One of the things that concerns me is the degree to which we focus on what divides us rather than what unites us. A seemingly unrelated observations is that I think most everyone agrees that basically the Star Spangled Banner sucks.
We need a song. Our song. I've watched a lot of soccer. The Europeans sing. Liverpool & "You'll Never Walk Alone". I've watched the last night of proms (from the BBC) and seen (seemingly) the entire country of England - every man woman and child of them - singing "Jerusalem". Half of them probably can't carry a tune but there they are. Never occurs to them that they might somehow be too cool to join in with everyone else.
And ain't that part of it? Americans take pride in being unique and making their own decisions (even when they're really just conforming in their non-conformity), so wouldn't it just be uber-cool if we choose to all sing "our song" as one people united in one country?
But we're gonna need a better tune.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
a note on free speech / political speech
Just something to think about and factor in.
Certainly one has the right to speak. One may not have the right to every/specific means of speech (i.e., do we have a right to a full-page ad in the NY Times?). Doesn't one have the right to not have one's speech drown out by opponents?
Think about the most basic 'speech in the town square'. I certainly have a right to speak. I may (or may not) have a right to a turn at the microphone on the stage, but assuming this is a publicly financed event fundamental American sense of fairness suggests that I have that right. Similarly, I may not be protected against being shouted down by the crowd, but again some fundamental sense of fairness suggests that I ought to have at least some protections.
This protection of my access to speak and be heard my not be established in our founding/controlling documents, but it does seem it would be included within the 'American compact' - all equal, got each other's back.
Certainly one has the right to speak. One may not have the right to every/specific means of speech (i.e., do we have a right to a full-page ad in the NY Times?). Doesn't one have the right to not have one's speech drown out by opponents?
Think about the most basic 'speech in the town square'. I certainly have a right to speak. I may (or may not) have a right to a turn at the microphone on the stage, but assuming this is a publicly financed event fundamental American sense of fairness suggests that I have that right. Similarly, I may not be protected against being shouted down by the crowd, but again some fundamental sense of fairness suggests that I ought to have at least some protections.
This protection of my access to speak and be heard my not be established in our founding/controlling documents, but it does seem it would be included within the 'American compact' - all equal, got each other's back.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
sticks & stones
You know the old cliche. In some respects, it could be an excellent example of my form of 'compromise'.
You should be able to hurl the most vile and abusive insults at me, so long there is no physical contact or threat of the same. And if a 3rd person wishes to intervene on my behalf in any physical means, I should be counted on to defend my attacker. This is, I believe, a somewhat simplistic but instructive example of American ideals.
That said, I understand about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and about 'inciting speech' and 'fighting words'. (Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker.) Clearly some exceptions should apply, but the general rule should be very clear.
You should be able to hurl the most vile and abusive insults at me, so long there is no physical contact or threat of the same. And if a 3rd person wishes to intervene on my behalf in any physical means, I should be counted on to defend my attacker. This is, I believe, a somewhat simplistic but instructive example of American ideals.
That said, I understand about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and about 'inciting speech' and 'fighting words'. (Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker.) Clearly some exceptions should apply, but the general rule should be very clear.
divisions in society
I've mentioned before an alternative approach to political compromise - instead of meeting halfway on each & every aspect of an issue, each side gets their share of winning 100% of the individual aspects of a particular issue. So there are clearly some divisions in the country. What to do?
I guess I don't care if we become a Spanish speaking nation. Or ebonics (or whatever that's currently called). And maybe it's okay that groups seem to demonize each other; this seems almost to be human nature. So long as the individual knows s/he is secure and free to believe and speak (knowing that nothing's perfect and being 100% secure isn't going to happen) and that there's some agreement among all that that should be so, maybe that's the 'compromise' that needs to happen. Let the rest of it go.
Just so we hold onto what it means to be American and agree to keep that secure for each other. Living our American ideals may have the power to transcend language & race & religion & all the other things that would otherwise divide us.
I guess I don't care if we become a Spanish speaking nation. Or ebonics (or whatever that's currently called). And maybe it's okay that groups seem to demonize each other; this seems almost to be human nature. So long as the individual knows s/he is secure and free to believe and speak (knowing that nothing's perfect and being 100% secure isn't going to happen) and that there's some agreement among all that that should be so, maybe that's the 'compromise' that needs to happen. Let the rest of it go.
