Today’s New York Times editorializes on the US Army’s declining lack of standards. Not only has the military lowered its educational and aptitude expectations, but it has been forced by its need for troops to grant “moral waivers” to individuals with criminal records. Soldiers with more serious convictions present a real danger to their fellows and to Iraqis, yet the Army accepts them because multiple and extended tours of duty in Iraq – coupled with the self-defeating nature of American involvement – have hurt recruiting badly.
One solution to improve standards would be to reinstate the draft. The public is generally opposed, and Congress would be unlikely to authorize its use. Besides, the best qualified are usually able to get deferments for college study or other reasons.
Our current Administration is given to unlawful and unauthorized acts which it shamelessly commits while lying about them and covering them up. So I propose that President Bush reinstitute the time-honored British tradition of “press gangs” which were used as an important staffing tool for the Royal Navy. Men of “sea-faring habits” who knew their way around a ship were “impressed” to work on warships.
Press gangs would suddenly swoop down on an area or on merchant ships and grab likely-looking lads and whisk them off to British ships. The Bush Administration could find excellent and able Army candidates by sending press gangs to, say, Ivy League college dorms, technical college classrooms, rich suburbs and gated communities, millionaires’ mansions, perhaps even the homes of Democratic members of Congress.
Ordinarily, I am opposed to abrogating individual liberties, but we all know that the need to fight the “war on terror” and our nasty skirmishes in the Middle East requires us to give up some of our Constitutional freedoms. Or so at least say the CRABs who are running this country.
Besides, impressment of this sort would not only improve the intellectual and moral quality of our military, but have another major positive effect. Hauling off the children of the rich and educated would ensure that we start fewer unnecessary and unjustifiable wars and that we would manage to “exit” them much more quickly! Now who could oppose that?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Banning Public Smoking in Wisconsin
When Madison (and other Wisconsin municipalities) established smoking bans in all indoor public places, one principal argument against a ban was that it should be statewide so as not to disadvantage businesses in one city. So Governor Doyle in his biennial budget bill has obliged by proposing just such a ban.
Smoking bans are becoming more popular by the day. Health advocates and public officials were hard put to justify them at first because smoking is legal and voluntary. Then health officials estimated that secondhand smoke contributed to at least 35,000 deaths annually from heart disease – about 1.5% of deaths. Chances are that many, if not most, of these deaths occur among people who live with heavy smokers.
Nevertheless, these estimates have been used to justify comprehensive smoking bans. As one research study concluded: “The only safe way to protect non-smokers from exposure to cigarette smoke is to eliminate this health hazard from public places and workplaces through efficient legislation.”
A huge disconnect exists between health advocates and the general public on the justification for smoke bans. The public approves of smoke bans because about 75% of people don’t smoke and object to the petty annoyances of smoking. Nonsmokers particularly hate the smell of smoke on their skin, clothes, and hair. They enjoy being able to work, eat, and recreate without the filth and stink of smoke and the dirt of butts and ashtrays. Health concerns come a poor second to these considerations.
Caught between the hammer of health advocates and popular hatred of smoke, smokers have found the march to create comprehensive bans unstoppable. So I have little doubt that Governor Doyle’s proposal to institute a statewide ban will prevail.
I do hope tho that reason and concern for individual liberty will prevail to the point of allowing smoking in bars. Let’s face it: bars are places for people to enjoy their vices. They drink in excess, they get into stupid arguments and even scuffles, they pick up strangers with whom to exchange bodily fluids and STDs, and so on. Why not let them smoke too? No one needs to go to or work in a bar who doesn’t really want to.
One claim made is that secondhand smoke hurts innocents while other addictions don't. Yet drunks driving home from bars undoubtedly cause more deaths and injuries than smokers in those same bars. And alcoholism tears families apart with thru irresponsibility, spousal abuse, and child physical and sexual abuse.
I don't understand the need to impose the ban on bars to the disadvantage of smokers. Smoking is a legal activity, after all. And to focus on the health effects of smoking in venues where the incredible negative health and social effects of alcohol are tolerated is just plain nonsensical. We need to focus more on a libertarian view of what democracy is about and to stop telling everyone we know what’s best for them and will keep them from harming themselves.
For other Wisconsin politics, see Eliminating the Frankenstein Veto.
