Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically said that marriage is between one man and one woman.  They also sent the case of California’s gay marriage law back because the plaintiffs did not have legal standing.  The voters in California voted to make marriage between one man and one woman, and this was challenged and overturned in court.  Supporters of the law challenged the ruling and the Supreme Court said that they had no standing because they were not harmed.  The net result is that the lower court ruling stands and gay marriages are now allowed in California.

There is a lot going on there.  Before I present my thoughts on gay marriage let me first opine on the proper role of government here. 

First, the federal government had no place deciding what the meaning of marriage is.  That is the right of the states.  I suppose there are federal employees living in the District of Columbia that may need clarity, but in general the federal government does not need to tell States how to deal with social issues.  The same would hold true for our drug laws and abortion and a host of other issues.  States need to decide these things, not the federal government.  Unless the issue involves constitutional rights or something else specifically enumerated to be the responsibility of the federal government, they should keep their hands off.

Second, the Supreme Court was right to strike down DOMA for the reason given in the last paragraph.  If that was their reasoning I would be happy.  But Justice Kennedy suggests that they would have been happy to replace DOMA with a mandate that gay marriage must be legal throughout the country.  That would be unacceptable judicial activism.  The Supreme Court does not exist to tell us what to believe on social issues.  Our founders intended for these things to be decided by the democratic political process, by our elected representatives, not by appointed justices.  The Court, and especially those on the left wing of the Court, would love to legislate from the bench on a whole host of issues.  That is not their job.  They have the task of deciding if the laws passed by our elected representatives are consistent with our constitution, not deciding what is right and wrong.

Putting the responsibility of deciding what is proper in terms of social issues means we may have some states doing one thing and other states doing another.  It means lots more debate as the same issue is discussed and debated in every state of the country.  It is messy and some may prefer that a single opinion is delivered from Washington, that we be told what to think in each state, because it is cleaner and makes things more consistent from state to state.  For example, we apparently need “common core” education curriculum to be mandated from Washington so we all know what to teach our kids.  Although it is messier, and more diverse, I think letting each state decide these things lets us all look at what works and what does not in 50 little experiments.  It is not that difficult to move to a different state, and it is easier to influence what happens in your state than it is to have a say in laws for the whole country.

Personally, I do not see why government needs to be telling us what we can and cannot do, and who we can or cannot do it with.  I do not care what happens in your bedroom or what you do in your personal life and I do not think it is the business of government either.  Gay folks are already free to live together and do as they please.  There are plenty of laws on the books that prevent discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  So the question here is about marriage.

Why does the government have an interest in marriage?  Well, if you do not have children, I can’t imagine that it does.  I know there are tax consequences, but there should not be.  I know there are rules about who can visit you in the hospital, but that is also ridiculous.  Society’s interest in marriage is about the raising of children.  It is about the formation of the essential first building block of our society, the Family.

With or without gay marriage, the family is in trouble in our society.  I will not disparage single parents, many of whom are doing a wonderful job of loving and raising their children.  Nor will I disparage those that have gone through divorce.  Sometimes things happen and you end up where you end up and do the best you can.  And I know there are already lots of gay couples raising children and doing a good job.

It used to be that we came together in a church, with lots of witnesses, after applying for a marriage license, and made a lot of promises and commitments, and got married, BEFORE getting pregnant.  In fact, the idea was that you got married before you had sex.   People came to witness the formation of a new family, and to show their support, and also to hold the new couple accountable.  Getting pregnant out of wedlock was a scandal.  Getting married in front of a justice of the peace does not carry the same level of accountability, the same commitment.

In recent years we have come to be more accepting of people having children without getting married.  We have become more accepting of having sex before marriage, and aborting the baby.  We have become more used to the idea that often the father of a child will simply never be involved in his child’s life.  What happened to shotgun weddings?  We have also gotten more comfortable with divorce, and broken families, and blended families, and third and fourth marriages.  We have seen our children’s test scores suffer, and graduation rates in most major cities are around 50%.  We are falling behind the rest of the world in a lot of areas in terms of our children’s performance.

Marriage is about the family, and the family is about raising children.  We care about marriage because we are concerned about children.  In my humble opinion, the best way to raise children is for them to be raised by their own biological mother and father, who stay married and involved.  Biological parents are no more perfect than any other group in society.  But when you are raised by your own parents you learn a little more about why you are the way you are.  You see where you came from, genetically speaking.  You come to understand the good, the bad and the ugly.  You learn about your family tree, learn to know your cousins, aunts, and uncles, and how you came to be the way you are.

Although I think being raised by your own biological parents is the best thing, I realize that cannot always be the case.  Parents die.  Divorce is sometimes necessary because of violence or addictions.  There are a host of reasons why families cannot stay together to raise their own children.  My support is for a strong family unit, a good foundation for raising children.  If we cannot have my ideal situation of being raised by your own biological mother and father, then I want it replaced by the strongest family unit I can get.

