The Supreme Court is my least favorite branch of government. Ever since John Marshall decided that the court has judicial review in Marbury v Madison, I felt that there was too much power concentrated into the hands of unelected, for-life officials. Perhaps if the court had stuck to a strict interpretation of the Constitution I would have thought differently, but court rulings like those involving the American Booksellers and Indianapolis, where they decided that pornography was 1st amendment protected, or Roe v Wade, etc., haven't made me a big fan of the Supreme Court.
That may change.
Since 2001, things have been happening in the government that are not good, to put it too plainly. We, the American people, are seeing our freedoms taken away. The Patriot Act in the former administration, with it's infamous "Sneak and Peak" warrant provision, took away some of our privacy.
But as long as it's being used against bad guys, it's ok, right? Not until the government's definition of "bad guy" changes to start including suspected "racists" and "hate crime advocates" like preachers who speak against homosexuality.
And, of course, the Obama administration is still using the Patriot Act's power with warrantless surviellance , but all the blame will go to the other guy.
The Supreme and Circuit Courts have limited the power of the Patriot Act (thankfully), acting in proper concordance with the entire system of Checks and Balances.
Now we'll see what they'll do about the forced buying of health care and the government's attempted takeover of the internet businesses.
Nothing scares me more than the last bit, by the way. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but if the government takes over the internet, our main source of news and communication, we're in a bit of trouble.
Which is exactly what will happen if the government is able to offer its own internet.
How can a private, tax-paying corporation operating under a sovereign government compete with that government, which makes the rules, doesn't need to make a profit and can cover all losses by simply printing more money?
This, by the way, is a foundation of conservative beliefs.
I'm thankful for the District of Columbia Court of appeals standing up to the FCC and the beginnings of an attempted takeover.
But I wonder how far our court systems will go to protect us further? Will it be able to stand up to the President over the issue of forcing private citizens to buy insurance from a private company? Can the government force us to buy things? I say no; Obama says yes.
So do all the liberals. Where will the court rule?
I cannot wait until one of the Houses go to the other party; I may not fully support the Repubs, but I'm a firm believer in Hobbes' metaphor of a government. It's a leviathan, a monster. And all the monster has been doing since 2001 (or since FDR, really) is getting stronger. The leviathan wants to consume more power, for no other reason than to grow. I'd rather have the monster eating itself than us.
But will the courts stand up to the beast?
Can the people? Because I firmly believe the federal government will never relinquish a power it has been allowed (by us) to give itself. All the federal government will do is add power, slowly or quickly, depending on the watchfullness of the people.
And what is the end result for the leviathan that can only grow and never diminish? I think that's an important question for us, as we are living on the same island as the beast.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Rich Envy
I deliver pizza to mini castles.
I deliver pizza in Brentwood, TN, the richest part of the 17th richest county in the nation. Every day is like a tour of the "rich and famous," although not usually the famous part. Yesterday, I delivered a pizza and an order of buffalo wings to the back of a brand new subdivision with homes "Starting in the 800's." That's about 7 times the amount of house I will likely purchase when I finally get around to my first mortgage.
I'm supposed to feel jealous. I don't.
I'm not even going to take the "I bet their lives are really miserable" argument. You know, the one that all the television shows and movies tell us is true. Rich girl escaping from her mini castle which is really a prison to run off with the poor happy free-spirited guy in a pick-up truck. Money doesn't make for happiness, but I don't think it makes for a horrible life, either.
So what's my reaction? Good for you, I say. To the guy about 10 years older than me playing in the backyard with his two sons and his two pedigree-looking boxers, I bear you no ill-will just because the 5 dollar tip you gave me was 1/3 of my hourly wage and probably 1/60th of yours.
The rhetoric is that these rich people who object to paying taxes are greedy. They've had unfair advantages from their parents. They've risen to the top by being an unethical capitalist, standing on the throats of those below them.
Maybe it's all true, although I doubt it. I find it hard to believe that most of these people don't work hard for their money, unless they're entertainers (no offense).