Smoking bans are becoming more popular by the day. Health advocates and public officials were hard put to justify them at first because smoking is legal and voluntary. Then health officials estimated that secondhand smoke contributed to at least 35,000 deaths annually from heart disease – about 1.5% of deaths. Chances are that many, if not most, of these deaths occur among people who live with heavy smokers.
Nevertheless, these estimates have been used to justify comprehensive smoking bans. As one research study concluded: “The only safe way to protect non-smokers from exposure to cigarette smoke is to eliminate this health hazard from public places and workplaces through efficient legislation.”
A huge disconnect exists between health advocates and the general public on the justification for smoke bans. The public approves of smoke bans because about 75% of people don’t smoke and object to the petty annoyances of smoking. Nonsmokers particularly hate the smell of smoke on their skin, clothes, and hair. They enjoy being able to work, eat, and recreate without the filth and stink of smoke and the dirt of butts and ashtrays. Health concerns come a poor second to these considerations.
Caught between the hammer of health advocates and popular hatred of smoke, smokers have found the march to create comprehensive bans unstoppable. So I have little doubt that Governor Doyle’s proposal to institute a statewide ban will prevail.
I do hope tho that reason and concern for individual liberty will prevail to the point of allowing smoking in bars. Let’s face it: bars are places for people to enjoy their vices. They drink in excess, they get into stupid arguments and even scuffles, they pick up strangers with whom to exchange bodily fluids and STDs, and so on. Why not let them smoke too? No one needs to go to or work in a bar who doesn’t really want to.
One claim made is that secondhand smoke hurts innocents while other addictions don't. Yet drunks driving home from bars undoubtedly cause more deaths and injuries than smokers in those same bars. And alcoholism tears families apart with thru irresponsibility, spousal abuse, and child physical and sexual abuse.
I don't understand the need to impose the ban on bars to the disadvantage of smokers. Smoking is a legal activity, after all. And to focus on the health effects of smoking in venues where the incredible negative health and social effects of alcohol are tolerated is just plain nonsensical. We need to focus more on a libertarian view of what democracy is about and to stop telling everyone we know what’s best for them and will keep them from harming themselves.
For other Wisconsin politics, see Eliminating the Frankenstein Veto.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Our Bulwark of Freedom -- The First Amendment
Many Americans hold the US Constitution in something close to reverence. With only a handful of amendments, the governmental structure it established has suited our country so well for over 200 years that we sometimes forget it isn’t actually a sacred document. Among the most treasured parts is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, ratified soon after the Constitution itself.
The First Amendment takes pride of place in the Bill of Rights. It not only protects the most basic freedoms that enable democratic government but does so in words as nearly perfect as humans can craft them. (Just to make it clear that I don’t regard the Constitution as an inspired document, I have to remark that, just as clear and well-written as the First Amendment is, so the Second is about as obtuse and confusing as the founders could have made it.)
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of Speech, or of the Press, or the right of the people peaceably to asemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
While most of the other first ten deal with guarantees of minor rights that had been abrogated by the King in the colonies, the First establishes major principles. It wisely resolves the issue of religion that had vexed the western world since the Reformation.. Many of the colonies were established or settled by groups that were persecuted elsewhere but that wanted the right to persecute those of other persuasions. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, Connecticut, for example, had an established church that received tax support. Some faith groups were tolerated; others were kept in their place.
In this context, the founders wisely established two balancing principles: no state support of religion thru any sort of establishment coupled with complete freedom for individuals to belong to any church and to worship as they pleased. Whether overtly or not, the framers of this ‘separation of church and state,’ as Jefferson dubbed it, seemed to understand that religion would thrive more when it was free than when there was any hint of coercion or gov’t favoritism.
Many religious groups have tried over the years to nick away at the First Amendment. President Bush has tried to cement support among the CRABs (Christian Republican Aryan Bigots) thru his so-called ‘faith-based initiatives’. He has funneled money to churches for ostensibly secular purposes that in reality include significant religious components. While the Congress has never fully backed these initiatives, neither has it clearly forbidden them. Our courts have so far been slow to take up the challenge, but case law is slowly being built up against these unconstitutional practices.