Gay marriage is at it’s core about marriage, marriage is at it’s core about family, and family is at it’s core about the raising of children.  I support gay marriage in my state to the extent that it means what marriage should mean to heterosexuals.  Gay people should get married in a church, with witnesses, and make commitments.  They should get married before they have sex (wow, let that one sink in).  They should not get divorced.  They should be a stable family unit whether they have children or not.  If they raise children they should do so with the same integrity as any heterosexual couple.

Nobody has to get married.  Nobody has to have children.  Nobody has to create a family.  But marriage means something, it is not just a term to be thrown around.  It is a lifelong commitment, and the basis of the creation of families, which are as I have said, the core building blocks of our society.  Children are not raised by the village but by the family.  Lots of heterosexuals have screwed up marriages, screwed up families, and screwed up children as a result.  I want to see our country strengthen the family.  A good strong gay couple with integrity can, in my opinion, form a strong family unit.  They obviously cannot share in biological children, but they can provide a stable environment for children with discipline and love, not perfection, but integrity.

I respect those that disagree with me on this.  As I said I want us to debate and discuss and talk about the issue.  I do not want this issue to just be settled quickly and “put to bed”, because we need to talk about what marriage means, about what family means.  It is the marriage part of gay marriage that concerns me, not the gay part.

Gun Control

I have been listening to President Obama and Vice President Biden, and folks like Piers Morgan talk about gun control for some time now.  Having paid attention to the news and watching what is going on in this country and around the world lately, I have come to believe they are right.  There is a need for gun control.

 I am not a legislator or an attorney, and so someone else will have to write this up into a bill with flowery language like “Whereas” and “heretofore”; these are listed in plain language.

·         IRS agents should be forbidden to use or carry or possess any firearm in the course of performing their duties.  Off duty as private citizens this would not apply.

·         The IRS shall not as an agency possess, store, keep, or use firearms of any kind.  If IRS agents are in need of protection they should rely on local or state law enforcement, or the FBI.  Any firearms or ammunition currently in possession of the IRS should be sold or disposed of.

·         IRS personnel shall not be trained in the use of any firearms, except as private citizens on their own time.  The IRS shall not be allowed to use any federal firearm training facilities.

·         The US Armed Forces and CIA shall not use firearms of any sort on US soil against US citizens.  This is already law but is just a reminder.  This includes any kind of weaponry whatsoever, including drones.

·         The US National Guard and FBI shall be the only US Federal agencies authorized to use armed force on American soil.  The FBI must have a warrant from a judge to do so and the National Guard must only be deployed in extreme cases at the request of a state governor and on the order of the President.  Exceptions for Federal park rangers and game wardens , who can carry a sidearm.

·         The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms shall be abolished and any required functions therein returned to the states. 

·         No arms of any kind shall be sold, traded, or given to any foreign government or group without the express consent of the House of Representatives by an open vote.  This has not worked out well in the past, and so a transparent vote should help clarify our positions and goals.

·         No firearm that is forbidden to be used by US citizens can be used by any Federal agency except the US Military and never against US citizens or on American soil.  If citizens cannot possess and use it, it cannot be used against them.

I admit this list is rather hastily drawn up, and I also admit that once you start writing restrictions on firearms it is easy to get carried away; and so I will stop there for now.  It is true, however, that this sort of thing is a slippery slope and so I look forward to writing more gun control laws in the future.

Glad to be part of the team, Mr. Vice President.  Writing laws is fun.

American Exceptionalism?

You may have heard the term “American Exceptionalism”, and if you are old enough you may even remember it.  It was the idea that Americans were something special, that there was something about America that made us a little more productive, creative, at the top of the heap in terms of the people of the world.

Every generation tends to think they are the last generation to be worth a damn, and I suppose I need to be wary of that trap.  But I must tell you, America is losing whatever exceptionalism we once had.  It does seem as though the generation that came after mine has lost it’s way.  But if that is true, it certainly did not start with them, but with their parents and grandparents.  I think those that raised the Gen X’ers failed somehow.  Before I go any further let me acknowledge the fallacy of painting an entire generation of people with the same broad brush.  There are some truly great young people out there, working hard and doing great.  There are exceptional people, just not that many of them.

Somewhere along the line we quit teaching our kids the right things and people in other areas of the world started teaching their kids the right things.  What are the right things?  Work hard.  Study hard in school.  Don’t expect to receive anything you did not earn.  Strive for excellence, to be the best.  Learning is critical.  You are going to have to compete with others around the world.  And most importantly, failure is not only a possibility, it is a certainty for those who do not try, who do not do their best.

The bad news: we have a heroin problem.  Let that sink in.  You have heard it but may not have really acknowledged it.  There is a heroin epidemic, and it is in the suburbs as well as the cities.  Kids and adults are on heroin and dying from it.  People born in the sixties will understand when I say I thought that was over, a stupid thing that once was.  Nope, heroin is alive and well.  Go to your browser and type in heroin.

After you and your browser are done looking at heroin, type in high school graduation rates.  Look up, say St. Louis public schools, or any city, New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc.  The graduation rate is 50%.  That means half of those kids are not finishing high school.  I am not saying they got poor grades and squeaked by.  I mean they did not get a high school diploma.  President Obama is concerned about student loan interest rates and the rising cost of college.  He wants it to be affordable for everyone.  Sadly, 50% of students in our city schools cannot go to college regardless.  They did not finish high school.