Just so we hold onto what it means to be American and agree to keep that secure for each other. Living our American ideals may have the power to transcend language & race & religion & all the other things that would otherwise divide us.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
one state, two state, red state, blue state
(okay, that was an inappropriately light title for a post on a serious topic. my bad.)
As with so many others, this is more ramblings than actual position. Maybe that excuses the title a little?
Israel. Palestine. What's a person to think?
First blush - does this have to be a unique question? Why is this somehow a 'special question" for the USA? If we're following the Jefferson admonition re foreign policy ("Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."), aren't we equally hands-off here? Is it even necessary to have a position?
If our 'foreign policy' (if that's what you'd call it) is to be non-involved, non-aligned, and choosing to lead by the example that we set (both in dealing with our neighbors and internally with our own citizens), then perhaps what we have to contribute is commitment to the rights of the individual. And the mutual pledge/bond of our citizens to each other to defend and protect even our most outlandish tinfoil hatters. If that commitment were to exist in the Middle East, would it matter if there was one state or two? It should never ever matter here if it's a red state or blue.
As with so many others, this is more ramblings than actual position. Maybe that excuses the title a little?
Israel. Palestine. What's a person to think?
First blush - does this have to be a unique question? Why is this somehow a 'special question" for the USA? If we're following the Jefferson admonition re foreign policy ("Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."), aren't we equally hands-off here? Is it even necessary to have a position?
If our 'foreign policy' (if that's what you'd call it) is to be non-involved, non-aligned, and choosing to lead by the example that we set (both in dealing with our neighbors and internally with our own citizens), then perhaps what we have to contribute is commitment to the rights of the individual. And the mutual pledge/bond of our citizens to each other to defend and protect even our most outlandish tinfoil hatters. If that commitment were to exist in the Middle East, would it matter if there was one state or two? It should never ever matter here if it's a red state or blue.
just a thought on immigration; may change my mind
Why not let them all in? But tag each & every one in some definitive manner. Anyone caught here without the 'tag' does not go back home, they go to prison for a year or two and then send them back. Anyone who's more than a minor nuisance or becomes chronically unproductive, send them back. If they're still here.. 10.. 15.. years later, allow them a means of naturalizing. This is (as so many things are in my mind) an individual thing; there's no tagging along because you're related. The USA isn't forcing you to split up your family, you are, you could always stay put.
Which reminds me, we may choose to let you all come here. But that doesn't mean you have any kind of 'right' to immigrate. In all likelihood, USA citizens can't simply move permanently into your country, what the hell makes you think you can simply walk into ours? And since your country is your country, I have no objection to you keeping us out if you want to. Accept that we've got the same right to pick & choose who we let in.
I have no trouble with this tagging/ID thing - they're not citizens, they accept our terms or they stay out. And if none are being denied entry, why refuse?
Most of them are what we saw during the peak migration years of the early 1900s - decent productive people with some ambition to better themselves. So why wouldn't we want them? The huge majority of the 'bad guys' are your routine crooks, thugs, and lay-abouts and you can pretty much count on them to blow it sometime during their 10 or 20 year wait and get their asses sent back where they came from. Yes, probably there will be a very very few really really bad people who could be part of a long-term sleeper cell situation, but they may prove easier to locate once they're inside this country than outside. And sadly, no matter what you do, you won't find 100% anyway.
Now the big downside of all this is jobs for current citizens. The unfortunate truth is that our fellow citizens are already competing against these potential immigrants; it's probably to our advantage that they're here working for $7.25 minimum wage rather than there in their native country working for $1.50. And the still harsher truth - we would be getting their best, brightest, most ambitious, most motivated which makes them better for our country in the long term than the citizens they might displace. And I certainly hope we'd have provisions for citizens displaced from their work (although that is certainly a whole other issue).
edit: I see this is pretty damn close to my previous note on this topic. I guess I'm getting pretty close to a position.
Which reminds me, we may choose to let you all come here. But that doesn't mean you have any kind of 'right' to immigrate. In all likelihood, USA citizens can't simply move permanently into your country, what the hell makes you think you can simply walk into ours? And since your country is your country, I have no objection to you keeping us out if you want to. Accept that we've got the same right to pick & choose who we let in.
