Posts
Hello friends,
You might have noticed that I was conspicuously absent during the elections, leaving my two cents in my pocket, so to speak. I have heard that there is a conflict of interest for journalists who both cover elections and vote. I'm not sure that I count as a journalist; I wouldn't dare put a name to what I do here. Still, I felt that the election was too important to abstain, and I didn't want to risk being considered a hypocrite if anyone out there does think of me as a journalist of sorts one day. Therefore, I abstained from the journalistic aspect of what I do here; I didn't write.
That said, election day was yesterday, so it's on to new topics. The first one I wish to address comes from my husband, who pointed out today that we (as a society) are having the wrong debates. His assertion is that we should not be addressing whether or not to legalize pot, or to legalize gay marriage, or to regulate pharmaceuticals, or to allow stem cell research. To quote him, "With everything we have done to our legal system over the last 60 years, we need to decide once and for all if we are socialist or free."
To his view, if we are free, then we have to recognize that people are free to do whatever they want as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of anyone else. We have to recognize that we have very few "rights" but that they are broad. For example, if you are allergic to peanuts, you do not have a right to have peanuts taken from everyone else so you can sit comfortably on a plane. You can drive, take trains, travel by boat, and even rent or buy your own plane if you so desire. You can also buy a rebreather or other mask and be the weird guy on the plane. Nothing in our Constitution gives you the right to air travel on commercial jets. If we are socialist, then we need to sit down and discuss the terms of our new republic.
This is a perspective I had not fully considered before now, and I admit it intrigued me. So many debates are argued through economics, social impact studies, and moral and religious assertions that it's hard to not participate. I'm guilty of it myself today, as a matter of fact. Yet, we're always so busy with whether or not we can do something or should do something that we're not stopping to ask if we are being ourselves. We're like teenagers- Can I stay out late? Should I date the quarterback? Can I pull off black nail polish? Should I shave my head? Most of the arguments given will be from parents, teachers, friends, foes- and they'll follow stereotypical lines for the most part. The teenagers listen to all these arguments, and most of them bend to the opinion of whomever they value most.
It's the same with these great issues we debate. Can we put together a health care plan that works? Should we ban hand guns? We talk about all the pros, and we weigh all the cons. Yet we rarely ask the first question we should address: is it Constitutional?
The fact that the Constitution doesn't address something does not mean that it is fair game for legislation. Our forefathers intended for our government to be simple. The basic idea was for people who had lives outside politics to run it. Health care wasn't addressed because doctors were free to treat or not treat as they and their conscience saw fit. Now we infringe on the rights of the doctor to protect an imaginary right for the patient. At what point do you have a right to medical care? Now where do we draw the line? Breast implants, for example, are known to build confidence in women. Do we start subsidizing boob jobs for women with poor self-esteem? As for hand guns, the second amendment was clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Shall not be infringed. Notice that it does not say "much" at the end or "without cause". It says that our right to own and carry a gun shall not be taken from us. I don't know how to make it any clearer, so I won't try.
I hope you voted yesterday. Value your freedom, or you will lose it.
Take care,
MK
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
It's Not Just Rich, White Men...
Hello friends,
I read an article just now that made me shake my head and think about how common corruption has become. I've attached the link in case you'd like to read it for yourself. For those that want the condensed version, half a dozen local government officials in a community just outside Los Angeles, CA, have pocketed enormous salaries at tax payer expense while lying daily to their neighbors about the town's coffers. Eight arrests have been made, the officials are pariahs, and the citizenry is properly riled. (Note: I obtained the number of arrests from a different article on the situation.)
After reading this article, I thought about how miserable it is that we see this corruption at every level. I was then moved to depression at thinking of how many levels of government we have, but that is neither here nor there. The third thing to hit me is that this scandal primarily involved minorities, with at least two women included. This isn't surprising; many of the scandals involve minorities and women, and increasingly so as the ratios of minorities and women in government continues to move toward the numbers we see in society. Basically, as they are given the opportunity to fail, they seem to do so just as much as the rich, white men our society so loves to hate.
