I also wanted to see an extension longer than two years (if not permanent) because making them permanent would’ve created more economic certainty, confidence, and investment. This was a clear victory for Obama. He made himself look like he’s coming back to the center and outplayed the GOP. He got unemployment benefits, social security tax relief, and non-permanent extension of the Bush tax rates in exchange for ceding the estate tax and upper class extensions.
DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) was repealed by Congress and Obama despite much GOP opposition. I’ve previously advocated for DADT’s repeal, so I was thrilled here. McCain and the GOP were clearly stalling for time until the next Congress, especially after the Pentagon report showed that repealing DADT would have little meaningful negative impact. Obama was delivering on a campaign promise and it would’ve been much harder to do so with the incoming Congress. The GOP made themselves look obstinate and obstructionist by persisting with their resistance after the Pentagon’s study.
I was also happy to see the DREAM Act fail. The main reason I was happy to see this bill fail is because this issue is far too complicated to be addressed in a lame duck session. In general, I also thought there was a lot more wrong than right with DREAM.
The Bad – New START troubles me deeply. In my view, it is a foreign policy failure and domestic security disaster. The Russians clearly got the better of the Americans during the negotiations. Not only does this treaty substantially hurt our nuclear warfare (both offensive and defensive), but it also hurts our conventional warfare. I think China and Russia (and others) sense weakness on foreign policy and defense in the Obama administration and are rushing to fill the power vacuum.
The Ugly – The 9/11 first responders finally got what they rightly deserved, namely money to help them with their healthcare. These people are heroes who sacrificed so much and we’ve turned our backs on them for way too long. I somehow doubt they dawdled and took a vote before springing into action on 9/11. The great travesty of this issue is that it took nine years to get it done and both parties deserve plenty of scorn for such callousness.
The GOP fought this tooth and nail because of fiscal discipline, yet the GOP is often very quick to trumpet 9/11. The GOP is practically the party of 9/11. I was expecting them to be championing these heroes. Seriously, how often do you hear some republican politician trumpet 9/11? I hear it a lot, and I was baffled by their conduct. Their handling of this issue was absurd, hypocritical, and heartless.
The democrats were even worse. Their handling of the issue was heartless, but also incompetent. From strictly a political strategy perspective, the democrats had a chance to score huge points with everyone in America and simultaneously make the GOP look really bad. All they had to do was champion the 9/11 heroes…and they didn’t. I don’t know why. The GOP served themselves up on a silver platter for the democrats here and the democrats still blew it. This is how you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, especially when we remember the democrats hold the presidency and majorities in Congress.
The bottom line is I’m absolutely sickened and disgusted with how both parties addressed this issue.
This is my lame duck season scorecard. Most topics could be separate posts in and of themselves.
The Good – We’re not getting our taxes increased to start the New Year. The Bush tax rates were extended for two years. Remember, this issue was not about tax cuts. It was about preventing tax increases. We also receive a reduction in social security taxes for a year. I was sad to see the Energy Star credit wasn’t extended for another year. Not simply because I’m putting central air into my house next year, but because it was a great tax credit that encouraged investment. The deal wasn’t perfect, but it was better than the alternative of increased taxes in 2011. I wanted the Energy Star credit, but the social security relief softens that blow. I also wanted to see an extension longer than two years (if not permanent) because making them permanent would’ve created more economic certainty, confidence, and investment. This was a clear victory for Obama. He made himself look like he’s coming back to the center and outplayed the GOP. He got unemployment benefits, social security tax relief, and non-permanent extension of the Bush tax rates in exchange for ceding the estate tax and upper class extensions.
DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) was repealed by Congress and Obama despite much GOP opposition. I’ve previously advocated for DADT’s repeal, so I was thrilled here. McCain and the GOP were clearly stalling for time until the next Congress, especially after the Pentagon report showed that repealing DADT would have little meaningful negative impact. Obama was delivering on a campaign promise and it would’ve been much harder to do so with the incoming Congress. The GOP made themselves look obstinate and obstructionist by persisting with their resistance after the Pentagon’s study.
I was also happy to see the DREAM Act fail. The main reason I was happy to see this bill fail is because this issue is far too complicated to be addressed in a lame duck session. In general, I also thought there was a lot more wrong than right with DREAM.
The Bad – New START troubles me deeply. In my view, it is a foreign policy failure and domestic security disaster. The Russians clearly got the better of the Americans during the negotiations. Not only does this treaty substantially hurt our nuclear warfare (both offensive and defensive), but it also hurts our conventional warfare. I think China and Russia (and others) sense weakness on foreign policy and defense in the Obama administration and are rushing to fill the power vacuum.
The Ugly – The 9/11 first responders finally got what they rightly deserved, namely money to help them with their healthcare. These people are heroes who sacrificed so much and we’ve turned our backs on them for way too long. I somehow doubt they dawdled and took a vote before springing into action on 9/11. The great travesty of this issue is that it took nine years to get it done and both parties deserve plenty of scorn for such callousness.
The GOP fought this tooth and nail because of fiscal discipline, yet the GOP is often very quick to trumpet 9/11. The GOP is practically the party of 9/11. I was expecting them to be championing these heroes. Seriously, how often do you hear some republican politician trumpet 9/11? I hear it a lot, and I was baffled by their conduct. Their handling of this issue was absurd, hypocritical, and heartless.
The democrats were even worse. Their handling of the issue was heartless, but also incompetent. From strictly a political strategy perspective, the democrats had a chance to score huge points with everyone in America and simultaneously make the GOP look really bad. All they had to do was champion the 9/11 heroes…and they didn’t. I don’t know why. The GOP served themselves up on a silver platter for the democrats here and the democrats still blew it. This is how you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, especially when we remember the democrats hold the presidency and majorities in Congress.
