Counterbias: The End of Personal Responsibility

In Counterbias: The End of Personal Responsibility, the author, one Susan Shafer, makes a very nice, and somewhat satirical, plea for the restoration of personal responsibility.  I agree, fully and whole heartedly, with her viewpoints here, although I’m not on her side of the political spectrum.

I also think she missed the boat on one thing concerning public schools, although I concede that, as elementary school librarian, she’s much closer to the problem than I.  Her statements around government controlling what is taught make it seem as if this is some future possibility, rather than a present fact.  Ask any kid in high school history class what the cause of the War Between the States was, and he’ll say, “What?” until you explain to him that you mean the “Civil War”, then he’ll say, “Oh, OK.  Slavery, dude.”  Ask him who the 15th or the 17th President was, and he’ll answer “Who?  Uh, Kennedy?”, but he’ll be able to name the Great Emancipator and recite anecdotes ad nauseum.  Ask him what the 9th or 10th Amendments to the Constitution are, and he’ll look puzzled, but he’ll know tha the 1st gives you freedom of speech at least (maybe religion and the press as well, but it’s doubtful he’ll know about assembly or redress of greivances).  Now I ask you, if the government isn’t running the government-run schools and controlling the curriculum, who is?

Correction to previous story

I received a comment on one of my entries (I’m not sure what I’m more happy about - the new information, or the fact that someone other than me reads this bloody thing), correcting my presumption that the Founding Fathers were all Christian.  In point of fact, not of all them were – the commenter was good enough to forward a link from the Quartz Hill School of Theology that explains and supports the religious thinkings of our Founding Fathers.  While it appears the School is very Christian in it’s doctrine and offerings, the article above is refreshingly open and forthright.  I also appreciated the section about the separation of Church and State with supporting quotes from various founding fathers.

My thanks to Colin J. who took the time to correct me and provide supporting documentation.

Be afraid - be very VERY afraid

In a recent story in the Pacific Northwest Medical Journal, titled Curing Obesity through Sterility: California 's Controversial Program Under the Microscope, I discovered a program implemented by the State of California (also called the Republic of California, which I refer to as the People’s Republic of California) which, in one sweep of a pen, could become this countries first mandatory eugenics program.  (I was unable to find a corroborating link for the San Francisco or the California program, or any web references to the state’s Committee for Exploratory Medicine).

While the current program is voluntary, it is scary – begun in San Francisco, this program offers state funded vasectomies to men diagnosed as being clinically obese.  The reason is rather simply stated in the second paragraph above – to eliminate the genetics of people deemed inferior to the defined norm.

Get that?  California is saying that if you are genetically inferior to some defined norm, they’ll pay for you to remove yourself from the available gene pool.  Other countries have enacted state funded sterilization in order to prevent overpopulation

Knowing the fact that California is anecdotally the most progressive state in the union, how long will it be before “voluntary” becomes “highly recommended” to “required” for certain cases?  How many other genetic differences will California add to the list?  Anti-social?  Homosexual?  Brown eyes?  I see this as the first step in a eugenics program funded by taxpayers to weed out undesirable elements – the next step would be to add incentives for people with desirable genetics to breed like bunnies.  Ever see “Gattaca”?  This is where California is headed.

This is now reason number one why I will never, ever, live in California, and another reason to never ever visit either.

Constitution Restoration? Or just Christian Fundamentalism?

Check out the Constitution Reform Act (H.R. text here, the Conservative Caucus page on it here), and tell me what you think.

I think it sucks.  I hate laws, even laws that make sense to implement.  But you need some more viable reasons.

First, it tries to enforce via law the myth that:

1. God exists, and
2. All our freedom comes from him

Aside from the fact that I am an atheist, I do believe in Natural Law – i.e. there is an absolute right way to live, and that includes my absolute freedom to do as I please.  I don’t believe it was handed down from some anthropomorphic Zeus impersonator, but is a natural offshoot of my intelligence and evolution – I think, therefore I am and all that.  However, I don’t think this is legislatable – it’s a personal choice, a philosophy of life, much like someone else’s choice of god, religion, church, and morality.  It cannot, should not, and if I have any say, will not be codified in some half-witted set of words that defies further scrutiny,

Second, it tries to limit the interpretation of our laws by banning the use of foreign sources when judges write their decisions.  At best, this will mean that judges (who don’t live in cocoons) will simply write their decisions so as to appear capricious (rather than citing a U.N. resolution to support their stance).  At worst, we’ll move closer to a fully politicized and activist Supreme Court, more interested in figuring out what the legislature wanted to do rather than saying what they can’t do.