Go back to your browser and take a look at US rankings versus the rest of the world in math and science.  I will not belabor the point.  We are no longer exceptional.  We are 15^thor 16^th, but at least no child was left behind.  Except those that did not graduate and got hooked on heroin.   And those that do go to college often end up with a great big pile of student loans and no job offers, so we have more college graduates working low wage jobs than ever before, jobs that would have gone to high school graduates as entry level jobs.  Unemployment overall is high, and stubbornly so, but among young people it is staggeringly high, and without a high school diploma it is very difficult to find meaningful employment.  A lot of those folks are not even counted, and are living (the lucky ones) in their parents’ basements, playing video games and smoking pot.  The unlucky ones, well, I guess they are on heroin.

Before I switch gears and try to convince you this is not the end of the world, let me tell you what I think happened.  How did we get here?  That topic could likely fill several books but I would say the core of it is motivation.  Duh.  Why do I have to do my homework?  Why do I need to graduate?  Why go to college?  Why is anything important?  I want to play my video games and do my drugs and I don’t like work or school or thinking in general.  I don’t value money, because I don’t see why it matters.

We lost our sense of fear.  At the same time, the kids growing up in, for example, India, were given a healthy dose of fear.  But the kids in India and other places were given something else.  A sense that if they did apply themselves, if they did work hard and study and apply themselves, that they could rise above and make a better life for themselves and their kids.

The current debates going on in the US with regard to privacy and liberty and immigration and entitlement have really shed some light on what may be wrong with our country.  American Exceptionalism was never about our genetics.  We were not exceptional because of who we are, or who our parents were.  We had an exceptional SYSTEM in this country.  Our laws and our culture rewarded hard work and creativity, and yes, punished laziness and complacency.  We were born of a set of principles that shunned classes of people.  We had no kings or nobility, or for that matter peasant classes.  Any man who worked hard and made a better mouse trap could succeed here.  We laughed at those who thought they were entitled, such as the children of the wealthy, because we knew that within a generation their wealth would be gone, squandered, if the driving force that created it passed away.

Our system, our republic, was based on democratic principles and free market capitalism.  At it’s core was Liberty, the freedom of the common man to pursue his own self interest without interference.  That one concept propelled this nation to what was accurately dubbed American Exceptionalism.  We became great; not all of us, but as a nation we did great things and rose to the top of the world and we deserved it.  And those that worked and created and built and thought also improved the standard of living not only for themselves, but also their fellow Americans.  The rising tide lifted all boats.

Well, not ALL boats.  Some people observed that there was still poverty, and still people suffered.  And they wanted to do something about it.  The Great Depression hurt a lot of people.  My parents were born during the Great Depression, and they learned fear.  Fear of real hunger.  As a result they became savers, and frugal, and ambitious, and hard working.  They knew what was at stake in a way I never could.  They had seen a poverty I have never seen.  But having seen it, they would not tolerate laziness or lack of effort on my part.  They insisted that I would not only graduate high school but go to college.  And although we snuck out to drink a beer here and there we had to sneak because it was not to be tolerated in the house I grew up in.  I will call this second hand fear.

Unfortunately, third hand fear is not very effective.  I have never been hungry unless I was dieting on purpose.  I have never been wealthy but have never known poverty.  My children are good kids and successful, but not because of fear.  They cannot picture a Great Depression.  And neither can their generation.  Not only have their parents (we) always been there to pick them up, their government has been in hyperdrive in making sure nothing bad ever happens to it’s citizens.

Changing gears from the personal to the cultural, from Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson to Barak Obama, we have been steadily moving toward the idea that we will provide a safety net for everyone.  Social Security was sold as a retirement plan and safety net for our seniors.  The reality is that we took the money but spent it on roads and bridges and wars and conferences.  It is empty.   LBJ’s Great Society was designed to expand on what Roosevelt envisioned and provide a social safety net for everyone.  Barak Obama has presided over the greatest expansion of food stamps ever.

And lest I appear completely partisan, I will reserve my greatest critique for one George W. Bush.  I like the guy.  He was well intentioned.  But he introduced prescription drug coverage, without paying for it.  He presided over the Patriot Act, to keep us all safe, so we would not have to be afraid after 9-11-2001.  But most egregious was what he did in 2008 to “save the economy”.  He “saved” GM and Chrysler, and all the banks, and all of the companies that should have failed.  He did not let companies fail.  He did not let people get hurt as a result of their actions. 

For those who complain about the rich getting richer, we might want to blame George W. Bush.  You see, when you do not let free market capitalism run it’s course, you eliminate fear.  The CEO’s were very afraid because they knew they were borrowing money to make payroll.  The Wall Street traders were afraid because they had been speculating.  Boards of Directors were shaking in their boots.  Bankers had made stupid investments on shaky but lucrative real estate deals.  George Bush saved them all at our expense.  And that was a horrible decision, perhaps the worst.