A little over 15% of American households earn over $100,000 annually. 56% make between $25-100k. 29% make less than that (and a majority of these households have no one working). The gap is growing between the rich and poor.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the loss of the "I can have this" attitude that has been replaced by the "You shouldn't have this because I don't" attitude.
Envy has replaced ambition.
Those who talk of "personal responsibility" are almost always the have's. I am a under 30K, under the poverty line "have not," and I say, take personal responsibility. Stop hating the rich. We have a system of taxation that takes a majority of money from the top.
Which, if you stop and think about it, means the rich have paid for our roads, our schools, our police officers, and so on.
As for me, I made around $28k last year. The federal government kicked me back, after not paying any income taxes, $9k, so, thanks to the rich taxpayers, I came home with $37k last year. I have $950/month (over $10k annually) to buy my family food. I have free health insurance.
Basically, because of taxes, my income of $28k stretches out to look something more like $50k.
Thank you, rich taxpayers, for doubling my salary.
But I have to wonder if the comfort level of life that even us living below the poverty line can achieve (provided we can manage our own money) has sapped our own ambition. Why would I want to spend so much energy trying to achieve comfort for my family when it's being handed to me?
Perhaps I've gotten lazy. Perhaps the rich of America owe it to the rest of us for them being so lucky while we're not. All I know is that I have no personal reason to resent the rich and no justification in piling more taxes upon them.
Because just maybe when the gap between the rich and the poor disappears in America, we will all be at the bottom instead of the top.
I deliver pizza in Brentwood, TN, the richest part of the 17th richest county in the nation. Every day is like a tour of the "rich and famous," although not usually the famous part. Yesterday, I delivered a pizza and an order of buffalo wings to the back of a brand new subdivision with homes "Starting in the 800's." That's about 7 times the amount of house I will likely purchase when I finally get around to my first mortgage.
I'm supposed to feel jealous. I don't.
I'm not even going to take the "I bet their lives are really miserable" argument. You know, the one that all the television shows and movies tell us is true. Rich girl escaping from her mini castle which is really a prison to run off with the poor happy free-spirited guy in a pick-up truck. Money doesn't make for happiness, but I don't think it makes for a horrible life, either.
So what's my reaction? Good for you, I say. To the guy about 10 years older than me playing in the backyard with his two sons and his two pedigree-looking boxers, I bear you no ill-will just because the 5 dollar tip you gave me was 1/3 of my hourly wage and probably 1/60th of yours.
The rhetoric is that these rich people who object to paying taxes are greedy. They've had unfair advantages from their parents. They've risen to the top by being an unethical capitalist, standing on the throats of those below them.
Maybe it's all true, although I doubt it. I find it hard to believe that most of these people don't work hard for their money, unless they're entertainers (no offense).
A little over 15% of American households earn over $100,000 annually. 56% make between $25-100k. 29% make less than that (and a majority of these households have no one working). The gap is growing between the rich and poor.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the loss of the "I can have this" attitude that has been replaced by the "You shouldn't have this because I don't" attitude.
Envy has replaced ambition.
Those who talk of "personal responsibility" are almost always the have's. I am a under 30K, under the poverty line "have not," and I say, take personal responsibility. Stop hating the rich. We have a system of taxation that takes a majority of money from the top.
Which, if you stop and think about it, means the rich have paid for our roads, our schools, our police officers, and so on.
As for me, I made around $28k last year. The federal government kicked me back, after not paying any income taxes, $9k, so, thanks to the rich taxpayers, I came home with $37k last year. I have $950/month (over $10k annually) to buy my family food. I have free health insurance.
Basically, because of taxes, my income of $28k stretches out to look something more like $50k.
Thank you, rich taxpayers, for doubling my salary.
But I have to wonder if the comfort level of life that even us living below the poverty line can achieve (provided we can manage our own money) has sapped our own ambition. Why would I want to spend so much energy trying to achieve comfort for my family when it's being handed to me?
Perhaps I've gotten lazy. Perhaps the rich of America owe it to the rest of us for them being so lucky while we're not. All I know is that I have no personal reason to resent the rich and no justification in piling more taxes upon them.