Third, it doesn’t restore a damned thing.  In fact, one can argue (but not if it passes), that it actually violates the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment (by recognizing the existance of God, you have a de facto state religion, loosely based on Judeo-Christian origins).  Now, I know my history - the Founding Fathers were all Christian to a man, various flavors of Protestantism.  Our government was founded by these men with their 18th Century Christian principles laced through the documents that form this country.  Our country has wavered from these principles time and time again - the Conservative Coalition would have you believe that gay marraige is the primary sign of the End Times, and the biggest wavering from our Constitutional principles there ever was.  They are, of course, wrong – events such as the Whiskey Rebellion, the War Between the States, Income tax, welfare, social security, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror are all more heinous and serious breaches of our Constitutional government than gay marriage could ever be.

If you’re Congressman is on the list of sponsors or co-sponsors, write to him and tell him that government should stay out of your, my, and everyone else’s personal life, and that his personal life should stay out of his job.

Constitution Restoration? Or just Christian Fundamentalism?

Check out the Constitution Reform Act (H.R. text here, the Conservative Caucus page on it here), and tell me what you think.

I think it sucks.  I hate laws, even laws that make sense to implement.  But you need some more viable reasons.

First, it tries to enforce via law the myth that:

1. God exists, and
2. All our freedom comes from him

Aside from the fact that I am an atheist, I do believe in Natural Law – i.e. there is an absolute right way to live, and that includes my absolute freedom to do as I please.  I don’t believe it was handed down from some anthropomorphic Zeus impersonator, but is a natural offshoot of my intelligence and evolution – I think, therefore I am and all that.  However, I don’t think this is legislatable – it’s a personal choice, a philosophy of life, much like someone else’s choice of god, religion, church, and morality.  It cannot, should not, and if I have any say, will not be codified in some half-witted set of words that defies further scrutiny,

Second, it tries to limit the interpretation of our laws by banning the use of foreign sources when judges write their decisions.  At best, this will mean that judges (who don’t live in cocoons) will simply write their decisions so as to appear capricious (rather than citing a U.N. resolution to support their stance).  At worst, we’ll move closer to a fully politicized and activist Supreme Court, more interested in figuring out what the legislature wanted to do rather than saying what they can’t do.

Third, it doesn’t restore a damned thing.  In fact, one can argue (but not if it passes), that it actually violates the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment (by recognizing the existance of God, you have a de facto state religion, loosely based on Judeo-Christian origins).  Now, I know my history - the Founding Fathers were all Christian to a man, various flavors of Protestantism.  Our government was founded by these men with their 18th Century Christian principles laced through the documents that form this country.  Our country has wavered from these principles time and time again - the Conservative Coalition would have you believe that gay marraige is the primary sign of the End Times, and the biggest wavering from our Constitutional principles there ever was.  They are, of course, wrong – events such as the Whiskey Rebellion, the War Between the States, Income tax, welfare, social security, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror are all more heinous and serious breaches of our Constitutional government than gay marriage could ever be.

If you’re Congressman is on the list of sponsors or co-sponsors, write to him and tell him that government should stay out of your, my, and everyone else’s personal life, and that his personal life should stay out of his job.

Pull the plug on pandering

Molly Ivins on the Terry Schiavo case – I’ve been watching this, and I have nothing to add.  You all know how I feel about big government sticking it’s nose outside the narrow confines of the Constitution – Molly says it better than I could anyway.

WorkingForChange-Pull the plug on pandering

Warning: This blog may be illegal

Especially if McCain and Feingold have their way.  According to a recent story on CNet (faithfully forwarded to me by the Advocates for Liberty), the Internet exemption on political speech around election time may become illegal.  That means blogs, e-mail, home pages – anything on the Internet that connects you to a candidate or party – may become illegal under the auspices of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

You may remember when this law was passed, there was an outcry about it’s effects on the First Amendment – you know, that little part of the Constitution that says, among other things, that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech – not only in the world, but on this blog when the Supreme Court upheld it.  This is why – government is now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, not just ignoring the First Amendment, but actively working to do away with it, just as they have with the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth.