Fear is what motivates us.  Fear keeps us honest and keeps us from doing stupid things.  There is no fear without pain, the pain that comes with failure.  The pain of the Great  Depression that made the Greatest Generation what it was, and made my parents demand that I do my homework. We must not interfere with the pain that might have woken up an entire generation and kept them from discovering heroin.   And the pain that for example, Ben Bernanke is trying to avoid as we speak by printing money out of thin air.  He wants to control things so nobody feels pain, but he is playing God and interfering with what should rightly be.  The Fed is interfering in the process that produces exceptional people and businesses and trying to make everyone safe from failure and pain.

We must stop trying to control things from above and let the natural flow of motivation and stupidity take care of itself; it is self correcting and, yes, painful.  But it is unerring and always works out in the end.  There is no such thing as too big or too small to fail.  Failure is how we learn.  I have hope for the future if we realize the value of that which made this country exceptional; but that will require a change.  We must let those who make bad decisions fail, whether they are corporate titans or lazy Gen X’ers in their parent’s basements.  We must reward those who try hard and work hard and put forth effort.  We do not have to micromanage this, our system was already set up to produce exceptional results, the best ever.  We need to just remove the modifications we have made to try to protect everyone.  Pain must be the natural result of bad decisions, or our people will not be exceptional.

Immigration Debate

It seems the debate on immigration reform has gotten a little lost with all of the scandals that seem to break daily.  I have no intention of losing sight of any of those other topics but immigration reform is moving forward one way or another and I wanted to offer my thoughts.

For those who have not been paying attention, there is a “gang of eight” senators who have worked out some sort of compromise idea, and the notable player in that gang of eight is Senator Marco Rubio.  No offense to the other seven, but clearly without Senator Rubio the gang of eight would be seven senators going nowhere.  Senator Rubio is a Republican and until this issue was considered by most to be a conservative one.  There are plenty of Democrat senators ready and willing to vote for comprehensive immigration reform, but Senator Rubio gives them credibility.  Just recently he has been joined by Senator Kelly Ayotte, also a conservative Republican, which has given comprehensive immigration reform slightly more credibility as a concept.

The bill will probably pass in the senate, but the real struggle will be in the House of Representatives, which is Republican and conservative and pretty much against comprehensive immigration reform.  I have been listening to the chatter on the subject, and what I hear from the right is not so much debate but simply NO.  I don’t hear a lot of ideas on how to fix our immigration problem, except to fix the border first and bold cries of No Amnesty!  I have been trying to turn the conversation from simply No! to asking people on the right to present their ideas.  And if I am asking them to do it, I am duty-bound to present my own.  And I do have some ideas on how to fix the problem, but first I would like to present some points about the nature of the problem.  Since I have a lot of thoughts, I will present bullet points.

·         Not all Illegal immigrants are from Mexico, and they are not all Hispanic.  We tend to think only of Mexicans as being those here illegally, but lots of the folks that we think of as “Mexicans” are actually from central or South America.  Further, there are people from everywhere that are here illegally, including eastern Europeans and the former soviet republics, as well as Asia.

·         Not all illegal immigrants came here illegally.  Many of the people that are not here legally came into the country legally, with proper visas, and simply stayed beyond the time they were to go home.

·         Not everyone came here for the same reason.  Let’s face it, some of the people came here because they are criminals and wanted to engage in criminal behavior in the US.  A small percentage may be the actual terrorists that we fear.  Some came here to take advantage of our generous system of “entitlements”.  But I suspect the majority came here because we have a great country with freedoms and opportunities, and often their home countries, well, suck.  They may be living in totalitarian regimes, they may have to live with violence and drug lords or corrupt governments, or they might just have small children and yearn for a better life for their offspring.

It is unfortunate that the problem is more complex.  If it were simpler and more straightforward we could fix it with slogans, but we cannot.  I for one can picture myself raising a family in a place that is not as wonderful as the US and I would not only want to come here, I would probably break US laws to do so if I had to.  You see I love my kids and breaking US immigration laws would be secondary to their well being and quality of life.

The next question is how do we fix the problem, because there are a large number of people (12 million?) who are here who know they are not here legally.  They are sneaking around, mostly working hard but having to avoid law enforcement while living their lives here, sometimes for decades.  Many do not pay taxes; many (somehow) are receiving benefits and raising children in our schools, and needing medical care and driving, with or without a license.  We have a dysfunctional system and everyone knows it.  Wishing reality were different is irrational.  As I like to say, reality does not care what you think of it, reality just is.  What can we do to correct the dysfunctional system?  I have some thoughts.

·         Border Security   We are all aware that our southern border is not completely secure.  As noted above, that will not solve the problem completely because people come here from many different places and some come here legally.  But we all agree that we need a secure border where we can control who comes into our country.  I am not an expert but I have seen most of the border from Tijuana to Harlingen, from both sides.  The problem is not the same at all points of the border.  Some parts are urban environments where we need to keep the people from sneaking through the fence or tunneling under.  In southern California and Texas’ Big Bend you have mountains I am not sure a sane person would attempt to cross, fence or no. Some parts are flat desert with a fence that seems well patrolled.  And in some parts of Texas it seems like the only barrier is the Rio Grande.  We need complete fencing and good border patrol but it is not as simple as it might sound.