I'll be clear up front that I detest the terms "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism". Racism is racism, and sexism is sexism; the direction doesn't matter. If your opinion of someone is based on their gender or the color of their skin, your thoughts are prejudicial. I'm not saying that the sexes and the races are all the same; there are too many statistics showing otherwise. Rather, each individual is different, so I try to approach people as people instead of as representations of a demographic.
So why do we seem to hate rich, white men? Is this cultural resentment for the sins of their fathers? If so, we should probably question the soundness of making one generation pay for the crimes of another. After all, a later generation may not realize it is retribution and strike back, leading to a spiraling decline of civilization as we know it and, ultimately, nuclear war.
Okay, perhaps that is a bit melodramatic. It's far more likely that we do this because, frankly, there are more of them at the top for us to see fail and for us to blame for our own failings. Over 200 years of rich, white, male presidents sort of jades a person. This isn't the sort of streak that causes people to say, "Ooooh, nifty!" We'd say that if someone flipped a penny 20 times and kept getting heads. By the 43rd time it showed heads, we would want to take a good look at that penny to make sure there's no funny business. We just need to be careful not to accuse the flipper of using a two-headed coin unless we're sure.
I'm quite certain that we'll strike a balance between the genders and races on a macro level, and at the individual level things are better than ever. In the few years I have under my belt, I've seen strides in race relations at the micro level. We laugh with each other about race instead of letting it stand as a barrier between friends. One of my favorite examples of this was an outing in Fort Worth, TX, that two of my girl friends and I took. We had one white girl (me), one Asian girl, and one black girl. We joked that we were a European and a Latina away from being a mini-UN. Of course, we completely overlooked the fact that we were all Americans and far from being a global representation. Still, we were three well-traveled ladies who knew better than to take offense at every remark made about race.
That, to me, is the key difference between then and now. At one point in time, any reference to race was considered hate speech, regardless of intent. We were so sensitive to the issue in combating it that we probably did a little harm to the cause in the process. So be it. We're here now.
Where is here? Here is a place where government officials are arrested for corruption, regardless of race or gender. Here is a place where the Speaker of the House is a woman, and of all the things many Americans dislike about her, gender is not among them. Here is a place where the people are so fed up with their government that we've actually made it past apathy and started speaking out for change. Here is a place where a "temporary" income tax is never considered for repeal, but our Congress ends their session without resolving whether or not to renew tax cuts for the citizens during the worst economic times since the Great Depression.
Welcome to Here. Now where do we go?
Until next time,
MK
I read an article just now that made me shake my head and think about how common corruption has become. I've attached the link in case you'd like to read it for yourself. For those that want the condensed version, half a dozen local government officials in a community just outside Los Angeles, CA, have pocketed enormous salaries at tax payer expense while lying daily to their neighbors about the town's coffers. Eight arrests have been made, the officials are pariahs, and the citizenry is properly riled. (Note: I obtained the number of arrests from a different article on the situation.)
After reading this article, I thought about how miserable it is that we see this corruption at every level. I was then moved to depression at thinking of how many levels of government we have, but that is neither here nor there. The third thing to hit me is that this scandal primarily involved minorities, with at least two women included. This isn't surprising; many of the scandals involve minorities and women, and increasingly so as the ratios of minorities and women in government continues to move toward the numbers we see in society. Basically, as they are given the opportunity to fail, they seem to do so just as much as the rich, white men our society so loves to hate.
I'll be clear up front that I detest the terms "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism". Racism is racism, and sexism is sexism; the direction doesn't matter. If your opinion of someone is based on their gender or the color of their skin, your thoughts are prejudicial. I'm not saying that the sexes and the races are all the same; there are too many statistics showing otherwise. Rather, each individual is different, so I try to approach people as people instead of as representations of a demographic.
So why do we seem to hate rich, white men? Is this cultural resentment for the sins of their fathers? If so, we should probably question the soundness of making one generation pay for the crimes of another. After all, a later generation may not realize it is retribution and strike back, leading to a spiraling decline of civilization as we know it and, ultimately, nuclear war.