Because just maybe when the gap between the rich and the poor disappears in America, we will all be at the bottom instead of the top.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Polarized idiots and a biased news breakdown
Part I: Polarized idiots
I don't want to beat a dead horse to death (again), but the ridiculousness of the Republican/ultra conservative and the Democratic/ultra liberal is getting to me again.
Maybe it's my difficulty in having a real conversation with the happy-drunk Democrats I know; no, I don't want to have a "debate" with you where one of us wins or loses, there's no point in that. Do you really think that if you "beat" me in a debate that means you're right and I'm wrong? The truth isn't tied down to individual people. Please, let's have a civilized discussion where we aren't attacking each other and we'll see if we can challenge each other's ideas. But these liberal friends aren't interested in learning anything or in teaching anything; the caricatures see someone who disagrees with them and they attack.
If you can't say anything that hasn't been repeated 100 times by either fox news or cnn, please don't argue with me. When you have a new thought originating in your own head, then we can talk.
I won't even pretend Republicans don't do this, either, although in my biased personal experience as a paleo-conservative leaning independent, I've been attacked by more liberals than anything; so much for loving freedom of speech or being open minded (which, by the way, doesn't include being open minded to anyone who disagrees with you).
I'm sure left-leaning independents who don't go for the herd mentality and don't follow what the great donkey tells them to do have have had their share of senseless attacks from the die-hard Republicans worshiping the great elephant in the sky.
I shouldn't be surprised that this is how people react when it comes to politics. No one wants to think, it's a battleground to them (thank you, Mr. Rove), and the truth doesn't matter as much as the scoreboard. Of course these diehard reds and blues act this way: that's what the parties and the political talking heads they serve do.
My opinion? If you agree with everything one political party says, you can't think for yourself. This doesn't have to be a one way or the other choice on how to run America.
Gee, do we want to run our country to the ground by cutting taxes and increasing defense spending while policing the globe, or do we want to run the country into the ground by raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing everything spending?
Who should we let control the masses, big corporations or big corporate government?
I mean, if it's going to be an either-or situation, make it an easy one: cake or death, not death by quartering or crucifixion.
Part II: Biased news breakdown
I did have a mental breakdown after attempting to update myself on the current events; I'm spinning happily off into another apathetic stage, which is my normal response when things are just too stupid to bother with. It's like worrying if someone is cheating at Calvinball. What's the point?
Here is the breakdown of the idiocy of the biased news I suffered through:
99.7, the typical heartless conservative:
Phil Valentine was lambasting (correctly so, I say) NYC's incentive plan to pay poor people $100 to go to the dentist. He put forth, in all seriousness, his own idea: pay people with kids on welfare $500 to get their tubes tied or snipped. And if they don't become infertile? Kick them off welfare.
No talk about reducing benefits or lowering the wage standard for those on welfare, let's just nip the problem in the bud.
90.3, the liberal radio show (please don't tell me you think NPR is anything but)
There was a lady talking in a dramatic voice about the struggles low income children have in their school when they don't have access to proper food in the home. No, that wasn't it, let's see if I can remember...oh yes, the horrors a low-income child has competing with the rich kids when they don't have broadband internet access!!! And the talk on the fringe, if The Economist is any indication, is of the government "introducing more competition" to drive prices down for internet.
Let's see, the government introducing competition...let's bet on whether they'll give tax breaks to new internet providers, or if they'll just offer a government-run internet company.
Bleeding heart liberals at the finest, lamenting the tragedy of students having to wait hours in line for access to the internet on the library. Just think, the next time a 14 year old boy is downloading porn, it may be thanks to the tax payers of America.
By the way, I didn't have internet until I was 17 and never used it for school; graduated 2003 Salutatorian of my class, son of a blue-collar worker. Quit whining, please.
Left, Right and Center podcast:
By left, right and center, what they meant, apparently, was a left-wing nutcase from the Huffington Post, a left-wing foreigner, a supposedly "centrist" host who was center-left, and one right-wing nutcase from the Washington Times left out to dry. The topic: Obama working the deal with Russia to reduce the number of warheads by 30%.