As for the rest of the First Amendment, it provides us with the basic means to promote government by consent of the governed. We must be able to speak freely and without fear of gov’t reprisal, to spread our thoughts through unfettered media, and finally to demonstrate en masse our demand that government address our concerns.
We now have people in government who would like to restrict our freedom of expression and dissemination of thought on the specious grounds that some speech fails to “support our troops” and “promotes terrorism.” The gov’t doesn’t want published any embarrassing news and so does its best to manage the news, classify public documents as secret, and mislead the people. Our President doesn’t appear anywhere unless he is surrounded only by well-wishers and all nay-sayers have been kept away and even held in custody by police.
If there has ever been a time when we need to treasure and support the principles expounded in the First Amendment, it is now. Powerful forces are arrayed against it, and only continued vigilance by the citizenry can ensure that the freedoms established there will endure.
The First Amendment takes pride of place in the Bill of Rights. It not only protects the most basic freedoms that enable democratic government but does so in words as nearly perfect as humans can craft them. (Just to make it clear that I don’t regard the Constitution as an inspired document, I have to remark that, just as clear and well-written as the First Amendment is, so the Second is about as obtuse and confusing as the founders could have made it.)
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of Speech, or of the Press, or the right of the people peaceably to asemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
While most of the other first ten deal with guarantees of minor rights that had been abrogated by the King in the colonies, the First establishes major principles. It wisely resolves the issue of religion that had vexed the western world since the Reformation.. Many of the colonies were established or settled by groups that were persecuted elsewhere but that wanted the right to persecute those of other persuasions. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, Connecticut, for example, had an established church that received tax support. Some faith groups were tolerated; others were kept in their place.
In this context, the founders wisely established two balancing principles: no state support of religion thru any sort of establishment coupled with complete freedom for individuals to belong to any church and to worship as they pleased. Whether overtly or not, the framers of this ‘separation of church and state,’ as Jefferson dubbed it, seemed to understand that religion would thrive more when it was free than when there was any hint of coercion or gov’t favoritism.
Many religious groups have tried over the years to nick away at the First Amendment. President Bush has tried to cement support among the CRABs (Christian Republican Aryan Bigots) thru his so-called ‘faith-based initiatives’. He has funneled money to churches for ostensibly secular purposes that in reality include significant religious components. While the Congress has never fully backed these initiatives, neither has it clearly forbidden them. Our courts have so far been slow to take up the challenge, but case law is slowly being built up against these unconstitutional practices.
As for the rest of the First Amendment, it provides us with the basic means to promote government by consent of the governed. We must be able to speak freely and without fear of gov’t reprisal, to spread our thoughts through unfettered media, and finally to demonstrate en masse our demand that government address our concerns.
We now have people in government who would like to restrict our freedom of expression and dissemination of thought on the specious grounds that some speech fails to “support our troops” and “promotes terrorism.” The gov’t doesn’t want published any embarrassing news and so does its best to manage the news, classify public documents as secret, and mislead the people. Our President doesn’t appear anywhere unless he is surrounded only by well-wishers and all nay-sayers have been kept away and even held in custody by police.
If there has ever been a time when we need to treasure and support the principles expounded in the First Amendment, it is now. Powerful forces are arrayed against it, and only continued vigilance by the citizenry can ensure that the freedoms established there will endure.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Lincoln -- This Is What He Said
I heard on the radio today American composer Aaron Copland's "Lincoln Portrait," which conveys in words and music something of the spirit of our great Civil War President whose birthday we celebrate today. Here are a few Lincoln quotes in the "Portrait" taken from the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858:
It is the eternal struggle between two principles, right and wrong, throughout the world. It is the same spirit that says 'you toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation, and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.
It is the eternal struggle between two principles, right and wrong, throughout the world. It is the same spirit that says 'you toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation, and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.
Let My Kitties Go
My cat Maurice is an indoor-outdoor critter. He likes the comfort of shelter, freedom from predators, good food, and an indulgent daddy. He equally enjoys roaming the yard, pretend-stalking ducks and chasing squirrels, visiting cat pals in neighbors’ yards, admiring the dogs that pass by, and offering his tummy to be scratched by delighted passers-by. I would never think of confining him indoors and have even installed a cat-door in the kitchen wall onto the back porch so that he can come and go as he pleases.