The bottom line is I’m absolutely sickened and disgusted with how both parties addressed this issue.
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Offshore Drilling Moratorium is a Really Bad Idea, and My Idea is Better
I consider myself a practical environmentalist in that I believe it is possible to balance the economic needs of man and the environmental needs of the Earth. I’ll go more into that in a future post, but it suffices as a lead-in to today’s topic, namely Obama’s seven-year moratorium on offshore drilling. The title of this post says it all, and now I’m going to tell you why.
First, a history lesson. Back in 1979, there was a nuclear incident, a near-meltdown, at Three Mile Island. The Chernobyl explosion a few years later gave the anti-nuclear crusaders even more ammunition to wage their fear-based campaign. Long story short, because of TMI, Chernobyl, and NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), there was so much fear and hatred of nuclear power that we haven’t really built many new nuclear plants in several decades, which is a really big problem. But, here’s the thing. The nuclear power industry historically has a very strong safety record, and decades of advances in technology and the state of the art since TMI have only improved an already solid record.
What’s that got to do with the offshore drilling moratorium? Simply put, my fears that the BP incident would become offshore drilling’s TMI are playing out. The parallels are eerie. Sure, I’ll readily agree the oil industry screwed up big time here and caused a spectacular ecological and economic disaster. I’m not downplaying that, but we have to learn from history and Obama hasn’t.
We see from the nuclear power example that industry adapts. It learns from its mistakes and takes corrective action to ensure history doesn’t repeat itself. Like nuclear power, the offshore industry had a pretty solid safety record coming into the catastrophe. All the drillers saw what happened, and they’ve already taken internal corrective action to ensure it doesn’t happen on one of their rigs. I could rattle off countless examples of industry adapting, but nuclear and TMI were the most pertinent.
Sure, the government needs time to review its regulations and such, but such a moratorium is overkill and it’s going to have some very negative consequences. Figure 1 shows our domestic and imported oil for the past 30 or so years along with our consumption per the EIA. You see a steady rise in imports and overall consumption and a steady decline in domestic production. But we’re seeing some changes.
First, a history lesson. Back in 1979, there was a nuclear incident, a near-meltdown, at Three Mile Island. The Chernobyl explosion a few years later gave the anti-nuclear crusaders even more ammunition to wage their fear-based campaign. Long story short, because of TMI, Chernobyl, and NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), there was so much fear and hatred of nuclear power that we haven’t really built many new nuclear plants in several decades, which is a really big problem. But, here’s the thing. The nuclear power industry historically has a very strong safety record, and decades of advances in technology and the state of the art since TMI have only improved an already solid record.
What’s that got to do with the offshore drilling moratorium? Simply put, my fears that the BP incident would become offshore drilling’s TMI are playing out. The parallels are eerie. Sure, I’ll readily agree the oil industry screwed up big time here and caused a spectacular ecological and economic disaster. I’m not downplaying that, but we have to learn from history and Obama hasn’t.
We see from the nuclear power example that industry adapts. It learns from its mistakes and takes corrective action to ensure history doesn’t repeat itself. Like nuclear power, the offshore industry had a pretty solid safety record coming into the catastrophe. All the drillers saw what happened, and they’ve already taken internal corrective action to ensure it doesn’t happen on one of their rigs. I could rattle off countless examples of industry adapting, but nuclear and TMI were the most pertinent.
Sure, the government needs time to review its regulations and such, but such a moratorium is overkill and it’s going to have some very negative consequences. Figure 1 shows our domestic and imported oil for the past 30 or so years along with our consumption per the EIA. You see a steady rise in imports and overall consumption and a steady decline in domestic production. But we’re seeing some changes.
For example, did you know that domestic oil production increased in 2009 for the first time since Papa Bush’s presidency? It’s true according to the EIA, and it’s a little-known fact Obama and his detractors would both like to keep under wraps (it makes Obama look bad to his environmentalist supporters and his detractors want to paint him as an enemy of business). Also, according to the EIA, 2010 is on pace to have higher domestic production than 2009, giving us the first consecutive YOY increases in domestic oil production since the Reagan days. Two years don’t make a trend, but increased domestic oil production is promising.
Now, look at imports. They peaked in 2005 and have dropped sharply since, mostly in 2008-09 and likely due to the economic collapse. Canada is our chief source by far, followed by Mexico. After those come our ‘friends’ in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who, between them, sold us ~750M barrels in 2009 (over 10% of our annual consumption). At our current level of ~$90/barrel, that’s ~$70B going to two countries that don’t like us very much.
I don’t know about you, but I’d like to stop importing oil from countries that don’t like us. The moratorium will make this very difficult because it will probably reverse the two positive trends, namely the increased production and decreased imports. Instead, we could reduce or even eliminate imports from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (or other countries we’re not on the best of terms with) if we engaged in a concerted effort to increase domestic production, decrease consumption, and import more from friendly countries (to reward them for getting along with us).
Also, note that increasing domestic production and decreasing consumption are both direct stimulus to our economy. Drilling here creates jobs here. Also, companies and people using less oil means we have more money left over for other, more useful stuff/activities. Increased domestic production should appeal to the right wing. Reduced consumption also leads to reduced greenhouse gases, which should appeal to the left wing.
My idea sounds like a win for everybody. Obama’s idea…not so much.
Now, look at imports. They peaked in 2005 and have dropped sharply since, mostly in 2008-09 and likely due to the economic collapse. Canada is our chief source by far, followed by Mexico. After those come our ‘friends’ in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who, between them, sold us ~750M barrels in 2009 (over 10% of our annual consumption). At our current level of ~$90/barrel, that’s ~$70B going to two countries that don’t like us very much.
