Sometimes the correct answer is that there is no correct answer.
Republicans and even some Democrats are ratcheting up their criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Of course, each side has political reason to do so: the Republicans obviously look better by making Obama look worse, and Democrats are nervous that Obama's low approval ratings will drag them down in midterm elections. With control of the Senate in the balance, both sides are going to try whatever it takes to come out on top.
But if we look a little deeper, we see... nothing. That is, for all the criticisms, I've yet to hear a legitimate solution to any of the world's problems. They want Obama to be more forceful in Syria, in Iraq, and in Ukraine/Russia. Have we learned nothing from moving too quickly to the drumbeats of war? I'm not a fortune teller, and I can't say for sure that the Middle East would be any different or better today had the US not invaded Iraq. It certainly seems to me, though, that it would be far less of a mess. We went in, toppled Hussein, hung around for a while providing "security and training", and then left... and we left a country with no way to combat the threat of terror groups such as ISIS. Is it really such a surprise what's happening over there today?
What I'd really love to hear is not what we should be doing in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, but rather what these politicians think the results of such action would be. They want us to begin airstrikes in Syria and to arm the "more moderate rebels". No one, of course, is willing to say publicly that conducting airstrikes in Syria against ISIS is equivalent to supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. No one is willing to say publicly that it's effectively impossible to identify moderate groups in Syria, and even if we could, it would be entirely impossible to ensure that our weapons don't end up in the hands of ISIS or Assad. We need only look to Iraq to see how easily our weapons can end up in the hands of ISIS. I'd be all for a solution, if only one person would propose an answer that seems feasible. Going in with guns blazing and American flags flying hasn't yet worked in the Middle East, and I don't see why it should be any different this time around.
As for Ukraine, again, what are we to do? I suppose helping to arm the Ukrainians makes more sense than does trying to do the same in Syria. At the same time, I don't know if any amount of weapons we give to Ukraine would be enough to overcome the power of the Russian army; I believe that if we wanted to turn the Russians back with force, it would require direct American military intervention. That may be in Ukraine's best interest, but is it in America's? At the beginning of the Obama presidency in 2009, he and Hillary Clinton spoke of a "Russian reset", trying to begin our relations with Russia anew. Was that such a crazy idea? In hindsight it's very easy to say "obviously it didn't work, therefore it was a bad idea." But what else could we have said? A new administration has two basic options for dealing with a contentious nation: either try to work with them or declare them an enemy. As far as I'm concerned, attempting diplomatic solutions to issues, attempting to work with Russia as a partner is preferable to declaring them an enemy and starting Cold War II with the beginning of the Obama administration. So we tried to work with Russia, and recently we've seen Russia has no interest in being an ally; their actions in Ukraine prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. So I'd say the "reset" is less of a mistake and more of optimism that didn't turn out so well. In any case, the reset is in the past. We tried working with the Russians and it didn't work. So while it makes sense from a narrow point of view to support Ukraine against Russia, is that a situation we really want to step into? Anything the United States does, from arming the Ukrainians, to providing air support, to direct military involvement, will be clearly seen as an act of aggression of the US against Russia. Given Russia's actions, I believe our intervention would be wholly justified; the issue, however, is how Russia would perceive such actions. Vladimir Putin and the Russian people have a completely different view of their involvement in Ukraine, and I believe would likely take great offense at America "interfering" in their affairs. Any action the US takes would, in my opinion, sever the few remaining threads connecting the US to Russia, and officially begin Cold War II... and we could only hope Cold War II doesn't become Nuclear Apocalypse I.
We need to be fully prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions around the world, and this is something I think is lost on the politicians calling for immediate action. They accuse Obama of being too cautious, which in some cases is a legitimate criticism; my opinion is that Obama's caution has so far prevented a catastrophe on a scale most politicians can't fathom. Obama's policy of "don't do stupid stuff" has become a punching bag for many, but I believe those four words have stopped us from making a few grave mistakes. While it seems the time is coming for America to take some sort of action, I believe a policy of caution, patience, planning, and depth of strategy are vital to achieving our goals without causing even greater chaos in the world.
Let us learn from the lesson of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq that caution is required. Patience is needed. Just because America has the military power to go anywhere and crush any threat doesn't mean that that's always the best solution. Hopefully our politicians can realize this before we repeat the mistakes we've made so many times before.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Monday, September 1, 2014
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Taxes Are Not Evil
This is addressed to all those conservatives who seem to think taxes are evil.