Unfortunately, municipal law forbids this practice. It lumps cats and dogs together in requiring leashes [on a cat!] or enclosure with a fence. Cats are nowhere near the danger to people that unsupervised dogs can be, and this restriction is just one more example of how government unnecessarily restricts individual liberty. My cat goes out every day of the year, no matter the conditions. Why should I restrain his natural animal desire to enjoy the outdoors?
The current politically correct view of cats is that it is inhumane to allow them outdoors, as they can get diseases, be injured, or even be killed. No, they should be kept inside to live long, healthy lives of sitting in a window wishing they were free to roam outdoors.
A PC writer of a letter to the editor in a local newspaper excoriated cat-owners [actually ‘cat-caretakers’] who allow their cats out on days with very low temperatures. The argument made was that cats can’t take the cold any better than humans. Excuse me, give me a nice fur coat, and I’ll last much longer in the cold that I would in my bare skin. Cats are fortunate enough to have their fur coats built in to provide wonderful insulation. Feral cats survive in the wild, just like the squirrels and birds in my yard.
The letter-writer’s advice was that, if you find a cat outdoors, you take it to its owner and explain his irresponsibility. Or, better yet, just call animal control and have them pick it up. This PC attitude is a fine example of the desire to so many people to force their opinions on others. I choose to allow my cat to make his own decisions on going out.
Cats deserve liberty too like all other Americans. Let my kitties go!
Unfortunately, municipal law forbids this practice. It lumps cats and dogs together in requiring leashes [on a cat!] or enclosure with a fence. Cats are nowhere near the danger to people that unsupervised dogs can be, and this restriction is just one more example of how government unnecessarily restricts individual liberty. My cat goes out every day of the year, no matter the conditions. Why should I restrain his natural animal desire to enjoy the outdoors?
The current politically correct view of cats is that it is inhumane to allow them outdoors, as they can get diseases, be injured, or even be killed. No, they should be kept inside to live long, healthy lives of sitting in a window wishing they were free to roam outdoors.
A PC writer of a letter to the editor in a local newspaper excoriated cat-owners [actually ‘cat-caretakers’] who allow their cats out on days with very low temperatures. The argument made was that cats can’t take the cold any better than humans. Excuse me, give me a nice fur coat, and I’ll last much longer in the cold that I would in my bare skin. Cats are fortunate enough to have their fur coats built in to provide wonderful insulation. Feral cats survive in the wild, just like the squirrels and birds in my yard.
The letter-writer’s advice was that, if you find a cat outdoors, you take it to its owner and explain his irresponsibility. Or, better yet, just call animal control and have them pick it up. This PC attitude is a fine example of the desire to so many people to force their opinions on others. I choose to allow my cat to make his own decisions on going out.
Cats deserve liberty too like all other Americans. Let my kitties go!
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Today's Quote -- Stupid Laws
Charles Murray, writing in the New York Times:
If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.
If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.
Should We Ban Spanking?
California Democratic Assemblywoman Sally Lieber is proposing that spanking, hitting, or slapping a child under four years old be made a misdemeanor, with offenders facing up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. She claims the law is needed because spanking victimizes helpless children and breeds violence in society.
Kids in my generation were routinely spanked, and nobody thought anything of it. Now the dogooders want to make it a crime! Frankly, I think most of the people in my generation turned out better than the undisciplined kids of today, who can get away with anything they want while their parents fruitlessly try to 'reason' with them.
Simple example: I see kids at the beach all the time who refuse to come out of the water when called by their mothers. They respond snottily or not at all and remain in the water. The mother stands on the beach threatening a "time out when we get home" or something of that nature. If she were instead to step down into the water and swat the kid on the butt a few times to let him know she means business, should the government interfere?
This question is being hotly debated on various forums on the net. The responses, like my two paragraphs directly above, argue writers’ personal opinions on spanking vs other ways of disciplining children. Yet that is not the point, even tho that sort of argument is more interesting and fun to pursue, no matter which side you take. It fulfills our desires to control others, to make them do as we think they should do.
But the important question isn't whether you or I approve of spanking or not. Does spanking fall within normal non-abusive child-raising techniques? I say 'yes,' and so did all the generations that came before us. The claims of victimization and breeding violence strike me as ludicrous. Some spanking opponents even argue that hundreds of children die around the world each year from spanking. I doubt it, but even if it’s true, physical abuse of that sort is already punishable by law.