·         Legal Immigration Reform Part of the problem we face is that we have a really screwed up legal immigration system.  It is too complex, it takes too long, and it encourages people to simply come here illegally and skirt the system.  We need to make it easier, simpler, and quicker for good people from other countries to come here legally.

·         Citizenship by birth on American soil We have a law that says if you are born on American soil you are an American citizen.  In my opinion this is misguided and should be repealed.  You should be American if your parents are American or if you go through proper channels to become a naturalized citizen.  That is what other countries do, our rule is unique.

·         A single line for citizenship Some of the proposals I have seen have a special path to citizenship for those who are already here, albeit illegally.  This is not rational or fair.  All people from any country (Mexico) should get in the same line and wait in order for their turn in the process, regardless.  Go to the back of the line, or it is not fair to those who are doing it properly.

·         Penalties We are a nation that believes in the rule of law and if we are going to let people wait here while they are in line for citizenship then we must apply penalties because they broke the law.  There should be vigorous debate about the nature of those penalties, be it fines or whatever.  Regardless of the reasons why you did so, you should not escape penalties for breaking the laws, and certainly should not be rewarded compared to those that followed the rules.

·         Legal Status I do not care what term you apply to it, we need to bring those we are talking about out of the shadows and recognize their status, so we can tax them, monitor them, penalize them, and record their place in the single line for citizenship.  Legal status does not mean permanent residency or citizenship, and it does not guarantee you anything.  But if you want to be part of whatever process then we want to know who you are and if, for example you have committed crimes.  You should pay taxes like the rest of us and this would give us a way to identify you to make sure you pay your penalties and not remain anonymous. This does not entitle you to anything, and would tell a potential employer who you are, rather than encouraging you to fake a social security number.

·         Language and Culture In order to move forward in the process you will need to assimilate with American culture, not insist on retaining your own.  Tests should be given on American history and government in English which you must pass in order to move forward.  We should teach people English and we can help them assimilate, but not cater to those who wish to only speak their native language.

·         Path to Citizenship Just like folks who are following the rules to come here legally from another country, you must satisfy all of the relevant criteria, and go through all of the hoops, just like everyone else.  You must start at the back of the line.  You must pay a penalty for breaking the law.  You cannot be a criminal and should have skills we need.  But if you do all of these things and desire to be an American citizen you should not be prevented from doing so.  Voting rights should be at least ten years away to take away the incentive from politicians to make these people political pawns.

·         Employer Penalties Part of this process must involve punishing employers who hire people without legal status.  If you come out of the shadows and get initial legal status you will be identified and an employer will know your status.  If employers hire people who have not done so, the penalties should be extremely severe.  Bottom line is, you identify yourself or you will not work; and if you hire non-legal workers you get a long jail term.  We should debate what employers should pay theses workers; so they do not drive wages down, but they are already here and working so that should not really change.

And finally there is one more bullet point.  I am setting it aside as, believe it or not; all of the above is trivial compared to the last point.  We can do all of the above but unless we understand and fix the final point all of the above is in vain; it will not work.  In fact, our society must understand the following or we will cease to exist as a viable nation.  So here it is….

·         Rights and Entitlement Reform As for rights, every immigrant already has the same rights as every American.  Congress is in no danger of giving anyone the same rights as Americans.  Our rights, and the rights of poor people from Central America, are inalienable.  They come, as the Declaration of Independence says, from God.  Everyone already has the right to freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, of peaceable assembly.  We acknowledge freedom of the press and your inherent right to pursue your own happiness.  These can be taken away by tyrants or corrupt governments but are not granted by our president or anyone; they are inherent.  What we are often confused about is the difference between rights and so-called entitlements.  In my humble opinion there is no such thing as entitlements.  We are a charitable people who care about our poor and downtrodden.  As Americans we give and give and give to people in need not because they are entitled but because they are in need and we are a generous people.  If we continue to assert that those in need are ENTITLED to our charity, no fences or laws will keep people from coming here for Goodies.  But that is another blog post.

Equality, Democracy, and Liberty

It has often been noted of late that our country is evenly divided along philosophical lines.  I wish to take exception to that.  Our country is evenly divided along partisan lines.  And further, I think many on both sides, many of those who vote, have no idea what they are talking about or voting for.  There are a lot of intellectually lazy people on both sides who just feel that they are best represented by either Republicans or Democrats, in general, based on pretty hazy definitions of what it means to have either an R or a D by your name.

It is interesting, therefore, to watch the recent debate inside the Republican party between people like John McCain and people like Rand Paul.  Those folks who think they are best represented by Republicans should probably figure out which Republicans they are talking about.  John McCain was once again on tv this morning, and he presented the following; he is not concerned about the recently revealed NSA scandal where government is monitoring our phone call data.  He thinks that, despite there being really no good options that we cannot just sit by and let one side get slaughtered in Syria, and we need to get involved there because we are the world’s superpower.  And he wants Republicans to trust their committee to negotiate on the budget without adding a resolution that the budget talks not involve raising the debt ceiling.  McCain’s philosophical allies include folks like Lindsey Graham.