Okay, perhaps that is a bit melodramatic. It's far more likely that we do this because, frankly, there are more of them at the top for us to see fail and for us to blame for our own failings. Over 200 years of rich, white, male presidents sort of jades a person. This isn't the sort of streak that causes people to say, "Ooooh, nifty!" We'd say that if someone flipped a penny 20 times and kept getting heads. By the 43rd time it showed heads, we would want to take a good look at that penny to make sure there's no funny business. We just need to be careful not to accuse the flipper of using a two-headed coin unless we're sure.
I'm quite certain that we'll strike a balance between the genders and races on a macro level, and at the individual level things are better than ever. In the few years I have under my belt, I've seen strides in race relations at the micro level. We laugh with each other about race instead of letting it stand as a barrier between friends. One of my favorite examples of this was an outing in Fort Worth, TX, that two of my girl friends and I took. We had one white girl (me), one Asian girl, and one black girl. We joked that we were a European and a Latina away from being a mini-UN. Of course, we completely overlooked the fact that we were all Americans and far from being a global representation. Still, we were three well-traveled ladies who knew better than to take offense at every remark made about race.
That, to me, is the key difference between then and now. At one point in time, any reference to race was considered hate speech, regardless of intent. We were so sensitive to the issue in combating it that we probably did a little harm to the cause in the process. So be it. We're here now.
Where is here? Here is a place where government officials are arrested for corruption, regardless of race or gender. Here is a place where the Speaker of the House is a woman, and of all the things many Americans dislike about her, gender is not among them. Here is a place where the people are so fed up with their government that we've actually made it past apathy and started speaking out for change. Here is a place where a "temporary" income tax is never considered for repeal, but our Congress ends their session without resolving whether or not to renew tax cuts for the citizens during the worst economic times since the Great Depression.
Welcome to Here. Now where do we go?
Until next time,
MK
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Crime and Punishment
Hello friends,
If I said to you that I don't think criminals should be punished, you would probably react negatively. You might make inarticulate sounds, you might think I've lost my mind, and if you really know me, you would probably think I'm pulling your chain. Most people in our society believe that criminals should be punished, and in truth, I agree. We are fairly homogeneous in this belief, as a matter of fact.
Where we see large differences of opinion in our society is when we try to define crimes and set punishments for them. Some don't believe the death penalty should ever be used, regardless of the crime; some believe that lethal injection is too good for the guy who raped and killed little girls. Some believe the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent to other criminals; some believe it is for ensuring that a specific person cannot hurt anyone ever again. Some people believe that drug use is a crime; some say that it is more akin to a medical disorder, like anemia. Some believe that abortion is murder; others see it as a choice.
Whatever you believe in your heart, there is someone who disagrees with you. This is why we need to be careful when making decisions on emotionally charged issues. As much as an action may make your insides roil, as much as an opinion may tear at your heart, that does not make legislation the appropriate response. We have to look at what works, what makes sense for society as a whole.
Making abortion illegal did not stop it. Desperate women went to black market "doctors" who used dirty instruments in less-than-hygienic conditions. Time after time, nations have proven that prohibition on alcohol and drugs does not work. People continue to use them, but the society that criminalizes that use then spends its resources on finding, prosecuting and imprisoning those users.
We have to remember the true consequences of making something illegal. It's not just the loss of our freedom to do something with impunity. When people talk about marijuana as a "gateway drug", they're referring to the fact that using it leads a person to more dangerous drugs. Most don't consider the "taboo effect": once a person has broken one taboo, it is easier to break the next one. People talk about how drugs should be illegal because use supports criminal activity. However, if you could buy the drugs at your local apothecary, the criminals wouldn't make money from the sale.
Those consequences also extend to our wallets. When we make something illegal, we must now fund the enforcement of that law. The police must investigate, crime labs must confirm, District Attorneys must press charges, judges and jurors must hear the evidence- and that's all before a conviction happens. Think about how much money is spent before we ever know for sure the person is guilty. If they are convicted, the cash hole goes deeper- jails, guards, food, court appeals...