I don’t know about you, but I’d like to stop importing oil from countries that don’t like us. The moratorium will make this very difficult because it will probably reverse the two positive trends, namely the increased production and decreased imports. Instead, we could reduce or even eliminate imports from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (or other countries we’re not on the best of terms with) if we engaged in a concerted effort to increase domestic production, decrease consumption, and import more from friendly countries (to reward them for getting along with us).
Also, note that increasing domestic production and decreasing consumption are both direct stimulus to our economy. Drilling here creates jobs here. Also, companies and people using less oil means we have more money left over for other, more useful stuff/activities. Increased domestic production should appeal to the right wing. Reduced consumption also leads to reduced greenhouse gases, which should appeal to the left wing.
My idea sounds like a win for everybody. Obama’s idea…not so much.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
DADT – I’m Asked to Tell My Thoughts
I’ve been asked to tell my thoughts on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Honestly, I think it’s time to repeal this policy. I have several justifications for thinking so. I’d also like to address some of the concerns that are frequently mentioned by opponents of repeal.
First, from a legal perspective, as far as I know, we’re not allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation anywhere else. Employers aren’t allowed to use sexual orientation in their hiring/firing decisions. There’s also the matter of the court’s ruling that the military must repeal the policy, citing the Constitution. I don’t want to spend too much time on legalities here, though.
The common counter is that the military is different, and it sure is a unique work environment, but its differences actually make it more conducive to a change in policy like this. Opponents of repealing the policy right now claim it would be a burdensome additional distraction on the military while it’s engaged in war. I’d argue that there’s no better time to implement such a change than during war because the individuals are focused so intensely on the enemy that this policy change would be a minimal distraction. By contrast, if we tried to repeal this policy during peacetime, it would likely be much more disruptive because there’s more idle time for it to become a distraction. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees. He’s quoted as saying, “War does not stifle change; it demands it. It does not make it harder; it facilitates it.”
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my dealings and talks with military personnel (past, present, and future), it’s that they are extremely mission-oriented and professional, so much so that they wouldn’t let something like sexual orientation interfere with unit cohesion. Many of them think of the person in the foxhole next to them as a brother/sister-in arms first and foremost, with no regard for stuff like race, gender, or sexual orientation. They just care about having that person’s back and whether that person will have their back.
This level of professionalism applies not only to how the straight people in the military would react, but also the homosexuals. It’s not as though there’s going to be a flamboyant coming-out party. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will probably still keep their sexual orientation to themselves. The Pentagon’s report showed that only 15% of those who identified (anonymously) as homosexual would have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit. Even if they’re open about it, homosexuals are generally very respectful of personal boundaries in my experience. If, hypothetically, one started hitting on someone, all that person has to do is say, “Thanks, but I’m straight,” or something to that effect and the message is usually clearly understood. No doubt, this would all be part of training that every person in the military would go through to minimize the impact should DADT be repealed.
Unit cohesion is often cited as a source of worry for opponents of repeal. I’m not too concerned about this, to be honest. All manner of non-military units function just fine with openly homosexual members, ranging from fire and police departments to sports teams to any sort of work crew (construction, design, accounting, legal, etc.). Why would the military be any different?
Opponents of repeal also claim that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would diminish the toughness of our military. They believe the military should resemble our enemy’s worst nightmare, and I agree. But, the current enemy is radical Islam, which is well known for its hatred and fear of homosexuals (non-radical Islam is often tolerant of homosexuality). I’d think homosexuals with guns would be one of their worst nightmares.
Opponents also worry about the repeal hurting recruitment. I don’t think it’ll have a big impact. Homosexuals already serve in the military and they always have, even if we don’t know who is and who isn’t among them. America has become more tolerant of homosexuality as time goes on. We’ve discharged ~13,000 people under DADT, and if we’ve got such a shortage that we’re allowing active gang members to serve, why not allow open homosexuals? Active gang members worry me much more than open homosexuals.
They have a lot to do, but I’m hopeful Congress will repeal DADT during this lame-duck session. I think the GOP is stalling until the new Congress since the Pentagon report didn’t confirm their position.
First, from a legal perspective, as far as I know, we’re not allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation anywhere else. Employers aren’t allowed to use sexual orientation in their hiring/firing decisions. There’s also the matter of the court’s ruling that the military must repeal the policy, citing the Constitution. I don’t want to spend too much time on legalities here, though.
The common counter is that the military is different, and it sure is a unique work environment, but its differences actually make it more conducive to a change in policy like this. Opponents of repealing the policy right now claim it would be a burdensome additional distraction on the military while it’s engaged in war. I’d argue that there’s no better time to implement such a change than during war because the individuals are focused so intensely on the enemy that this policy change would be a minimal distraction. By contrast, if we tried to repeal this policy during peacetime, it would likely be much more disruptive because there’s more idle time for it to become a distraction. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agrees. He’s quoted as saying, “War does not stifle change; it demands it. It does not make it harder; it facilitates it.”
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my dealings and talks with military personnel (past, present, and future), it’s that they are extremely mission-oriented and professional, so much so that they wouldn’t let something like sexual orientation interfere with unit cohesion. Many of them think of the person in the foxhole next to them as a brother/sister-in arms first and foremost, with no regard for stuff like race, gender, or sexual orientation. They just care about having that person’s back and whether that person will have their back.
This level of professionalism applies not only to how the straight people in the military would react, but also the homosexuals. It’s not as though there’s going to be a flamboyant coming-out party. Indeed, the overwhelming majority will probably still keep their sexual orientation to themselves. The Pentagon’s report showed that only 15% of those who identified (anonymously) as homosexual would have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit. Even if they’re open about it, homosexuals are generally very respectful of personal boundaries in my experience. If, hypothetically, one started hitting on someone, all that person has to do is say, “Thanks, but I’m straight,” or something to that effect and the message is usually clearly understood. No doubt, this would all be part of training that every person in the military would go through to minimize the impact should DADT be repealed.