I actually wonder if the people who complain about paying taxes have any clue what they're talking about. How else is the government supposed to function? Funding for roads, schools, farms, Congress, etc., has to come from somewhere.
I'm not saying that many tax dollars aren't misused. There are a LOT of places where tax dollars could be used more effectively, and we should be actively trying to make sure the dollars are used in the best way possible. But "I don't like the way that dollar was used, therefore I shouldn't pay taxes at all" is NOT a valid argument. No person is ever going to agree with everything the government does, it just isn't possible. Get over it.
I see a lot of people who get angry with the "poor people" who get upset about rich people and companies dodging taxes. I saw someone comment that we "shouldn't get mad because the rich know how to play the game". These same people ridicule the poor for getting away with not paying taxes. This doesn't make sense to me; if you applaud the rich for doing whatever they can to avoid taxes, shouldn't you also have to applaud the woman who has 9 kids just to collect the government benefits and avoid paying taxes? I don't personally agree with either situation; I'm just saying it seems a bit hypocritical to support one and not the other.
Rich people seem to have such a hatred of the social programs. Some people misuse them, and we should do all we can to identify these people; however, the majority of people are on these programs because it is legitimately needed. Do you really believe that everyone who is on government assistance is "living the good life" without having to work? Is this REALLY how you envision the life of someone who is on public assistance? If so, I encourage you to visit a family who needs this help. I encourage you to try to live on the amount of money these people have to live on. There are many HARD working people who need assistance because their full-time job doesn't give them enough money to live on.
Furthermore, many "patriots" love to complain about how countries like North Korea, Russia, Cuba, etc. let their people starve because of the way their government operates. The comments, though, would seem to prefer that we do the exact same thing with our people here in the USA. I, frankly, would not stand for it. I don't live on public assistance; at the same time, I'm a student who works very hard to get by. The fact that I am more likely to give a couple bucks to a person in need than someone who makes millions of dollars a year is very saddening to me.
I find it amusing that these are the people who claim to be bigger "patriots" than everyone else. These are the people who claim to love America the most, who say that America is the best country on the planet. These are the people who say that the liberals and the Democrats are trying to destroy America. Yet, they'll leave the country and denounce their citizenship in a snap if it means saving a few bucks? I guess what they really mean is that they love America, as long as they, and ONLY they, can benefit from it. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable calling a country that lets its citizens and poor children starve to death the greatest country on the planet. And somehow, this is precisely what these people want. They just don't realize that if they let the poor and middle class all die off, their stream of income would stop. Whose hard work are you going to ride to the top if there isn't anyone left who needs to work for a living? Who's going to buy your products if the only people left already have everything? Who's going to be left on a "lower" level than you to give you that feeling of superiority that you so DESPERATELY need?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Obama's Gun Proposals, and a Changing World
I've never really been a fan of the "bad guys don't follow laws, so we shouldn't make laws" point of view. The same logic could be applied to any criminal laws on the books, but of course people want to pretend that the logic magically stops where guns end. To that end, the President is unveiling some very common-sense proposals to attempt to prevent another tragedy.
The proposals seem to be focused on preventing mass shootings and violence in schools. We all agree that violence doesn't stop with these events, but does that mean we shouldn't do something about them if we can? I can't see a reason that each of these proposals doesn't make good, common sense? As the President himself said, no law will be able to prevent every shooting. But if a law has a chance to curb some of the violence without trampling people's rights, what's the problem with that?
Please, someone, explain to me how an assault weapons ban, or limiting the size of a clip to a reasonable size, is an "assault on freedom and the Second Amendment". The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. You can sure as hell be well-armed without owning an assault weapon or a high-capacity clip. You'd have to be a moron to own 20 guns and say "gee, I'm not bearing arms". Reasonable restrictions do NOT violate the second amendment.
Furthermore, times have changed since the Constitution was drafted. Would the Second Amendment be worded in the open ended way it is if the types of powerful guns that exist today had existed then? Nobody knows, but I believe the Founding Fathers would be sick to their stomachs at the thought of military style weapons being used to mow down civilians, and especially children. The Constitution is a great document, but the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of growing as times changed; that's why they included the ability to draft new laws and amend the Constitution. Statements that applied centuries ago may not necessarily apply now. It amazes me that we have seemingly regressed in our thought to the point where we no longer understand the importance of adapting to the changing world; that we no longer understand what the Founding Fathers understood, all those years ago.