Right wing nutcase's opinion: We can't be limiting the number of nuclear warheads we have when Iran and North Korea are becoming dangerous and building their nuclear power up!
Left wing's nutcase's opinion: Obama and Russia, by reducing their nuclear warheads, will lead Iran, North Korea and the rest of the world into an era of nuclear disarmament.
And my take? At the end of the day, with over 1,500 nuclear warheads between us and Russia, each, I'm pretty sure we are still far and away more nuclear able than North Korea, Iran and all of Africa put together, and I'm betting (although don't prove me on this) we could destroy the world if we detonated them all. It's like we could blow everything up five times over before, and now we can only blow the world up three times over.
With that in mind, how does either side's arguments stand up?
Oh, wait, we're talking politics, it's not about common sense.
Speaking of Common Sense...
I did happily stumbled upon Dan Carlin a while back who, besides doing a usually enjoyable Hardcore History podcast, does an independent political podcast entitled Common Sense. The only problem is, he touches on broad ideas taken from news stories, holistic, like a historian; this is great for the show, but doesn't fill me in on everything that's going on (meaning I will continue to suffer through all these other news sources). If only he could release them every day (check him out on iTunes for both shows, you'll be glad you did).
He did touch on the Christian Militia story out of Michigan, the one where the nutcases wanted to kill a bunch of cops and overthrow the government. They didn't get to do anything they planned but were arrested for seditious actions and having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The WMDs were homemade explosives.
The ultra-liberals had a field day with this: according to comments on RAW Story, all white Christians are terrorists.
According to the right wing, these guys did nothing wrong, the government is arresting them for no reason; which, technically, they didn't do anything (kind of like when we stop international terrorists from actually committing the terrorism) but do we really want to stick our necks out and defend a group of supposed Christians who think we are supposed to fight the antichrist? And start by killing government authorities? I think they missed a few key points in the gospel message.
Food for thought: if homemade explosives are classified as WMDs, wasn't Bush right when he said Iraq had WMDs?
(note to any Democrats reading: that was a joke)
Side note: I'm still waiting for our liberal President to end the wars. Why isn't this in the news?
I don't want to beat a dead horse to death (again), but the ridiculousness of the Republican/ultra conservative and the Democratic/ultra liberal is getting to me again.
Maybe it's my difficulty in having a real conversation with the happy-drunk Democrats I know; no, I don't want to have a "debate" with you where one of us wins or loses, there's no point in that. Do you really think that if you "beat" me in a debate that means you're right and I'm wrong? The truth isn't tied down to individual people. Please, let's have a civilized discussion where we aren't attacking each other and we'll see if we can challenge each other's ideas. But these liberal friends aren't interested in learning anything or in teaching anything; the caricatures see someone who disagrees with them and they attack.
If you can't say anything that hasn't been repeated 100 times by either fox news or cnn, please don't argue with me. When you have a new thought originating in your own head, then we can talk.
I won't even pretend Republicans don't do this, either, although in my biased personal experience as a paleo-conservative leaning independent, I've been attacked by more liberals than anything; so much for loving freedom of speech or being open minded (which, by the way, doesn't include being open minded to anyone who disagrees with you).
I'm sure left-leaning independents who don't go for the herd mentality and don't follow what the great donkey tells them to do have have had their share of senseless attacks from the die-hard Republicans worshiping the great elephant in the sky.
I shouldn't be surprised that this is how people react when it comes to politics. No one wants to think, it's a battleground to them (thank you, Mr. Rove), and the truth doesn't matter as much as the scoreboard. Of course these diehard reds and blues act this way: that's what the parties and the political talking heads they serve do.
My opinion? If you agree with everything one political party says, you can't think for yourself. This doesn't have to be a one way or the other choice on how to run America.
Gee, do we want to run our country to the ground by cutting taxes and increasing defense spending while policing the globe, or do we want to run the country into the ground by raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing everything spending?
Who should we let control the masses, big corporations or big corporate government?
I mean, if it's going to be an either-or situation, make it an easy one: cake or death, not death by quartering or crucifixion.