Unit cohesion is often cited as a source of worry for opponents of repeal. I’m not too concerned about this, to be honest. All manner of non-military units function just fine with openly homosexual members, ranging from fire and police departments to sports teams to any sort of work crew (construction, design, accounting, legal, etc.). Why would the military be any different?
Opponents of repeal also claim that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would diminish the toughness of our military. They believe the military should resemble our enemy’s worst nightmare, and I agree. But, the current enemy is radical Islam, which is well known for its hatred and fear of homosexuals (non-radical Islam is often tolerant of homosexuality). I’d think homosexuals with guns would be one of their worst nightmares.
Opponents also worry about the repeal hurting recruitment. I don’t think it’ll have a big impact. Homosexuals already serve in the military and they always have, even if we don’t know who is and who isn’t among them. America has become more tolerant of homosexuality as time goes on. We’ve discharged ~13,000 people under DADT, and if we’ve got such a shortage that we’re allowing active gang members to serve, why not allow open homosexuals? Active gang members worry me much more than open homosexuals.
They have a lot to do, but I’m hopeful Congress will repeal DADT during this lame-duck session. I think the GOP is stalling until the new Congress since the Pentagon report didn’t confirm their position.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
A Look at the Economic, Social, and Political (ESP) Spectrums Part 1: An Introduction
When examining current events and such, we should look through three lenses, namely the economic, social, and political (ESP). This allows us to gain a greater understanding. Failing to look through all three can lead to an incomplete comprehension of an issue. In this article, I’d like to look at all three and how America fits in. This is an overview article and I intend to explore each in greater detail at a later date.
Let’s start with the social in Figure 1.
Note the barbell approach I’ve taken. In this context, pure freedom is the equilibrium. In theory, I suppose we could say pure freedom is anarchy, but for this column, we’re going to assume a government is in place. As we move to the left of the center, we see a secular government begin to encroach on the pure freedom, leading ultimately to a totalitarian secular government. Likewise, as we move right of center, we see a theocratic, religious-based government encroach on pure freedom.
The point is, as we move further left or right, freedom falls under attack. I deliberately structured the color scheme to show that the attacker of freedom is irrelevant. In this spectrum, I would put the USA in the semi-freedom realm. Whether we are secular or theocratic is outside the scope of this column. Also outside the scope of this column is my belief that the USA is the global champion of freedom, given that we have entities far to the left of us (China, Russia, North Korea, etc.) and far to the right of us (like Iran).
We now move onto the global political spectrum shown in Figure 2.
Again, we assume a government exists, thus no anarchy. The overlap between Figures 1 and 2 is not a coincidence. Our political structures are directly correlated to freedom and the social spectrum.
To narrow it down to what we see in the United States, we have Figure 3, which is the republic portion of Figure 2. Technically, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. The difference is mainly in the voting structure. In a democracy, all eligible voters vote on all matters, but in a republic, eligible voters elect representatives to vote on their behalf on most matters (save the occasional referendum). Both structures allow for a single executive branch to be elected. One can easily see how a true democracy is impractical. In Figure 3, we see darker red/blue as we get further away from the purple center (because red and blue make purple).
I’m not going to go into excruciating detail here. On the left, we would typically expect to see various classes of liberals like democrats, socialists, progressives, and communists. On the right, we would typically expect to see various classes of conservatives like republicans, libertarians, and social conservatives.
We don’t typically see a global economic spectrum, but I’d contend it looks like Figure 4.
Note the lack of partition and higher concentration of more solid colors in Figure 4 versus Figure 3. Also, note the absence of anything to the right of socialism shown in Figure 2. The reason is that these (republic, democracy, monarchy, theocracy, and fundamentalist) are generally considered more to be social and political structures than economic structures, and as such, these structures can, in theory, appear throughout the economic spectrum. So, we have free-market capitalist, socialist, and communist economic structures.
But Figure 4 is flawed. It creates a perception that if one is not a full-on free-market capitalist, one is a socialist or even a communist. This is why I’d like to change the economic spectrum in Figure 4 to look more like Figure 5.
As you can see, there is much less solid color and two new categories have emerged, namely capitalist and neutral. This distinction is necessary because it creates a new category, the capitalist, for people who believe the economy should mostly be left to its own devices, yet sometimes requires the government to act as a referee or a guide. Such people are often and unfairly demonized by free-market capitalists, socialists, and communists alike.
This was meant as an introductory look at the three spectrums. I plan to explore each in greater detail in future columns.
Let’s start with the social in Figure 1.
Note the barbell approach I’ve taken. In this context, pure freedom is the equilibrium. In theory, I suppose we could say pure freedom is anarchy, but for this column, we’re going to assume a government is in place. As we move to the left of the center, we see a secular government begin to encroach on the pure freedom, leading ultimately to a totalitarian secular government. Likewise, as we move right of center, we see a theocratic, religious-based government encroach on pure freedom.
The point is, as we move further left or right, freedom falls under attack. I deliberately structured the color scheme to show that the attacker of freedom is irrelevant. In this spectrum, I would put the USA in the semi-freedom realm. Whether we are secular or theocratic is outside the scope of this column. Also outside the scope of this column is my belief that the USA is the global champion of freedom, given that we have entities far to the left of us (China, Russia, North Korea, etc.) and far to the right of us (like Iran).
We now move onto the global political spectrum shown in Figure 2.
Again, we assume a government exists, thus no anarchy. The overlap between Figures 1 and 2 is not a coincidence. Our political structures are directly correlated to freedom and the social spectrum.