Finally, as kind of a side remark, why is it that the people so hellbent on protecting the Second Amendment seem to be so willing to trample on the First Amendment? Things like trying to deport Piers Morgan because you don't agree with what he used his First Amendment right to say flies directly in the face of the Constitution you claim to be defending.
Maybe all of these sentiments can easily be summed up in two words: grow up.
The proposals seem to be focused on preventing mass shootings and violence in schools. We all agree that violence doesn't stop with these events, but does that mean we shouldn't do something about them if we can? I can't see a reason that each of these proposals doesn't make good, common sense? As the President himself said, no law will be able to prevent every shooting. But if a law has a chance to curb some of the violence without trampling people's rights, what's the problem with that?
Please, someone, explain to me how an assault weapons ban, or limiting the size of a clip to a reasonable size, is an "assault on freedom and the Second Amendment". The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. You can sure as hell be well-armed without owning an assault weapon or a high-capacity clip. You'd have to be a moron to own 20 guns and say "gee, I'm not bearing arms". Reasonable restrictions do NOT violate the second amendment.
Furthermore, times have changed since the Constitution was drafted. Would the Second Amendment be worded in the open ended way it is if the types of powerful guns that exist today had existed then? Nobody knows, but I believe the Founding Fathers would be sick to their stomachs at the thought of military style weapons being used to mow down civilians, and especially children. The Constitution is a great document, but the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of growing as times changed; that's why they included the ability to draft new laws and amend the Constitution. Statements that applied centuries ago may not necessarily apply now. It amazes me that we have seemingly regressed in our thought to the point where we no longer understand the importance of adapting to the changing world; that we no longer understand what the Founding Fathers understood, all those years ago.
Finally, as kind of a side remark, why is it that the people so hellbent on protecting the Second Amendment seem to be so willing to trample on the First Amendment? Things like trying to deport Piers Morgan because you don't agree with what he used his First Amendment right to say flies directly in the face of the Constitution you claim to be defending.
Maybe all of these sentiments can easily be summed up in two words: grow up.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Forward.
Election Day has come and gone. President Obama has been reelected.
In the end, the election wasn't even close in terms of the Electoral College tally. Voters in every swing state (except North Carolina, for those who consider that one) broke for the President. In an election that any GOP pundit told us was about jobs and the economy, America spoke: they decided that they just trusted President Obama more than they did Governor Romney.
It would be nice if we, as a country, could go forward from here. Obama will face no more presidential elections; there are no political points to be scored through obstructionism and attempting to make him look bad. The hope is that the two sides can come together and compromise, though it already seems that that may not be realistic.
For example, anyone may look up Donald Trump's Twitter rant (I refuse to link to such nonsense here) on election night. The same night, a Republican CNN contributor remarked that Obama should give in to 80% of the House's demands. Now, I don't think Obama should be handed the world on a silver platter, but considering that the American people did just reelect him, it seems to me that basically putting the Republicans in charge is not only unwarranted, but is ignorant of the will of the people.
Speaker Boehner of course still opposes raising taxes on those making over $250,000. Honestly, "raising taxes" doesn't seem to be the correct phrase; all indications are that the Bush tax cuts were to be temporary, considering that that's how they were written. President Bush cut taxes to an extremely low level, and when the expiration date of his legislation comes, suddenly "Democrats want to raise your taxes". Very clever indeed. The arguments for keeping the break for the wealthy are dwindling: they don't seem to need the tax cuts at this point (did they ever?), and the CBO released a report stating that a tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth. At this point, the fight to keep the cuts for everyone seems to be more of an ideological struggle from the GOP than it is a practical point.
The fact that the GOP still refuses to come to the bargaining table over something which would seem to have minimal practical impact is disturbing. The hope was that the days of "we don't care if we don't have a valid reason, we're gonna oppose you just for the hell of it" were over with the election, but reality may be setting in. The GOP still seems unwilling to compromise, and it would be ignorant for the President to not fight for his positions, considering that he has the will of the majority of the American people behind him.
We may be in for a bumpy four years.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
GOP Fanatics Are Only Hurting Americans
By now, I'm sure the whole country is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States has (more or less) upheld the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. This isn't stopping Republicans from fighting it; if anything, they have only been invigorated in their efforts to kill the ACA.