Oh, recognized journalists still have their exemption, as long as it’s broadcast or some sort of periodical (magazine, newspaper, etc) – amateur grassroots editorial journalists like most politically motivated bloggers aren’t in that club, and no one quite knows how to categorize a randomly updated blog.  Guess we need some sort of ID that tells the government we’re journalists and should be exempt.  If so, I’ll keep mine in my wallet next to my firearm owner’s permit, Social Security card, and that empty spot reserved for my Freedom of Religion registration card.

On a serious noite – how bad does it have to get, people, before we decide enough is bloody enough?  Our Founding Fathers went to war over less than this in the 18th century.  Someone once said that there are four boxes used in defense of liberty – soap, ballot, jury, ammo.  Use in that order.  As I mentioned before: this blog is my soap box, our votes are ignored, and the Courts have nullified juries across this country.  What do we have left?

This is why I don't read/listen to mainstream news

Read this story, then ask yourself these questions:

1. Why did the boy have a gun in his backpack?
2. Why was the boy bringing the gun to school?
3. Why would all Columbus schools cancel classes because of one episode at one grade school?
4. What actions did the police take with the mother?
5. Why did the reporter not think to ask these questions?
6. Who thought it was a good idea to report Ms. Kim Bell’s thoughts, despite the fact her comment is patently false?  (read the quote: “It’s not a school a kid would bring a gun to,” is foolish, ignorant, and asinine, since a kid brought a gun to the school despite her inane assertion.)

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – mainstream broadcast news is either so far out of touch with reality their reports are useless, or biased so far to the left or right (unconsciously or not) they alienate two thirds of the population with every syllable.  Do your own news research – get a good RSS reader (like KlipFolio, which I use), or a good search engine (I use Google News Search in KlipFolio), and find the news that matters to you.

ABC News: Boy Injured When Gun Goes Off at School

Collaborative Republicanism for the Masses

Interesting comments from a Repbulican blog – problem is, he’s associating Ownership with Republican values, when in fact, he’s co-opting long-standing libertarian values because they coincide with his own at this point.  I wonder if the author would continue to espouse a libertarian viewpoint when it comes to the Patriot Act (and all it’s ramifications), the Drug War, abortion, taxation, etc.  Somehow I doubt it, but I only read a few postings on this blog.

Redstate || Collaborative Republicanism for the Masses

Victims Sue Thailand, U.S., Accor Over Tsunami

OK, enough is fucking enough – suing because you didn’t get warning of a natural disaster?  Give me a fucking break!  And to top it off, not only are they suing the U.S. (deep pockets), but also Thailand because they didn’t warn Sri Lanka.  Tell me something – if a mugger just beat you up and robbed you, would you be liable if you didn’t yell down the street at the next victim?

I lump these morons in with James Sokolove, professional ambulance chaser – you’ve seen his TV commercials, trying to solicit business and get his 33% take for asbestos victims, Vioxx victims, or whatever other hot button has some dollars signs next to it.  They’re claim of “justice” is ill sounded when, in fact, money is the prime mover in Sokolove’s little love triangle.  Who is responsible for your life?  Ask Sokolove, and it’s anyone with deeper pockets than you.

Wired News | Victims Sue Thailand, U.S., Accor Over Tsunami

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: The End of American Exceptionalism by Mac Johnson

Another opinion (rather sardonic, which I like immensely), basically calling the recent Supreme Court decision one leg in the race towards a Mediocracy.

My opinion?  The Supreme Court is a court concerned with the laws of the United States, not Europe, the U.N., Africa, or the rest of bloody world.  How can I as an American voter influence the laws in Europe that are influencing my laws?  Short of becoming a mercenary, I know of no way to do so.

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: The End of American Exceptionalism by Mac Johnson

 

Supreme Court - out of control?

For once, I find myself agreeing with George Will, although that doesn’t happen very often.  I especially like his opinion (mine as well, and at least one other person’s) that what happens in the world has no bearing on how we run our own country.

Concord Monitor Online