I have no trouble with this tagging/ID thing - they're not citizens, they accept our terms or they stay out. And if none are being denied entry, why refuse?
Most of them are what we saw during the peak migration years of the early 1900s - decent productive people with some ambition to better themselves. So why wouldn't we want them? The huge majority of the 'bad guys' are your routine crooks, thugs, and lay-abouts and you can pretty much count on them to blow it sometime during their 10 or 20 year wait and get their asses sent back where they came from. Yes, probably there will be a very very few really really bad people who could be part of a long-term sleeper cell situation, but they may prove easier to locate once they're inside this country than outside. And sadly, no matter what you do, you won't find 100% anyway.
Now the big downside of all this is jobs for current citizens. The unfortunate truth is that our fellow citizens are already competing against these potential immigrants; it's probably to our advantage that they're here working for $7.25 minimum wage rather than there in their native country working for $1.50. And the still harsher truth - we would be getting their best, brightest, most ambitious, most motivated which makes them better for our country in the long term than the citizens they might displace. And I certainly hope we'd have provisions for citizens displaced from their work (although that is certainly a whole other issue).
edit: I see this is pretty damn close to my previous note on this topic. I guess I'm getting pretty close to a position.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
domain name selected?
The pre-campaign version of the website (maybe, hopefully, the permanent version?). Where the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street meet.
Yes, it's come to this. The majority in this country who aren't politically engaged, aren't politically polarized, but are politically marginalized and often exploited, that majority must become downright militant in order to get commonsense things actually accomplished. The two "tribes" that have so wrecked our politics have to go. In their place, independent citizen legislators not subject to the party whips and empowered to get the job done.
OR
Face it, Americans are mostly "live & let live". As a whole, we're pretty damn tolerant. Period. Maybe it's not that we're exactly what you'd call "enlightened". Maybe it's just that basically we just can't be bothered with what other folks are doing under their own roofs. Doesn't much matter why though. It works out to the same thing.
Of course that doesn't mean we're going to like our crazier neighbors and their lifestyles. And we sure as hell are going to get mad if we're lectured about how we should respect and embrace the way they've chosen to live. But so long as, at the end of the day, we know in our hearts that we all share the same belief in self-determination and individual personal liberties and that we've got each others backs if anyone tries to deny those rights, then it's going to be okay.
Yes, it's come to this. The majority in this country who aren't politically engaged, aren't politically polarized, but are politically marginalized and often exploited, that majority must become downright militant in order to get commonsense things actually accomplished. The two "tribes" that have so wrecked our politics have to go. In their place, independent citizen legislators not subject to the party whips and empowered to get the job done.
OR
Face it, Americans are mostly "live & let live". As a whole, we're pretty damn tolerant. Period. Maybe it's not that we're exactly what you'd call "enlightened". Maybe it's just that basically we just can't be bothered with what other folks are doing under their own roofs. Doesn't much matter why though. It works out to the same thing.
Of course that doesn't mean we're going to like our crazier neighbors and their lifestyles. And we sure as hell are going to get mad if we're lectured about how we should respect and embrace the way they've chosen to live. But so long as, at the end of the day, we know in our hearts that we all share the same belief in self-determination and individual personal liberties and that we've got each others backs if anyone tries to deny those rights, then it's going to be okay.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
SCOTUS & the VRA
Initial thoughts at least vaguely inspired by today's decision to keep sec 5 (pre-clearance) but invalidate sec 4 (who's subject to pre-clearance).
It's without doubt that a lot has improved in nearly 50 years. It's without doubt that there is still racism out there; prejudice will likely always exist (not that that makes it okay). These things should be acknowledged, but they're not central to what I'm focused on right now.
It seems to me that "tilting" election laws for racial reasons is pretty well on its last legs. The generations that experienced a time when it was perfectly acceptable to express clearly racist opinions are aging rapidly now and will soon be dead or consigned to old fogey-dom.
Election law tinkering is very real, but it's pretty exclusively done for partisan political advantage. That set of motivations may have disparate racial impacts, but that's not the primary intent. The intent is to keep "our guys" in office rather than "their guys". But you know what? It's still wrong to "game" the system even if your motives are less despicable.