Many GOP leaders have redoubled their efforts to deny health care to the masses. In this article, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said that the decision "marks a fresh start on the road to repeal". Senator Rand Paul goes as far as to question the validity of SCOTUS's decision, saying "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". It's interesting that when the decision goes their way, the GOP seems to believe that the Supreme Court's word is absolutely unquestionable. Clearly their opinion has changed.
Even more harmful than rhetoric, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare even after the ruling by the Supreme Court. The ACA does allow until 2014 for states to set up health care exchanges, even though people desperately in need of health care obviously would like their state to move more quickly than that. Instead of going forward with this, Governor Jindal has decided to put his efforts into making sure Mitt Romney is elected to repeal the law. Clearly, this is not helpful to the citizens of Louisiana. Jindal, along with many in the GOP, has decided to completely abandon any semblance of trying to make economic progress in this country in order to launch a full scale assault on Democrats in the fall. This not only affects those in need of health insurance, but the country as a whole that needs the full attention of all its leaders at this critical economic juncture.
Certainly, this will be the GOP's excuse for not getting anything done until the election. They are "putting their efforts into a full repeal" even though it is clear that that just isn't possible at this time. This means that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, and the GOP's base will absolutely eat it up. I suppose one could view this as a genius move by the Republicans, though the only reason it can work is because it is what their base wants. To get rid of Obama and his signature piece of legislation at any cost, even it it means completely paralyzing the country until at least November.
Many GOP leaders have redoubled their efforts to deny health care to the masses. In this article, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said that the decision "marks a fresh start on the road to repeal". Senator Rand Paul goes as far as to question the validity of SCOTUS's decision, saying "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". It's interesting that when the decision goes their way, the GOP seems to believe that the Supreme Court's word is absolutely unquestionable. Clearly their opinion has changed.
Even more harmful than rhetoric, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare even after the ruling by the Supreme Court. The ACA does allow until 2014 for states to set up health care exchanges, even though people desperately in need of health care obviously would like their state to move more quickly than that. Instead of going forward with this, Governor Jindal has decided to put his efforts into making sure Mitt Romney is elected to repeal the law. Clearly, this is not helpful to the citizens of Louisiana. Jindal, along with many in the GOP, has decided to completely abandon any semblance of trying to make economic progress in this country in order to launch a full scale assault on Democrats in the fall. This not only affects those in need of health insurance, but the country as a whole that needs the full attention of all its leaders at this critical economic juncture.
Certainly, this will be the GOP's excuse for not getting anything done until the election. They are "putting their efforts into a full repeal" even though it is clear that that just isn't possible at this time. This means that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, and the GOP's base will absolutely eat it up. I suppose one could view this as a genius move by the Republicans, though the only reason it can work is because it is what their base wants. To get rid of Obama and his signature piece of legislation at any cost, even it it means completely paralyzing the country until at least November.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Kansas Bans Islamic Law
......really?
Really?
Sam Brownback, the Republican governor of Kansas, has signed a bill that "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of [their] state and our nation when deciding cases and will not rely on the laws of foreign jurisdictions".
I'm sure Kansas, like most of the country, has its own share of pressing issues facing it. I would guess that an alarming amount of judges suddenly choosing to throw out the US Constitution and abide by sharia law isn't one of them. This is nothing but pandering to the Islamophobic segment of the GOP base; what else could make the lawmakers think that this was really necessary?
Did it really need to be made clear that the US abides by US law? I think not. This law can only be harmful. The only time sharia law is allowed to be referenced now is in very special cases, such as divorce cases between Muslims, where both parties consent to sharia law being used. This is no different than prenuptials going around what the law would normally require and acting out the agreement that was consented to by both parties.
This reeks of racism and hatred. Now, some members of the GOP will probably call me "un-American", or say that I would "choose Muslims over Americans" or something ridiculous like that for taking this position, but that's hardly surprising. If the GOP wants people to stop viewing them as racist, maybe they need to stop doing things like this.
Really?
Sam Brownback, the Republican governor of Kansas, has signed a bill that "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of [their] state and our nation when deciding cases and will not rely on the laws of foreign jurisdictions".