To narrow it down to what we see in the United States, we have Figure 3, which is the republic portion of Figure 2. Technically, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. The difference is mainly in the voting structure. In a democracy, all eligible voters vote on all matters, but in a republic, eligible voters elect representatives to vote on their behalf on most matters (save the occasional referendum). Both structures allow for a single executive branch to be elected. One can easily see how a true democracy is impractical. In Figure 3, we see darker red/blue as we get further away from the purple center (because red and blue make purple).
I’m not going to go into excruciating detail here. On the left, we would typically expect to see various classes of liberals like democrats, socialists, progressives, and communists. On the right, we would typically expect to see various classes of conservatives like republicans, libertarians, and social conservatives.
We don’t typically see a global economic spectrum, but I’d contend it looks like Figure 4.
Note the lack of partition and higher concentration of more solid colors in Figure 4 versus Figure 3. Also, note the absence of anything to the right of socialism shown in Figure 2. The reason is that these (republic, democracy, monarchy, theocracy, and fundamentalist) are generally considered more to be social and political structures than economic structures, and as such, these structures can, in theory, appear throughout the economic spectrum. So, we have free-market capitalist, socialist, and communist economic structures.
But Figure 4 is flawed. It creates a perception that if one is not a full-on free-market capitalist, one is a socialist or even a communist. This is why I’d like to change the economic spectrum in Figure 4 to look more like Figure 5.
As you can see, there is much less solid color and two new categories have emerged, namely capitalist and neutral. This distinction is necessary because it creates a new category, the capitalist, for people who believe the economy should mostly be left to its own devices, yet sometimes requires the government to act as a referee or a guide. Such people are often and unfairly demonized by free-market capitalists, socialists, and communists alike.
This was meant as an introductory look at the three spectrums. I plan to explore each in greater detail in future columns.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Rethinking Air Security and Law Enforcement – A Starting Point
Our current hodgepodge of airport security is a mess, and I’m being nice. First, let’s look at the big current story, namely the random body scans and searches. Then, let’s ponder alternatives.
We need strong security in our air system. 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks (or attempted attacks that have been thwarted) demonstrate this. The current choice of random body scans or searches is laughable. Provided a person has done nothing to arouse suspicion, it’s blatantly unconstitutional on many levels, most notably the 4th amendment, stating, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated […]”
If a person has done nothing to arouse any suspicion, why should that person be subjected to such draconian measures and how are that person’s 4th amendment rights not being violated? It’s entirely different if that person has somehow aroused a reasonable level of suspicion. Simply being a traveler or calling out constitutional rights does not pass this test. The current measures and methodology are unconstitutional for the unsuspicious. I think it’s also excessively costly and inconvenient, but I don’t really want to go into those here. Instead, I want to look at what could be done differently.
The problem with our current approach is if we’re waiting to stop attackers at the airport or relying on passengers to stop attackers on the plane, it’s too late. Don’t get me wrong, we still need vigilant security personnel and travelers at the airport and on planes. All travelers, even the unsuspicious, should still have to go through metal detectors, explosive detectors, bag x-rays (checked and carry-on), and security personnel should still be observing the crowd for suspicious behavior.
But, we need to be much more proactive at preventing attackers from even reaching the plane. How? We do that by screening passenger lists for red flags, doing background checks on travelers, and profiling. I know, it’s not politically correct to say that, but I’ll save my views on political correctness for another post. These three are interconnected. We need to make sure people who should be on no-fly lists are on them, and then we need to make sure that people who are on no-fly lists are actually being prevented from flying. This is accomplished through list screenings, background checks, and profiling.
I’ll probably be most critiqued for mentioning profiling, so I’ll defend that a bit. Profiling, if done properly, is legal and constitutional. One could even make an argument that the act of not profiling is unconstitutional, but I’m not willing to go that far. If we have credible data that suggests that certain demographics and/or individuals are a higher risk than others, why should we ignore that data? I’ll use two unrelated examples to support this.
First, hypothetically speaking, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, there is a major law on the books with significant negative consequences that has never been violated by a certain demographic and is most often violated by another demographic (99% of the time). Let’s also assume the data is properly and completely collected. In other words, there is no inherent bias of any kind. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for law enforcement, from the perspectives of resource allocation and efficiency, to focus their prevention and enforcement efforts of said law on those who are shown to be more likely to violate (or attempt to violate) said law? To clarify, that doesn’t mean they stop watching the former demographic (or all other demographics) for that law because there’s a first time for pretty much everything and the underlying factors contributing to the violation of that law could change. It also doesn’t mean they unfairly target or violate the rights of individuals in the latter demographic because it’s still a case-by-case thing and everyone is still innocent until proven guilty.
Second, let’s think about insurance companies for a minute. They collect and analyze data constantly attempting to assess their risk and subsequently charge premiums accordingly. Most people think it’s reasonable to charge a higher premium to assume higher risk. These assessments are based on general demographic data as well as the history of the applicant. Assuming no rights are violated, why should law enforcement be any different?
We need to rethink air security and law enforcement in general. This article was meant as a starting point based on a current issue.
We need strong security in our air system. 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks (or attempted attacks that have been thwarted) demonstrate this. The current choice of random body scans or searches is laughable. Provided a person has done nothing to arouse suspicion, it’s blatantly unconstitutional on many levels, most notably the 4th amendment, stating, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated […]”
If a person has done nothing to arouse any suspicion, why should that person be subjected to such draconian measures and how are that person’s 4th amendment rights not being violated? It’s entirely different if that person has somehow aroused a reasonable level of suspicion. Simply being a traveler or calling out constitutional rights does not pass this test. The current measures and methodology are unconstitutional for the unsuspicious. I think it’s also excessively costly and inconvenient, but I don’t really want to go into those here. Instead, I want to look at what could be done differently.