Ted Cruz of Texas is one of those in the Rand Paul camp, along with Marco Rubio.  He recently said on the Senate floor that he does not trust Republicans, probably referring to McCain and Graham, because they have been involved with the status quo for too long.  Rand Paul is appalled by the NSA data collection, and thinks we need more liberty and less government.  He was also on tv this morning, advocating such things as finding a compromise between an immigration plan sponsored by his friend Marco Rubio and House Republicans, who want nothing to do with any plan that provides a path to citizenship for people who came here illegally.

And that is just within the Republican party.  Democrats and even those who call themselves liberals are also apparently on different sides of things.  Many long time liberal voices, including Lanni Davis, Bob Woodward, and Bob Beckel are outraged by some of the recent scandals that threaten our liberties, although one of the most powerful liberal voices of all, one Barak Obama, runs the current administration that now seems very comfortable with the Patriot Act and wiretapping and AP and Rosen cases and is defending things that you would think would be George W. Bush territory.  Even Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Feinstein have been outraged at and/or defended policies depending on which one you pick.

It is getting increasingly difficult to tell the players without a scorecard.

This may be strange but it is not unprecedented.  One thing I am guilty of is talking about what “The Founders” would do.  A quick look at history answers the question; they would argue amongst themselves.  I am a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson, but Alexander Hamilton not so much.  Let me say that I am a student of history, not a master.  Those who have studied these things more may feel free to correct my understanding of history but the point is not history but philosophy. 

As you know our nation was founded in 1776 but our first government, The Articles of Confederation, was a failure.  The problem seems to have been that the federal government was made very weak, in response to the colonists having just overthrown a strong monarchy, and they wanted states to be free to do as they pleased.  But the weak central government was unable to do much, including solve disputes between the states or protect the citizens of those states from state governments.  Alexander Hamilton was the founder of the Federalist Party, and he argued that we needed a stronger federal government and a different system to replace the Articles.  Not only were Americans, as Jefferson said, “novices in the science of government”, so were the states.  But between 1776 and 1787, when they adopted our current constitution, they learned a lot from trial and error.  Hamilton, a Federalist, envisioned a powerful federal government, and initially thought the President and members of Congress should serve for life.  He was a nationalist and as first Secretary of the Treasury argued that the Constitutional powers included the power to tax and apply tariffs and fund the national debt.

Patrick Henry and others, those in the anti-federalist camp, did not want a strong federal government, because they feared a strong federal government would endanger their rights.  They argued that state governments, which were smaller and closer to the people, could be kept under control more easily and would not be as susceptible to tyranny.  In order to ratify the constitution these Anti-Federalists would have to be convinced. 

Madison and Jefferson had founded the Democratic-Republican party, which opposed Hamilton’s Federalists.  Madison had been a chief author of the Constitution, based on ideas that came partly from the vigorous debates at the Annapolis and Philadelphia conventions.  In order to convince people like Patrick Henry that the new Constitution would protect their rights, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay wrote a serious of papers called the Federalist Papers, in which they argued that the structure of the new government, with 3 branches, and a bicameral legislature with Senate and a House of Representatives, and enumerated powers, would protect their liberties.  And the argument had to be made that a stronger federal government would be better able to protect their liberties than a weaker one.  And the powers of the federal government would be “few and defined”.

The Federalist Papers went a long way, but to satisfy the Anti-Federalists, Madison had promise to push for a Bill of Rights to be added as Amendments.  Obviously the Constitution was ratified, but barely.

A condensed version of some of the philosophical discussions involves the concepts of liberty, equality, and democracy.  Often we make the mistake of saying these three words together, as though they go together.  They do not.  Republicanism is primarily concerned with liberty.  The concept is that all men are created as sovereign beings, endowed with inalienable rights.  These rights are not given to you, or granted by a monarch.  You have them; ALL men have them.  You have the right to live, to speak your peace, to worship as you see fit, and to pursue you own happiness as you define it.  Jefferson was a huge supporter of the concept.  These rights are written into our founding documents as acknowledgement that you already have them, and that they are not to be taken away.  We often think of the taking away of rights as something a monarch or dictator does.  Jefferson worried (and Tocgueville later warned) about rights being taken away by democracy.  If democracy is the idea that the people have the power, and that power can be exercised by popular vote, then there is a danger that a majority or super-majority could try to vote away your very rights, which are inalienable.

Tocqueville writes of the “tyranny of the majority”, and said, “But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom”.

Equality is the idea that all men are created equal.  Equality is different from equity, which is defined as equal outcomes for all.  The United States benefitted greatly from the idea of equality in that the standard model of societies had always been European-type monarchies and social structure.  There were kings and ruling classes and nobles and peasants, and rarely did one change from one status to another.  In America, one found that hard work and thought and a little luck could allow one to rise to any station in life, and that was pretty much unique in all of human civilization.  Americans developed a distain for class and the trappings of it, at least for a time.