I'm sure Kansas, like most of the country, has its own share of pressing issues facing it. I would guess that an alarming amount of judges suddenly choosing to throw out the US Constitution and abide by sharia law isn't one of them. This is nothing but pandering to the Islamophobic segment of the GOP base; what else could make the lawmakers think that this was really necessary?
Did it really need to be made clear that the US abides by US law? I think not. This law can only be harmful. The only time sharia law is allowed to be referenced now is in very special cases, such as divorce cases between Muslims, where both parties consent to sharia law being used. This is no different than prenuptials going around what the law would normally require and acting out the agreement that was consented to by both parties.
This reeks of racism and hatred. Now, some members of the GOP will probably call me "un-American", or say that I would "choose Muslims over Americans" or something ridiculous like that for taking this position, but that's hardly surprising. If the GOP wants people to stop viewing them as racist, maybe they need to stop doing things like this.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Taxmaggedon
First, a quick thought; why is everyone spelling it as "Taxmaggedon" rather than "Taxmageddon"? Strange.
Anyway... does this song sound familiar to anyone? Congress can't seem to figure out what to do about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, automatic spending cuts, and expiration of the payroll tax cut that are all scheduled for the end of the year. Pulling from the tried and true playbook of GOP rhetoric, Republican senators sent a letter to Senator Reid stating "...President Obama and Congress have spent much of the past year advancing misguided redistributionist policies in the name of fairness".
It's starting to get tiresome that every time a tax increase on the wealthiest is mentioned, or even just letting previous tax cuts on them expire, we are suddenly talking about Obama's socialist wealth redistribution policies. I don't think anyone is really talking about collecting all of the money in the country and equally dividing it among all citizens. That would be redistributionism. Are the rich going to even notice it if their taxes go up by letting their tax cuts expire? Well... of course they will, because they notice every penny as if it will be the last they ever see. But I hardly think they would be adversely affected by paying an amount more consistent with their income.
I do find it surprising that the idea of fairness is such a disgusting thing to the GOP. Again, when Democrats say "fairness", they don't mean equal distribution of wealth. They just mean that everyone pays a reasonable amount in taxes. America is a great country, but clearly some people have benefited more than others from being here, and I don't think asking a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) amount in return is unreasonable.
The GOP politicians know this, but it doesn't fit their message. So they go to the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric, all but saying it at every opportunity. Which is unfortunate because, as it seems it always is with them, the middle class suffers because of it. When it comes to taxes, the GOP version of compromise is "give us everything we want, and then we can talk". And the Democrats have been doing it because, in the end, they recognize the stakes for the average citizen. It's just too bad that, while they may be able to keep the ship afloat like that, no progress can truly be made under these conditions.
Anyway... does this song sound familiar to anyone? Congress can't seem to figure out what to do about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, automatic spending cuts, and expiration of the payroll tax cut that are all scheduled for the end of the year. Pulling from the tried and true playbook of GOP rhetoric, Republican senators sent a letter to Senator Reid stating "...President Obama and Congress have spent much of the past year advancing misguided redistributionist policies in the name of fairness".
It's starting to get tiresome that every time a tax increase on the wealthiest is mentioned, or even just letting previous tax cuts on them expire, we are suddenly talking about Obama's socialist wealth redistribution policies. I don't think anyone is really talking about collecting all of the money in the country and equally dividing it among all citizens. That would be redistributionism. Are the rich going to even notice it if their taxes go up by letting their tax cuts expire? Well... of course they will, because they notice every penny as if it will be the last they ever see. But I hardly think they would be adversely affected by paying an amount more consistent with their income.
I do find it surprising that the idea of fairness is such a disgusting thing to the GOP. Again, when Democrats say "fairness", they don't mean equal distribution of wealth. They just mean that everyone pays a reasonable amount in taxes. America is a great country, but clearly some people have benefited more than others from being here, and I don't think asking a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) amount in return is unreasonable.