The problem with our current approach is if we’re waiting to stop attackers at the airport or relying on passengers to stop attackers on the plane, it’s too late. Don’t get me wrong, we still need vigilant security personnel and travelers at the airport and on planes. All travelers, even the unsuspicious, should still have to go through metal detectors, explosive detectors, bag x-rays (checked and carry-on), and security personnel should still be observing the crowd for suspicious behavior.
But, we need to be much more proactive at preventing attackers from even reaching the plane. How? We do that by screening passenger lists for red flags, doing background checks on travelers, and profiling. I know, it’s not politically correct to say that, but I’ll save my views on political correctness for another post. These three are interconnected. We need to make sure people who should be on no-fly lists are on them, and then we need to make sure that people who are on no-fly lists are actually being prevented from flying. This is accomplished through list screenings, background checks, and profiling.
I’ll probably be most critiqued for mentioning profiling, so I’ll defend that a bit. Profiling, if done properly, is legal and constitutional. One could even make an argument that the act of not profiling is unconstitutional, but I’m not willing to go that far. If we have credible data that suggests that certain demographics and/or individuals are a higher risk than others, why should we ignore that data? I’ll use two unrelated examples to support this.
First, hypothetically speaking, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, there is a major law on the books with significant negative consequences that has never been violated by a certain demographic and is most often violated by another demographic (99% of the time). Let’s also assume the data is properly and completely collected. In other words, there is no inherent bias of any kind. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for law enforcement, from the perspectives of resource allocation and efficiency, to focus their prevention and enforcement efforts of said law on those who are shown to be more likely to violate (or attempt to violate) said law? To clarify, that doesn’t mean they stop watching the former demographic (or all other demographics) for that law because there’s a first time for pretty much everything and the underlying factors contributing to the violation of that law could change. It also doesn’t mean they unfairly target or violate the rights of individuals in the latter demographic because it’s still a case-by-case thing and everyone is still innocent until proven guilty.
Second, let’s think about insurance companies for a minute. They collect and analyze data constantly attempting to assess their risk and subsequently charge premiums accordingly. Most people think it’s reasonable to charge a higher premium to assume higher risk. These assessments are based on general demographic data as well as the history of the applicant. Assuming no rights are violated, why should law enforcement be any different?
We need to rethink air security and law enforcement in general. This article was meant as a starting point based on a current issue.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Reframing the Gay Marriage Discussion
I had an enlightening discussion recently on gay marriage involving people running the spectrum on the issue. This revealed much about the current discussion and made me realize we have a failure to communicate. It’s also made me realize that if gay rights advocates want to make progress, they must reframe the discussion. The word ‘marriage’ is the big hang-up. It means different things to supporters and opponents. I see many supporters view it from a legal perspective while many opponents view it from a religious/lifestyle perspective.
First, let’s see the legal perspective. I’d argue that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states, “[…] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Marriage should be considered a privilege and has significant legal ramifications. Whether a man wants to marry a woman, a woman wants to marry a man, a man wants to marry another man, or a woman wants to marry another woman, we’ve got legally-consenting adult humans. Denying gay marriage is akin to denying two people from creating and signing a legally-binding contract.
Constitutionality aside, there are monumental legal differences between civil unions and marriages. Obviously, these vary from state to state, but there are two key general differences. First, civil unions often entail far fewer legal benefits than marriages. Second, the federal government makes states recognize each other’s marriage licenses even if laws conflict, but not necessarily civil unions. 16-year olds married legally in a state with a minimum age of 16 can go to a state where the minimum age is 18 and still have their marriage license recognized, but a civil union in one state may or may not be recognize by another state.
These differences are critical to the debate and few opponents of gay marriage appear to be aware of it. This is important because I often here no objection to equal legal rights from opponents of gay marriage. “I don’t have any problem with equal rights for gays, but I do have a problem with gay marriage,” or something like that, suggesting a communication disconnect.
When opponents hear the word ‘marriage’, they’re worried about an attack on the religious and lifestyle aspects of marriage. Some worry that if they support gay marriage, the government will intervene and force religious organizations against their will to marry gay people. This should not be viewed as a credible threat because it is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment and of the rights of religious organizations. It is also not what supporters want.
Another common worry is that gay marriage is an assault on straight marriage. One presumption here is that marriage as an institution is put in place to ensure the orderly upbringing of children. I challenge this because it misses two key points. First, though gay couples cannot procreate without help, they are still capable of adopting and being good parents. There are many kids in the adoption system who would take gay foster parents over no foster parents. Second, if children are marriage’s primary purpose, why are marriage licenses granted to those who cannot have kids and those who can have kids, but choose not to?
I believe opponents of gay marriage feel threatened. They feel as though their way of life is under attack. Many feel as though they would be somehow forced to accept homosexuality as normal or something to this effect. Gays are a minority in the USA, no doubt about it. But, remember that one of the founding principles of our great nation is that even though we respect the will of the majority, we cannot violate the rights of the minority in the process.
I recommend supporters refocus the discussion from one of gay marriage versus civil unions versus nothing to one of equal legal rights for gays. Simply stripping the word ‘marriage’ from the discussion and instead seeking ‘equal legal rights’, supporters will make much more progress. It will get them what they want and would help drain emotion from the discussion by helping those who support equal legal rights for gays, but oppose gay marriage, recognize that they truly are on the same page as the gay marriage advocates. This will lead to a consensus that should lead to equal legal rights for gays, which is the end goal.
First, let’s see the legal perspective. I’d argue that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states, “[…] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Marriage should be considered a privilege and has significant legal ramifications. Whether a man wants to marry a woman, a woman wants to marry a man, a man wants to marry another man, or a woman wants to marry another woman, we’ve got legally-consenting adult humans. Denying gay marriage is akin to denying two people from creating and signing a legally-binding contract.