So, although I have lots more to say on the subject, we must return to the present day.  Some are concerned primarily with democracy, some with equality, and some with liberty.  And some are simply federalists, to which a Bill of Rights is an afterthought to appease others.  Some are closer to Patrick Henry, and some are closer to Alexander Hamilton.  I would say Hamilton reminds me of McCain.  Many in the House of representatives remind me of Patrick Henry.

I did not mention John Adams, but he was the president who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were mainly intended to silence criticism of the government and allow the president to punish or deport those who disagreed.  Might I suggest this sounds like Barak Obama or at least Richard Nixon?

For me, I am concerned that we are experiencing the tyranny of the majority.  The majority in this country continues to elect representatives who will give them goodies, and who will not make us pay for those goodies.  I fear the electorate is mostly ignorant of what or whom they are voting for.  Democracy is alive and well and threatens our union.  We have made great strides in equality, since obviously the founders saw black people as less than full humans, and women were not allowed to vote.  I know there is bigotry, but I think we mostly agree that all men are created equal.

My concern is that we have lost our precious Liberty.  There does not seem to be much concern for the Bill of Rights, even from those like McCain who wear the badge Republican.  I am heartened that there are still people like Beckel who see the problem.  And as for the size and power of government, let’s just say that although nobody can say what the founders would say, since they are not here, I think that is one area where they might all be in agreement, perhaps even Hamilton.  The federal government to too big, it has too much power, and it is taking away our Liberties.

Tyranny and Negative Liberties

Many people hear all of the ranting from those of us who are libertarians and they just hear politics.  When you mention Barak Obama in a negative way they figure you are either trying to win the next election for your side or you are a racist.  Not everybody, but a lot of people.

When Rush Limbaugh said he hoped Barak Obama failed, a lot of people were outraged because they could not understand why anyone would not want the president to succeed at what he was attempting to do.  They wrote Rush off as just being highly partisan (which he is) but they missed the essential point.

I do not agree with Barak Obama's basic philosophies.  He and I do not share core values.  I admit I think he loves his kids and wife and doesn't believe in rape or murder or stealing, but I am talking about his philosophies on government and society.

The folks who founded our nation took the time to carefully read all of the great philosophers that came before them, and then they discussed and debated and disagreed, and finally put together a set of principles.  Those principles became the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and Bill of Rights, and all of the great supporting documents like the Federalist Papers that explained what they wanted this country to be.

They forsaw a country built on a set of principles that was pretty unique in human history.  No king, no dictator, just free people going about their business, pursuing happiness without government dictating their every move.  They came from a place, and broke away from a King, who wanted to do just that.  The Monarch didd not like the colonists going about their business and not paying his taxes and doing what he said.

Communism and socialism are legitimate concepts, advanced by Marx and others, but these are not the concepts upon which this country was founded.  Hitler actually espoused fascism, and thought it would work well, so long as he was in control.  But we do not embrace fascism. 

The United States was founded on the concept of limited government.  It is the bedrock of who we are.  They went to great lengths to specify that the power of the federal government was to be limited, and spread out among three branches so that power would be diluted.  Yes, they feared Tyranny because they had experienced it.  They launched the Great Experiment, one where Democracy, Free Market Capitalism, Individual Liberty, and Limited Government were the cornerstones.

Some people don't like the system they set up.  Some people would like to live in a socialist, or fascist, or even a communist system.  And some people are not happy that our constitution is a document of "negative liberties", that is, the constitution tells the government what it CANNOT do.  Congress shall make no law resistricting our rights to free speech, free press, etc.  Some people feel that this was a big error in judgement on the part of the founders.

Who, you ask?  Barak Obama, who is an "expert" on constitutional law.  From an interview;

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

So, yes, we disagree on core principles, and I want his ideas on redistribution of wealth to fail.  I am one of the people who see Tyranny lurking around every corner.  And I will point to the recent scandals as proof that this administration wants more power and does not see the Bill of Rights the same way as you or I do.  The Affordable Care Act is a massive expansion of government power. 

I think the founders would be horrified, and tea would be going into the harbor.

Legitimate Rape

When I was in fifth grade I was in Mr. Hrach’s class, and the biggest scandal that year was that someone brought some pictures to school from Playboy magazine, and all the boys were passing them around.  I will not divulge who did it, but it was not me.  That was a long time ago and the principal (Mr. Keller) was pretty upset.  They wanted to know who was responsible and although it seems hard to believe these days, principals could spank students, so this was serious business.  We all had to speak to him one by one and honestly I don’t remember what the outcome was, I just remember that was probably my first exposure to Playboy.

A couple of weeks ago some students at Hillsdale Elementary in North Highlands CA were caught passing around a naked photo of a female classmate, using their cell phones.  Clearly there are a lot of differences here, for one the use of cell phones, and more importantly this was an actual classmate.  Apparently these sixth graders are facing felony charges.  Ouch.  Let’s be clear here, what these kids did was wrong, and they need to be punished.  They violated the young girl’s rights and not only do they need to learn that this is wrong but a broader message needs to be sent to other kids about cell phones and privacy.  I am just not sure about felonies for sixth graders.