If you had to pay for it by yourself, would you? If someone came to you and said, "Hey, the guy next door is smoking pot. We're going to investigate, arrest, convict and punish him, and we need your check," would you write it? What if I told you the annual cost of incarcerating drug users in the US is over $9 billion? That's approximately $20,000 per year per drug user. Do you care enough about whether or not the guy next door gets high to pay $20,000 to see him go to jail?
Think, people, before you support a new law. Think about the total consequences. Think about the resources that will be spent and if they can be better used in other ways to achieve the desired result. As an example, think of all the rehab and education programs, all the shelters and research, that could have been funded with the money we've spent in the last 20 years on the "War on Drugs".
I'm not saying there should be a crack pipe in every living room. I'm saying that until the crack head commits a real crime to support the habit (e.g. robbery) or endangers another person, in my book they aren't a criminal just for making poor health choices- an idiot, perhaps, but not a criminal.
Remember people: we cannot legislate our woes away. We cannot pass law after law until we reach utopia. Absolving ourselves of personal responsibility by having the government make all the right choices for us and punishing those who choose otherwise for themselves does not create a great society; it creates a society of weaklings who cannot think for themselves and who live in constant fear of false retribution.
Think for yourself, and take responsibility for your choices. The rest will come.
Until next time,
MK
If I said to you that I don't think criminals should be punished, you would probably react negatively. You might make inarticulate sounds, you might think I've lost my mind, and if you really know me, you would probably think I'm pulling your chain. Most people in our society believe that criminals should be punished, and in truth, I agree. We are fairly homogeneous in this belief, as a matter of fact.
Where we see large differences of opinion in our society is when we try to define crimes and set punishments for them. Some don't believe the death penalty should ever be used, regardless of the crime; some believe that lethal injection is too good for the guy who raped and killed little girls. Some believe the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent to other criminals; some believe it is for ensuring that a specific person cannot hurt anyone ever again. Some people believe that drug use is a crime; some say that it is more akin to a medical disorder, like anemia. Some believe that abortion is murder; others see it as a choice.
Whatever you believe in your heart, there is someone who disagrees with you. This is why we need to be careful when making decisions on emotionally charged issues. As much as an action may make your insides roil, as much as an opinion may tear at your heart, that does not make legislation the appropriate response. We have to look at what works, what makes sense for society as a whole.
Making abortion illegal did not stop it. Desperate women went to black market "doctors" who used dirty instruments in less-than-hygienic conditions. Time after time, nations have proven that prohibition on alcohol and drugs does not work. People continue to use them, but the society that criminalizes that use then spends its resources on finding, prosecuting and imprisoning those users.
We have to remember the true consequences of making something illegal. It's not just the loss of our freedom to do something with impunity. When people talk about marijuana as a "gateway drug", they're referring to the fact that using it leads a person to more dangerous drugs. Most don't consider the "taboo effect": once a person has broken one taboo, it is easier to break the next one. People talk about how drugs should be illegal because use supports criminal activity. However, if you could buy the drugs at your local apothecary, the criminals wouldn't make money from the sale.
Those consequences also extend to our wallets. When we make something illegal, we must now fund the enforcement of that law. The police must investigate, crime labs must confirm, District Attorneys must press charges, judges and jurors must hear the evidence- and that's all before a conviction happens. Think about how much money is spent before we ever know for sure the person is guilty. If they are convicted, the cash hole goes deeper- jails, guards, food, court appeals...
If you had to pay for it by yourself, would you? If someone came to you and said, "Hey, the guy next door is smoking pot. We're going to investigate, arrest, convict and punish him, and we need your check," would you write it? What if I told you the annual cost of incarcerating drug users in the US is over $9 billion? That's approximately $20,000 per year per drug user. Do you care enough about whether or not the guy next door gets high to pay $20,000 to see him go to jail?
Think, people, before you support a new law. Think about the total consequences. Think about the resources that will be spent and if they can be better used in other ways to achieve the desired result. As an example, think of all the rehab and education programs, all the shelters and research, that could have been funded with the money we've spent in the last 20 years on the "War on Drugs".