The GOP politicians know this, but it doesn't fit their message. So they go to the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric, all but saying it at every opportunity. Which is unfortunate because, as it seems it always is with them, the middle class suffers because of it. When it comes to taxes, the GOP version of compromise is "give us everything we want, and then we can talk". And the Democrats have been doing it because, in the end, they recognize the stakes for the average citizen. It's just too bad that, while they may be able to keep the ship afloat like that, no progress can truly be made under these conditions.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Let's Ignore The Issues... That We Keep Bringing Up
Mitt Romney, campaigning in Colorado, stopped for an interview with CBS Denver. After being asked about a variety of issues, Romney made it quite clear that the only thing he wanted to discuss was the economy. He answered questions about marriage equality, but a question about marijuana was just too much, apparently:
So I suppose the GOP wishes the Democrats would stop bringing up social issues in legislation across the country. Except... the GOP themselves are the ones that tend to keep bringing it up. Earlier this week, the GOP-led North Carolina government was successful in adding Amendment 1 to the state constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal partnership. Also, the state of Tennessee, with a Republican governor and majorities in both the state House and Senate, Friday signed into law a bill that says teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity", whatever that means.
Time and again, it seems that the Republicans are the ones who are trying to legislate social issues; the ones trying to tell people by what values they should live their lives. If Romney and Boehner want the focus of the party to be on the economy, maybe they need to tell the other lawmakers in their own party first.
“Aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about? ...The economy, the economy, the economy. The growth of jobs. The need to put people back to work. The challenges of Iran. “We’ve got enormous issues that we face, but you want talk about, go ahead, you want to talk about marijuana?"This sentiment seems to be echoing throughout the GOP politicians in the House and Senate. When asked for comment, Speaker Boehner said "The president can talk about it all he wants. I’m going to stay focused on what the American people want us to stay focused on, and that’s jobs."
So I suppose the GOP wishes the Democrats would stop bringing up social issues in legislation across the country. Except... the GOP themselves are the ones that tend to keep bringing it up. Earlier this week, the GOP-led North Carolina government was successful in adding Amendment 1 to the state constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal partnership. Also, the state of Tennessee, with a Republican governor and majorities in both the state House and Senate, Friday signed into law a bill that says teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity", whatever that means.
Time and again, it seems that the Republicans are the ones who are trying to legislate social issues; the ones trying to tell people by what values they should live their lives. If Romney and Boehner want the focus of the party to be on the economy, maybe they need to tell the other lawmakers in their own party first.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Illogical Arguments Against The Buffett Rule
Gotta love Yahoo!. And I do love Yahoo!; I like the page layout and the easy access to all the top news stories.
What I'm less of a fan of, however, are the comment sections on the articles. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be allowed to comment about things and speak their minds. But I have to question what is actually going on in the minds of many of the Yahoo! users. More often than not, the comment section has far more than its fair share of Obama hatred (even on articles not anywhere near concerning him), and (even though I'm very careful about throwing around this accusation, as it gets used far too often) even overt racism. You need look no further than any article mentioning the Williams sisters (or any tennis article... it will get brought up eventually) to see what I mean.
This article contains a discussion of the Buffett Rule, but the article itself contains nothing particularly interesting. The comments, as usual, are another story. My favorite argument against the Rule:
This whole "well if you think you should pay more, then send the government a check" argument is ridiculous. If our tax system was voluntary, this country would never have survived two months, much less 200+ years. No person should have to send the government a check to make up for an obvious imbalance in the way taxes are collected. What is even sadder is that this same argument has even been used by Republican congressmen to shoot down the Rule.
Is the Buffett Rule the way to go? Maybe, maybe not. But if you want to say no, come up with a reason that actually halfway makes it look like you even considered the question at all, and aren't just saying what Fox News tells you to.
What I'm less of a fan of, however, are the comment sections on the articles. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be allowed to comment about things and speak their minds. But I have to question what is actually going on in the minds of many of the Yahoo! users. More often than not, the comment section has far more than its fair share of Obama hatred (even on articles not anywhere near concerning him), and (even though I'm very careful about throwing around this accusation, as it gets used far too often) even overt racism. You need look no further than any article mentioning the Williams sisters (or any tennis article... it will get brought up eventually) to see what I mean.
This article contains a discussion of the Buffett Rule, but the article itself contains nothing particularly interesting. The comments, as usual, are another story. My favorite argument against the Rule:
"If he or anybody else thinks they aren't taxed enough, why do they utilize the so-called 'loopholes' to lower their taxes? Why don't they just pay the higher rate? Why don't they simply send a check to the government?"Ah, the sweet smell of ignorance (well, maybe the sweet smell is the smell of my cookies baking... I think ignorance smells like something else entirely). The point isn't for one person to pay more taxes, it's that it simply makes no sense for people with more money to pay a smaller share than someone with less money. (Whether or not there should be a flat tax is another discussion, but for the richer person to actually pay less makes no sense.)