Many people advocate sex education begin in kindergarten.  A recent New York Times article advocates appropriate sex education at all levels, including Kindergarten and sixth grade.  The article quotes statistics by the Guttmacher Institute that notes that half of all young people have had sex by age 17.  We do need sex education in schools, of some sort, I am just concerned about the way we present it, and I am not sure at what age we should begin introducing these ideas.  But if half of kids have sex before reaching 17, then we have a responsibility to at least teach them how babies are made and what the names of body parts are.  My official education was in 7^th grade, where Mr. Box did a good job in health class of making it all sound very dry and uninteresting.

As everyone is aware in the last election cycle Todd Akin put a massive foot in his mouth when he introduced the term Legitimate Rape.  He then dug his hole a little deeper by trying to explain that if it is legitimate rape the female body has ways of “shutting that down”.  There was, of course, massive outcry and we all learned the unquestionable truth that “Rape is Rape”.  I will of course not defend Mr. Akin or his remarks, mostly because they were wrong and made no sense.  He went on to lose the election after deciding not to get out of the race.  It is certainly true that all rape is evil and unacceptable. 

When someone forces themselves sexually on another person who is not consenting, they have committed a horrible crime.  We all picture an older man holding a knife (picture, let’s say, Todd Akin), and forcing himself on a younger woman who is sobbing and pleading for him to stop.  But of course there are other cases, for example the high school football players who took advantage of a young girl who had passed out.  They were found guilty and rightly so.  Whether she would have consented if she was awake is of no consequence, she was not awake and therefore could not consent.

Beyond the cases of obvious rape discussed above, society has also rightly determined that young people are not old enough to be able to consent to sex, and so we have statutory rape charges that apply to anyone who has sex with a minor.  We also do not allow minors to enter into legally binding contracts or drive an automobile, for the same reason.  They are not old enough to make these decisions by themselves, because they cannot understand the consequences.  In the case of sex, we have the famous example of Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State coach who was caught showering with young boys and is now in prison.  Jerry Sandusky is a sick man and his actions are disgusting.  Even if he had not molested these boys, any sane adult knows that you do not ever get naked around a child lest you be charged with improper conduct. 

The recent decision by the Boy Scouts to allow gay boys to be scouts, and not to allow gay scout leaders, was always in part about fear of litigation.  Youth leaders from Scouting to Little League are trained over and over to never be alone with young people, but to always have two adults present, and to avoid situations where any hint of inappropriate behavior could exist.  Scouting is and always has been about teaching young men to be good, moral adults.  There is nothing immoral about being gay and so I applaud their decision to allow gay scouts.  But I suspect the decision to not allow gay leaders is about fear of litigation if a Jerry Sandusky comes along and wants to be part of the troop.  Not sure how I feel about that but let’s just say it is not as clear cut as it would appear.

And now what of the case of Kaitlyn Hunt, the 18 year old young lady who is facing 15 years in prison?  She is charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior, which is Florida’s term for statutory rape.  Kaitlyn is a senior in high school and was involved in a lesbian relationship with a 15 year old girl.  They were both on the basketball team and when the coach found out she was kicked off the team.  She was expelled, and as I said, faces 15 years in prison from felony charges. 

As every boy learns when he turns 18, any girl younger than you is “jailbait”.  The laws that define statutory rape are necessarily arbitrary.  A line must be drawn, whether it is 17 or 18, and people below that age cannot consent and people older than that can.  The parents of the other young girl waited until Kaitlyn turned 18 and then filed charges.  So two young people having a relationship who are 17 and 18 are not equal, one is a criminal.

But the question must be asked, what activity constitutes actual rape?  Is it kissing?  Or as we used to say, first base, second base, third base, or a home run?  If a home run is intercourse, then the question there is pretty clear.  An 18 year old boy is unwise to have intercourse with a younger girl, for a number of reasons.  First, you might get her pregnant.  Second, you could get an STD.  Third, as pointed out, you could go to jail.  But can an 18 year old boy kiss his 16 year old girlfriend?  Where is THAT line?

I must also point out that Kaitlyn Hunt was in no danger of getting her young friend pregnant for obvious reasons, and they cannot have traditional intercourse.  So in this case the rape involved must have involved something else.  Since they were on the same basketball team they were in a position where showering together was acceptable, so long as there was no touching.  Not so with an 18 year old boy and his 16 year old girlfriend, where simply being naked with her might be improper.

My point as always is that whenever we start spouting absolutes such as “rape is rape”, we need to pause and perhaps more carefully consider all of the circumstances.  Society must draw an arbitrary line somewhere, but perhaps judges should have some leeway to consider the actual case, which is apparently not the case in Florida.  “Legitimate rape” is a horrible thing, but I am not convinced that Kaitlyn Hunt deserves 15 years behind bars, or that every case of statutory rape is exactly the same. Kaitlyn Hunt is not Jerry Sandusky.  Rape is Rape, except when it isn’t.

http://www.sott.net/article/262125-Sixth-grade-students-may-be-charged-with-felony-for-sharing-nude-picture-of-classmate-video

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/07/at-what-age-should-sex-education-begin/sex-education-for-kindergarten-and-beyond

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/florida-student-18-criminally-charged-lesbian-relationship-article-1.1348422