I'm not saying there should be a crack pipe in every living room. I'm saying that until the crack head commits a real crime to support the habit (e.g. robbery) or endangers another person, in my book they aren't a criminal just for making poor health choices- an idiot, perhaps, but not a criminal.
Remember people: we cannot legislate our woes away. We cannot pass law after law until we reach utopia. Absolving ourselves of personal responsibility by having the government make all the right choices for us and punishing those who choose otherwise for themselves does not create a great society; it creates a society of weaklings who cannot think for themselves and who live in constant fear of false retribution.
Think for yourself, and take responsibility for your choices. The rest will come.
Until next time,
MK
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Cheese Stands Alone: One Bill, One Issue
Hello friends,
It has been a bit of a crazy year. I spent a little time sick, and I spent the past few months planning a wedding. This past weekend, I married a wonderful man and became a step-mother to a very special twelve-year-old boy. Now it's time to settle back into life, and for me, that means having time to read the news once in a while...
Today, I came across several articles related to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a very unpopular law passed in 1993 that was a compromise between openly gay military service and a ban on gay military service. The short and skinny of it is that most Americans support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and by most, I don't mean 51%. Every estimate puts the number between 70% and 90%.
So what's the problem? The repeal bill failed in the Senate this week because our "leaders" didn't vote on the repeal of DADT; they voted on the politics. If you think they ever vote on anything but the politics these days, you're kidding yourself. They won't vote on the issues at hand until that's the only thing before them. Some Senators struck down the bill because of the DREAM rider; some voted against it because they didn't like the way the riders and filibustering were handled by the other Senators.
This issue and how it was handled brings a murky problem into specific relief: how do we focus our Congress on the important issues instead of the politics? We make every bill stand on its own.
What's this you say? Make the bills stand on their own? But then how will Alaska get funding for a bridge that creates jobs (but leads nowhere)? How will the Teapot Museum get tax payer support?
Exactly. This is the solution to several problems at once. If it's worth spending our time and taxes on, then it can stand on its own on the page. No more riders. No more back room deals. No more 8000+ page documents that can't be read before the vote. If it deserves consideration, it can be discussed openly (barring, of course, top secret defense items that I wouldn't want in the hands of the enemy).
This is one of those basic things that the American public should ask their Senators and Representatives to pass. We're asking for term limits. We're asking for a return to Constitutional government. We're asking for transparency and accountability. Ask for integrity. Ask for simplicity. Add "One Issue, One Bill" to your rally cries, and sally forth into the fray!
Or just tell your representatives. Not sure who they are? Go here to get your Zip Code+4. Then go here to find your elected officials.
Remember: they're there to represent us. There is no reason that a bill this popular, which would strengthen our military forces and society, should be struck down for political volleying. Speak up. One Issue, One Bill.
Until the next rant, I bid you adieu,
-MK
It has been a bit of a crazy year. I spent a little time sick, and I spent the past few months planning a wedding. This past weekend, I married a wonderful man and became a step-mother to a very special twelve-year-old boy. Now it's time to settle back into life, and for me, that means having time to read the news once in a while...
Today, I came across several articles related to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a very unpopular law passed in 1993 that was a compromise between openly gay military service and a ban on gay military service. The short and skinny of it is that most Americans support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and by most, I don't mean 51%. Every estimate puts the number between 70% and 90%.
So what's the problem? The repeal bill failed in the Senate this week because our "leaders" didn't vote on the repeal of DADT; they voted on the politics. If you think they ever vote on anything but the politics these days, you're kidding yourself. They won't vote on the issues at hand until that's the only thing before them. Some Senators struck down the bill because of the DREAM rider; some voted against it because they didn't like the way the riders and filibustering were handled by the other Senators.
This issue and how it was handled brings a murky problem into specific relief: how do we focus our Congress on the important issues instead of the politics? We make every bill stand on its own.
What's this you say? Make the bills stand on their own? But then how will Alaska get funding for a bridge that creates jobs (but leads nowhere)? How will the Teapot Museum get tax payer support?
Exactly. This is the solution to several problems at once. If it's worth spending our time and taxes on, then it can stand on its own on the page. No more riders. No more back room deals. No more 8000+ page documents that can't be read before the vote. If it deserves consideration, it can be discussed openly (barring, of course, top secret defense items that I wouldn't want in the hands of the enemy).