Constitutionality aside, there are monumental legal differences between civil unions and marriages. Obviously, these vary from state to state, but there are two key general differences. First, civil unions often entail far fewer legal benefits than marriages. Second, the federal government makes states recognize each other’s marriage licenses even if laws conflict, but not necessarily civil unions. 16-year olds married legally in a state with a minimum age of 16 can go to a state where the minimum age is 18 and still have their marriage license recognized, but a civil union in one state may or may not be recognize by another state.
These differences are critical to the debate and few opponents of gay marriage appear to be aware of it. This is important because I often here no objection to equal legal rights from opponents of gay marriage. “I don’t have any problem with equal rights for gays, but I do have a problem with gay marriage,” or something like that, suggesting a communication disconnect.
When opponents hear the word ‘marriage’, they’re worried about an attack on the religious and lifestyle aspects of marriage. Some worry that if they support gay marriage, the government will intervene and force religious organizations against their will to marry gay people. This should not be viewed as a credible threat because it is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment and of the rights of religious organizations. It is also not what supporters want.
Another common worry is that gay marriage is an assault on straight marriage. One presumption here is that marriage as an institution is put in place to ensure the orderly upbringing of children. I challenge this because it misses two key points. First, though gay couples cannot procreate without help, they are still capable of adopting and being good parents. There are many kids in the adoption system who would take gay foster parents over no foster parents. Second, if children are marriage’s primary purpose, why are marriage licenses granted to those who cannot have kids and those who can have kids, but choose not to?
I believe opponents of gay marriage feel threatened. They feel as though their way of life is under attack. Many feel as though they would be somehow forced to accept homosexuality as normal or something to this effect. Gays are a minority in the USA, no doubt about it. But, remember that one of the founding principles of our great nation is that even though we respect the will of the majority, we cannot violate the rights of the minority in the process.
I recommend supporters refocus the discussion from one of gay marriage versus civil unions versus nothing to one of equal legal rights for gays. Simply stripping the word ‘marriage’ from the discussion and instead seeking ‘equal legal rights’, supporters will make much more progress. It will get them what they want and would help drain emotion from the discussion by helping those who support equal legal rights for gays, but oppose gay marriage, recognize that they truly are on the same page as the gay marriage advocates. This will lead to a consensus that should lead to equal legal rights for gays, which is the end goal.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Rallying to Restore Sanity and/or Fear Post-Rally
It's time for some follow-ups on the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear that I attended over the weekend in Washington DC.
The place was totally packed. It took us nearly two hours to get back to our hotel room from the rally, and we were only a half-dozen DC Metro stops away. It was wall-to-wall people as far as the eye could see. My crude calculations based on population density and populated area suggest there were over 150,000 people there. Don't believe me? Check out the aerials courtesy of http://www.geoeye.com/ . They clearly support my conclusion.
On the whole, it was a really fun time with a great message. There were lots of great costumes and signs throughout the crowd. Even though there was a clear liberal bias in the crowd and the participating organizations (indeed, I felt at times like the most right-wing person in the crowd, but that's ok), the rally's main message transcended partisan politics and was a call to refocus America on unity and solutions. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert put on a magnificent show in which reason triumphed over the forces of fear.
I just want to get this post out there to offer up some truth to counteract the interpretations that this rally was a failure. The rally permit was for 60,000 people and the rally easily drew twice that, perhaps even thrice. It raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the supported charities, namely the Trust for the National Mall and DonorsChoose.org. It gave the attendees a fun, peaceful gathering while the politicians were home fighting for their jobs and their supporters were out with them. Based on all that, I'm not sure how one can classify the rally as a failure.
I urge anyone who hasn't seen it to watch it, or at least try to find some video or some transcripts.
The place was totally packed. It took us nearly two hours to get back to our hotel room from the rally, and we were only a half-dozen DC Metro stops away. It was wall-to-wall people as far as the eye could see. My crude calculations based on population density and populated area suggest there were over 150,000 people there. Don't believe me? Check out the aerials courtesy of http://www.geoeye.com/ . They clearly support my conclusion.
On the whole, it was a really fun time with a great message. There were lots of great costumes and signs throughout the crowd. Even though there was a clear liberal bias in the crowd and the participating organizations (indeed, I felt at times like the most right-wing person in the crowd, but that's ok), the rally's main message transcended partisan politics and was a call to refocus America on unity and solutions. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert put on a magnificent show in which reason triumphed over the forces of fear.
I just want to get this post out there to offer up some truth to counteract the interpretations that this rally was a failure. The rally permit was for 60,000 people and the rally easily drew twice that, perhaps even thrice. It raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the supported charities, namely the Trust for the National Mall and DonorsChoose.org. It gave the attendees a fun, peaceful gathering while the politicians were home fighting for their jobs and their supporters were out with them. Based on all that, I'm not sure how one can classify the rally as a failure.
I urge anyone who hasn't seen it to watch it, or at least try to find some video or some transcripts.
Rallying to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
Note: I wrote this before the rally this past weekend and posted it on my stock blog. I'm reposting it here.
As we approach Election Day 2010, there will be rallies all throughout the nation. Some will rally for Republicans, some for Democrats, some for Tea Party and other Independent candidates. But, there is one rally that should unite us all, one that transcends all the fear-mongering, partisan bickering, venomous rhetoric, and unbridled rage that we have seen American political discourse become. Naturally, I refer to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, which will take place on Saturday, October 30th in Washington DC at the National Mall.
The Daily Show is a satirical news show on Comedy Central hosted by Jon Stewart. It’s meant to poke fun at news coverage and current events and is tailored after your evening national news. There’s also The Colbert Report, hosted by Stephen Colbert, which is a satirical take on news talk shows, likely tailored after Bill O’Reilly as Colbert claims. Knowing the rally is being put on by a pair of comedians, it’s very tempting to dismiss it, but please don’t make that mistake. They have a message.