It's without doubt that a lot has improved in nearly 50 years. It's without doubt that there is still racism out there; prejudice will likely always exist (not that that makes it okay). These things should be acknowledged, but they're not central to what I'm focused on right now.
It seems to me that "tilting" election laws for racial reasons is pretty well on its last legs. The generations that experienced a time when it was perfectly acceptable to express clearly racist opinions are aging rapidly now and will soon be dead or consigned to old fogey-dom.
Election law tinkering is very real, but it's pretty exclusively done for partisan political advantage. That set of motivations may have disparate racial impacts, but that's not the primary intent. The intent is to keep "our guys" in office rather than "their guys". But you know what? It's still wrong to "game" the system even if your motives are less despicable.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
SCOTUS nominations
Confirmation battles have sometimes been monumental. Some nominations never even get to a vote. What options would a non-major POTUS have? Why not both "advise" and "consent"?
What I'm thinking is to put it in the laps of the Senate leadership. Produce a list of 10 that both the majority leader and the minority leader will sign off that they will bring to a vote and confirm. POTUS picks any one of the 10. They advise, POTUS decides, they consent. If they dither and fail to produce a list, bash them both regularly & repeatedly over the head (politically this plays so wonderfully into the narrative that the two parties are non-functional), then ultimately do it the old fashioned way (for which you have at least bought additional time for vetting).
What I'm thinking is to put it in the laps of the Senate leadership. Produce a list of 10 that both the majority leader and the minority leader will sign off that they will bring to a vote and confirm. POTUS picks any one of the 10. They advise, POTUS decides, they consent. If they dither and fail to produce a list, bash them both regularly & repeatedly over the head (politically this plays so wonderfully into the narrative that the two parties are non-functional), then ultimately do it the old fashioned way (for which you have at least bought additional time for vetting).
Friday, June 7, 2013
once again, parking some thoughts
If there were to be an [I] campaign in '20, if it failed (or succeeded), what would be the legacy? How could it be made to impact the legis branch? Advocate for L & G house & senate candidates. Their debate is the real debate.
Americans are generally socially tolerant. Gs & Ls agree on that as well. Abandon the R and D divisions over social policy.
Americans are coming around on the drug war (and might increasingly do so if it's end were tied to paying for things we want) and actual wars and military involvement. The Ls & Gs agree and could highlight the important discussion of how best to utilize those savings.
Americans don't want corporate rule. Neither do the Gs and (perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree) neither do the Ls.
Identify and emphasize as many areas as possible where Ls = Gs = most Americans. Contrast that to the petty R / D rifts.
Americans are generally socially tolerant. Gs & Ls agree on that as well. Abandon the R and D divisions over social policy.
Americans are coming around on the drug war (and might increasingly do so if it's end were tied to paying for things we want) and actual wars and military involvement. The Ls & Gs agree and could highlight the important discussion of how best to utilize those savings.
Americans don't want corporate rule. Neither do the Gs and (perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree) neither do the Ls.
Identify and emphasize as many areas as possible where Ls = Gs = most Americans. Contrast that to the petty R / D rifts.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
park temporarily
can't delegate your vote, can't delegate your volunteer work, can't delegate where your contribution money goes. (this could be part of state rep in '16). This is consistent with the theme of compromise by giving (some) of everything to each side: you can't have PACs bundle money (see some rationale/benefits following) but in return, all contribution limits come off, you simply have to do so in public.
Consistent with the idea that chamber rules tend to emasculate the individual legislator, further diminishing the individual legislator and his personal cohort of supporters/donors is the PAC (be it the common interest PAC or the leadership PAC). Your industry group or your political leader is free to advocate for individual voters to financially support specific candidates, but they can't actually do it for you.
stump speech start: Thank you for inviting me here to speak with you this evening. My name is Xxxx Xxxxxxx and I intend to be your US Senator.
Already I'm sure many of you are thinking some variation of either "Who the hell is he?" or "Why would he want to do a darn fool thing like that?". I'm going to try to answer those two questions.