This is one of those basic things that the American public should ask their Senators and Representatives to pass. We're asking for term limits. We're asking for a return to Constitutional government. We're asking for transparency and accountability. Ask for integrity. Ask for simplicity. Add "One Issue, One Bill" to your rally cries, and sally forth into the fray!
Or just tell your representatives. Not sure who they are? Go here to get your Zip Code+4. Then go here to find your elected officials.
Remember: they're there to represent us. There is no reason that a bill this popular, which would strengthen our military forces and society, should be struck down for political volleying. Speak up. One Issue, One Bill.
Until the next rant, I bid you adieu,
-MK
Thursday, July 15, 2010
OOPS!
Hello friends,
Yesterday, as I drove to an appointment, I noticed a bumpersticker that I hadn't seen before. It said "OOPS!", and the O's were the Obama Os with the sun rising over red and white stripes against a blue background. I couldn't help but chuckle to myself as I wondered about the car's driver.
The sticker made me curious if the driver voted for Obama and regretted it, or if he was simply pointing out what he considered a mistake. I have several friends and aquaintances who voted for Obama and have since wished they hadn't. I won't tell you for whom I voted, only that I wasn't thrilled with either prospect.
And this, my friends, is the point: since I have been of age to vote, there has not been a "great" choice for president yet. Even McCain, of whom I had high hopes, sold out in the first few months of his campaign. One friend says she would have loved it if the Obama she voted for had moved into the White House, but sadly the guy with all the potential hasn't shown up for work yet (her words, not mine).
So this rambling post comes to you on a hot Thursday afternoon filled with questions and concerns about whether or not we as a country can put forth a decent leader anymore. We're so busy looking for someone perfect that we've lost sight of looking for someone who can do the job. After all, that is what the Presidency is: a job. It has a list of duties, and we need the best people to do the work, not the best people to look good on tv or the people with the best speech writers.
If you're having regrets, remember that when the elections come around. Find out which candidates are good people, not just good lookers. Finally, a note of wisdom paraphrased from a TV show: some of the greatest minds and people of all time held simple jobs. Do not equate wisdom and competence with occupation. To do so is, at best, insulting. (from "Warehouse 13")
I hope you're enjoying your summer, friends. Remember to live freely in the day, to live for today, and to live in respect for yourself and the world around you.
Take care,
MK
Yesterday, as I drove to an appointment, I noticed a bumpersticker that I hadn't seen before. It said "OOPS!", and the O's were the Obama Os with the sun rising over red and white stripes against a blue background. I couldn't help but chuckle to myself as I wondered about the car's driver.
The sticker made me curious if the driver voted for Obama and regretted it, or if he was simply pointing out what he considered a mistake. I have several friends and aquaintances who voted for Obama and have since wished they hadn't. I won't tell you for whom I voted, only that I wasn't thrilled with either prospect.
And this, my friends, is the point: since I have been of age to vote, there has not been a "great" choice for president yet. Even McCain, of whom I had high hopes, sold out in the first few months of his campaign. One friend says she would have loved it if the Obama she voted for had moved into the White House, but sadly the guy with all the potential hasn't shown up for work yet (her words, not mine).
So this rambling post comes to you on a hot Thursday afternoon filled with questions and concerns about whether or not we as a country can put forth a decent leader anymore. We're so busy looking for someone perfect that we've lost sight of looking for someone who can do the job. After all, that is what the Presidency is: a job. It has a list of duties, and we need the best people to do the work, not the best people to look good on tv or the people with the best speech writers.
If you're having regrets, remember that when the elections come around. Find out which candidates are good people, not just good lookers. Finally, a note of wisdom paraphrased from a TV show: some of the greatest minds and people of all time held simple jobs. Do not equate wisdom and competence with occupation. To do so is, at best, insulting. (from "Warehouse 13")
I hope you're enjoying your summer, friends. Remember to live freely in the day, to live for today, and to live in respect for yourself and the world around you.
Take care,
MK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)