Part II: Biased news breakdown
I did have a mental breakdown after attempting to update myself on the current events; I'm spinning happily off into another apathetic stage, which is my normal response when things are just too stupid to bother with. It's like worrying if someone is cheating at Calvinball. What's the point?
Here is the breakdown of the idiocy of the biased news I suffered through:
99.7, the typical heartless conservative:
Phil Valentine was lambasting (correctly so, I say) NYC's incentive plan to pay poor people $100 to go to the dentist. He put forth, in all seriousness, his own idea: pay people with kids on welfare $500 to get their tubes tied or snipped. And if they don't become infertile? Kick them off welfare.
No talk about reducing benefits or lowering the wage standard for those on welfare, let's just nip the problem in the bud.
90.3, the liberal radio show (please don't tell me you think NPR is anything but)
There was a lady talking in a dramatic voice about the struggles low income children have in their school when they don't have access to proper food in the home. No, that wasn't it, let's see if I can remember...oh yes, the horrors a low-income child has competing with the rich kids when they don't have broadband internet access!!! And the talk on the fringe, if The Economist is any indication, is of the government "introducing more competition" to drive prices down for internet.
Let's see, the government introducing competition...let's bet on whether they'll give tax breaks to new internet providers, or if they'll just offer a government-run internet company.
Bleeding heart liberals at the finest, lamenting the tragedy of students having to wait hours in line for access to the internet on the library. Just think, the next time a 14 year old boy is downloading porn, it may be thanks to the tax payers of America.
By the way, I didn't have internet until I was 17 and never used it for school; graduated 2003 Salutatorian of my class, son of a blue-collar worker. Quit whining, please.
Left, Right and Center podcast:
By left, right and center, what they meant, apparently, was a left-wing nutcase from the Huffington Post, a left-wing foreigner, a supposedly "centrist" host who was center-left, and one right-wing nutcase from the Washington Times left out to dry. The topic: Obama working the deal with Russia to reduce the number of warheads by 30%.
Right wing nutcase's opinion: We can't be limiting the number of nuclear warheads we have when Iran and North Korea are becoming dangerous and building their nuclear power up!
Left wing's nutcase's opinion: Obama and Russia, by reducing their nuclear warheads, will lead Iran, North Korea and the rest of the world into an era of nuclear disarmament.
And my take? At the end of the day, with over 1,500 nuclear warheads between us and Russia, each, I'm pretty sure we are still far and away more nuclear able than North Korea, Iran and all of Africa put together, and I'm betting (although don't prove me on this) we could destroy the world if we detonated them all. It's like we could blow everything up five times over before, and now we can only blow the world up three times over.
With that in mind, how does either side's arguments stand up?
Oh, wait, we're talking politics, it's not about common sense.
Speaking of Common Sense...
I did happily stumbled upon Dan Carlin a while back who, besides doing a usually enjoyable Hardcore History podcast, does an independent political podcast entitled Common Sense. The only problem is, he touches on broad ideas taken from news stories, holistic, like a historian; this is great for the show, but doesn't fill me in on everything that's going on (meaning I will continue to suffer through all these other news sources). If only he could release them every day (check him out on iTunes for both shows, you'll be glad you did).
He did touch on the Christian Militia story out of Michigan, the one where the nutcases wanted to kill a bunch of cops and overthrow the government. They didn't get to do anything they planned but were arrested for seditious actions and having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The WMDs were homemade explosives.
The ultra-liberals had a field day with this: according to comments on RAW Story, all white Christians are terrorists.
According to the right wing, these guys did nothing wrong, the government is arresting them for no reason; which, technically, they didn't do anything (kind of like when we stop international terrorists from actually committing the terrorism) but do we really want to stick our necks out and defend a group of supposed Christians who think we are supposed to fight the antichrist? And start by killing government authorities? I think they missed a few key points in the gospel message.
Food for thought: if homemade explosives are classified as WMDs, wasn't Bush right when he said Iraq had WMDs?
(note to any Democrats reading: that was a joke)
Side note: I'm still waiting for our liberal President to end the wars. Why isn't this in the news?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)