To start off, I have to give credit to my high school sophomore year World Cultures teacher, Miss Couvert. I was in her class during the late 60s, very much during the Cold War. Even so, Miss Couvert got me thinking about Russians. Not the communist leadership. I'm talking about the everyday man-on-the-street Russian. The one who had to stand in line for groceries and when she got to the front of the line she just wanted bread. It didn't matter to her if it was wheat or rye, she was just glad if after he long wait in line they had any bread at all. In contrast, I knew I could go to the store with my mom and there'd be 6 or 8 choices of different breads from different bakers. Thinking this over, I was pretty sure the average Russian was mostly concerned about the quality of his own life. He didn't think about me any more than I thought about him. I recall feeling sorry for the average Ivan who had a grim life and an overbearing government that wasn't delivering for him. Which just made me that much angrier about the damn communists in charge.
Now I'm a lot older and Miss Couvert is probably retired. American and Russian grocery shelves have a lot more choices than many of us can afford. Instead of 3 or 4 TV channels to choose from there are hundreds available in both countries. And I doubt I could count how many different sources we can go to for our news.
(pretty happy w/ above; below still needs lots of work)
I want to work towards how much better lots of choices works to provide us what we want. Yet despite that, when we have limited choices we sometimes cling to them fanatically (see sports). These two combine in politics - limited choices are sub-optimal yet we're fanatical about our "side". Maybe get in a dig about "our crook" and "cute hoors"? Working then round to how our limited choices are reinforced by out policial rules, not so much the ones that directly impact us, the ones that emasculate the elected. Heard towards proposals.
I also need to work towards the point expressed here.
(End of notes; poorly worded draft continues below)
It's interesting how we react to the number of choices presented to us. If I'm interested in the music of Bach and I look online, among the millions of sites there are many places to buy his music, places to discuss his music, places to listen to this music. If I look on TV, my choices are counted in hundreds and I doubt I could find a Bach channel but certainly there are classical music channels that sometimes play Bach.
Consistent with the idea that chamber rules tend to emasculate the individual legislator, further diminishing the individual legislator and his personal cohort of supporters/donors is the PAC (be it the common interest PAC or the leadership PAC). Your industry group or your political leader is free to advocate for individual voters to financially support specific candidates, but they can't actually do it for you.
stump speech start: Thank you for inviting me here to speak with you this evening. My name is Xxxx Xxxxxxx and I intend to be your US Senator.
Already I'm sure many of you are thinking some variation of either "Who the hell is he?" or "Why would he want to do a darn fool thing like that?". I'm going to try to answer those two questions.
To start off, I have to give credit to my high school sophomore year World Cultures teacher, Miss Couvert. I was in her class during the late 60s, very much during the Cold War. Even so, Miss Couvert got me thinking about Russians. Not the communist leadership. I'm talking about the everyday man-on-the-street Russian. The one who had to stand in line for groceries and when she got to the front of the line she just wanted bread. It didn't matter to her if it was wheat or rye, she was just glad if after he long wait in line they had any bread at all. In contrast, I knew I could go to the store with my mom and there'd be 6 or 8 choices of different breads from different bakers. Thinking this over, I was pretty sure the average Russian was mostly concerned about the quality of his own life. He didn't think about me any more than I thought about him. I recall feeling sorry for the average Ivan who had a grim life and an overbearing government that wasn't delivering for him. Which just made me that much angrier about the damn communists in charge.
Now I'm a lot older and Miss Couvert is probably retired. American and Russian grocery shelves have a lot more choices than many of us can afford. Instead of 3 or 4 TV channels to choose from there are hundreds available in both countries. And I doubt I could count how many different sources we can go to for our news.
(pretty happy w/ above; below still needs lots of work)
I want to work towards how much better lots of choices works to provide us what we want. Yet despite that, when we have limited choices we sometimes cling to them fanatically (see sports). These two combine in politics - limited choices are sub-optimal yet we're fanatical about our "side". Maybe get in a dig about "our crook" and "cute hoors"? Working then round to how our limited choices are reinforced by out policial rules, not so much the ones that directly impact us, the ones that emasculate the elected. Heard towards proposals.
I also need to work towards the point expressed here.
(End of notes; poorly worded draft continues below)
It's interesting how we react to the number of choices presented to us. If I'm interested in the music of Bach and I look online, among the millions of sites there are many places to buy his music, places to discuss his music, places to listen to this music. If I look on TV, my choices are counted in hundreds and I doubt I could find a Bach channel but certainly there are classical music channels that sometimes play Bach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)