Lacking any convincing evidence that all spanking is so harmful to children that society cannot tolerate it, I strongly feel that government should not interfere in what has always been regarded as a prerogative for parental decision-making. We need to say “no” to the ‘nanny-state,’ as well as our desire to force others to conform their actions to our own personal opinions. After all, that sort of freedom to make our own decisions, even if our opinion is in the minority, is what personal liberty is all about.
Kids in my generation were routinely spanked, and nobody thought anything of it. Now the dogooders want to make it a crime! Frankly, I think most of the people in my generation turned out better than the undisciplined kids of today, who can get away with anything they want while their parents fruitlessly try to 'reason' with them.
Simple example: I see kids at the beach all the time who refuse to come out of the water when called by their mothers. They respond snottily or not at all and remain in the water. The mother stands on the beach threatening a "time out when we get home" or something of that nature. If she were instead to step down into the water and swat the kid on the butt a few times to let him know she means business, should the government interfere?
This question is being hotly debated on various forums on the net. The responses, like my two paragraphs directly above, argue writers’ personal opinions on spanking vs other ways of disciplining children. Yet that is not the point, even tho that sort of argument is more interesting and fun to pursue, no matter which side you take. It fulfills our desires to control others, to make them do as we think they should do.
But the important question isn't whether you or I approve of spanking or not. Does spanking fall within normal non-abusive child-raising techniques? I say 'yes,' and so did all the generations that came before us. The claims of victimization and breeding violence strike me as ludicrous. Some spanking opponents even argue that hundreds of children die around the world each year from spanking. I doubt it, but even if it’s true, physical abuse of that sort is already punishable by law.
Lacking any convincing evidence that all spanking is so harmful to children that society cannot tolerate it, I strongly feel that government should not interfere in what has always been regarded as a prerogative for parental decision-making. We need to say “no” to the ‘nanny-state,’ as well as our desire to force others to conform their actions to our own personal opinions. After all, that sort of freedom to make our own decisions, even if our opinion is in the minority, is what personal liberty is all about.
Friday, February 09, 2007
No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required
Our new US Congress for the first time has 2 Buddhists and 1 Muslim. Adding them to the 43 Jewish members, Congress now has 46 members who are declared adherents of nonChristian religions.
When the CRABs (Christian Republican Aryan Bigots) heard that Rep Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) was going to swear his oath on a Koran, they went berserk. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Ass'n actually proposed a law requiring the oath be sworn on the Bible. Another CRAB henchman. radio talk show host Dennis Prager, maintained "if you are incapable of taking an oath on [the Bible], don't serve in Congress." Prager went on to make even more of a fool of himself by claiming "Mr Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."
Many pundits assailed the CRABs' stand as opposed to the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state. What almost no one noticed is that the framers of the Constitution anticipated that someone would eventually try to add a religious requirement this way. So right after requiring that all government officials in the US must swear or affirm to support the Constitution, Article VI states "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
There's just no way around that. In fact, it's the only place in the Constitution where the word "ever" appears. The framers meant this prohibition to be taken quite seriously. In the event, Rep Ellison's swearing went quite well as he was clever enough to decapitate the objections by swearing on a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson, the architect of America's "separation of church and state."
When the CRABs (Christian Republican Aryan Bigots) heard that Rep Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) was going to swear his oath on a Koran, they went berserk. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Ass'n actually proposed a law requiring the oath be sworn on the Bible. Another CRAB henchman. radio talk show host Dennis Prager, maintained "if you are incapable of taking an oath on [the Bible], don't serve in Congress." Prager went on to make even more of a fool of himself by claiming "Mr Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."
Many pundits assailed the CRABs' stand as opposed to the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state. What almost no one noticed is that the framers of the Constitution anticipated that someone would eventually try to add a religious requirement this way. So right after requiring that all government officials in the US must swear or affirm to support the Constitution, Article VI states "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
There's just no way around that. In fact, it's the only place in the Constitution where the word "ever" appears. The framers meant this prohibition to be taken quite seriously. In the event, Rep Ellison's swearing went quite well as he was clever enough to decapitate the objections by swearing on a Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson, the architect of America's "separation of church and state."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