The rally’s website, www.rallytorestoresanity.com, provides a great overview of who the rally is for and what it’s about. Two quotes sum it up nicely.
First is, “We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler.”
Next is, “Ours is a rally for the people who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) — not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority. If we had to sum up the political view of our participants in a single sentence… we couldn’t. That’s sort of the point.”
These two quotes pretty much say it all. These people make up the majority of the population. We run the political spectrum from right to center to left. We believe that the venomous political climate currently in the USA is highly counterproductive. We want to solve problems. The belief of the people attending this rally is that if the American people do not transcend partisanship, we cannot come together to solve the major problems our nation is facing. And, if there’s one thing we all probably agree on, it’s that the USA has problems that need fixing. I’ll spare you the long list. This is a rally for people who want to get away from partisanship and start actually solving our problems, who see something wrong with demonizing, insulting, and hating someone who disagrees with you, and who want to see sanity injected back into the American political dialogue.
I have two other points of note about the rally. First, you can also go to www.saneornot.com to see some of the signage that may or may not be present at the rally. There are some great signs there. Second, the rally is actively encouraging donations to the Trust for the National Mall. Further, all proceeds from merchandise sales will also be donated to that very same trust. As the name implies, the Trust is responsible for the upkeep of the National Mall. It’s where the monuments to some of our greatest leaders reside, and these need the funding for upkeep so future Americans can remember the greatness of these leaders.
This is a rally calling for the restoration of civility to American political discourse. It’s a call for a refocusing of our energies away from tearing each other down and back on rebuilding America. Every single American knows that we have the talent, work ethic, and determination to fix the ills that plague our nation. We just need to get ourselves recalibrated on combating our problems instead of each other.
If you attend, you also have the added benefit of being in Washington DC when all the politicians are away, many in desperate struggles to keep their jobs. There is no saner time to be in Washington DC than when the politicians are back home. I’ll be there. Will you?
As we approach Election Day 2010, there will be rallies all throughout the nation. Some will rally for Republicans, some for Democrats, some for Tea Party and other Independent candidates. But, there is one rally that should unite us all, one that transcends all the fear-mongering, partisan bickering, venomous rhetoric, and unbridled rage that we have seen American political discourse become. Naturally, I refer to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, which will take place on Saturday, October 30th in Washington DC at the National Mall.
The Daily Show is a satirical news show on Comedy Central hosted by Jon Stewart. It’s meant to poke fun at news coverage and current events and is tailored after your evening national news. There’s also The Colbert Report, hosted by Stephen Colbert, which is a satirical take on news talk shows, likely tailored after Bill O’Reilly as Colbert claims. Knowing the rally is being put on by a pair of comedians, it’s very tempting to dismiss it, but please don’t make that mistake. They have a message.
The rally’s website, www.rallytorestoresanity.com, provides a great overview of who the rally is for and what it’s about. Two quotes sum it up nicely.
First is, “We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it’s appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler.”
Next is, “Ours is a rally for the people who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) — not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority. If we had to sum up the political view of our participants in a single sentence… we couldn’t. That’s sort of the point.”
These two quotes pretty much say it all. These people make up the majority of the population. We run the political spectrum from right to center to left. We believe that the venomous political climate currently in the USA is highly counterproductive. We want to solve problems. The belief of the people attending this rally is that if the American people do not transcend partisanship, we cannot come together to solve the major problems our nation is facing. And, if there’s one thing we all probably agree on, it’s that the USA has problems that need fixing. I’ll spare you the long list. This is a rally for people who want to get away from partisanship and start actually solving our problems, who see something wrong with demonizing, insulting, and hating someone who disagrees with you, and who want to see sanity injected back into the American political dialogue.
I have two other points of note about the rally. First, you can also go to www.saneornot.com to see some of the signage that may or may not be present at the rally. There are some great signs there. Second, the rally is actively encouraging donations to the Trust for the National Mall. Further, all proceeds from merchandise sales will also be donated to that very same trust. As the name implies, the Trust is responsible for the upkeep of the National Mall. It’s where the monuments to some of our greatest leaders reside, and these need the funding for upkeep so future Americans can remember the greatness of these leaders.
This is a rally calling for the restoration of civility to American political discourse. It’s a call for a refocusing of our energies away from tearing each other down and back on rebuilding America. Every single American knows that we have the talent, work ethic, and determination to fix the ills that plague our nation. We just need to get ourselves recalibrated on combating our problems instead of each other.
If you attend, you also have the added benefit of being in Washington DC when all the politicians are away, many in desperate struggles to keep their jobs. There is no saner time to be in Washington DC than when the politicians are back home. I’ll be there. Will you?
Intro Post
I've decided to separate my opinion blogging from my stock blogging. I'm not sure how frequent the posts will be here, but I can tell you they'll be well-researched and reasoned. I'm an advocate for truth and civilized intellectual discourse. I believe these are largely absent in America today, mainly due to the media and the politicians themselves, and that it is possible to disagree with someone without demonizing and hating the person.
A quick overview of my political orientation. I peg myself as a moderate and an independent because I don't believe either party has all the answers. I'm also a pragmatist first, then an idealist. We have major problems in the USA that require unity and a focus on solutions, not ideology. Sometimes, I side with the left, sometimes the right, sometimes both, and sometimes neither.
A quick overview of my political orientation. I peg myself as a moderate and an independent because I don't believe either party has all the answers. I'm also a pragmatist first, then an idealist. We have major problems in the USA that require unity and a focus on solutions, not ideology. Sometimes, I side with the left, sometimes the right, sometimes both, and sometimes neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)