This whole "well if you think you should pay more, then send the government a check" argument is ridiculous. If our tax system was voluntary, this country would never have survived two months, much less 200+ years. No person should have to send the government a check to make up for an obvious imbalance in the way taxes are collected. What is even sadder is that this same argument has even been used by Republican congressmen to shoot down the Rule.
Is the Buffett Rule the way to go? Maybe, maybe not. But if you want to say no, come up with a reason that actually halfway makes it look like you even considered the question at all, and aren't just saying what Fox News tells you to.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Santorum's View On Separation Of Church And State
Ah... if there's one thing we can say about Rick Santorum, it's that we can trust him to consistently say things that smack of radical right-wing extremism.
Here is an article on Yahoo! entitled Santorum says he doesn't believe in separation of church and state. That's quite interesting. Because separation of church and state is the only way to guarantee the religious freedoms afforded by the First Amendment. As soon as matters of the church become mixed with those of the federal government, we lose that part of the First Amendment. Whether it's because government is taking a special interest in and promoting a certain religion, or singling one out for criticism, it doesn't really matter; to me, any mixing of the two is a clear violation of the First.
Santorum is quoted as saying "The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."
Wait... what?? Actually, I'm pretty certain the First Amendment means the exact opposite: we let people practice their own religion on their own time, and the government neither espouses it nor interferes with it. I would also argue that the First Amendment equally protects those who choose to follow no religion at all. If we start bringing faith into government matters, aren't the rights of atheists being violated? Not to mention the rights of everyone who follows a religion different from whatever religion government is promoting.
And, as I expect at this point, he has taken Democratic words and twisted them into a convenient talking point. In 1960, President Kennedy gave a speech outlining the idea of separation; the idea that, in order to guarantee religious freedom, government should be totally divorced from any religion.
Commenting on this, Santorum said "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says. That now we're going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith."
I'm pretty sure the idea isn't to say that "people of faith have no role in the public square". Otherwise, the government would be comprised completely of atheists at this point. I'm honestly not even sure what he's trying to say in the latter two sentences. How does separation of church and state translate into "the government imposing its values on people of faith"?
Because, if you love the First Amendment as much as Santorum claims to, surely you must see that separation is the ONLY viable option. I hardly think turning America into a theocracy is the way to guarantee religious freedom for all.
Here is an article on Yahoo! entitled Santorum says he doesn't believe in separation of church and state. That's quite interesting. Because separation of church and state is the only way to guarantee the religious freedoms afforded by the First Amendment. As soon as matters of the church become mixed with those of the federal government, we lose that part of the First Amendment. Whether it's because government is taking a special interest in and promoting a certain religion, or singling one out for criticism, it doesn't really matter; to me, any mixing of the two is a clear violation of the First.
Santorum is quoted as saying "The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."
Wait... what?? Actually, I'm pretty certain the First Amendment means the exact opposite: we let people practice their own religion on their own time, and the government neither espouses it nor interferes with it. I would also argue that the First Amendment equally protects those who choose to follow no religion at all. If we start bringing faith into government matters, aren't the rights of atheists being violated? Not to mention the rights of everyone who follows a religion different from whatever religion government is promoting.
And, as I expect at this point, he has taken Democratic words and twisted them into a convenient talking point. In 1960, President Kennedy gave a speech outlining the idea of separation; the idea that, in order to guarantee religious freedom, government should be totally divorced from any religion.
Commenting on this, Santorum said "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says. That now we're going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith."
I'm pretty sure the idea isn't to say that "people of faith have no role in the public square". Otherwise, the government would be comprised completely of atheists at this point. I'm honestly not even sure what he's trying to say in the latter two sentences. How does separation of church and state translate into "the government imposing its values on people of faith"?
Because, if you love the First Amendment as much as Santorum claims to, surely you must see that separation is the ONLY viable option. I hardly think turning America into a theocracy is the way to guarantee religious freedom for all.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal, And It's The Government's Fault
To me it's very clear that gay marriage should be allowed. But maybe not for the reasons many people think.
If it were just a question of a "celebration of love" or "a holy contract between a man, a woman, and God", I honestly wouldn't care either way.
But that's not what marriage is. At least, not anymore. Government decided to get involved. In the present day world, marriage is a contract between two people and the government. There are tons of benefits of being married; actual, tangible benefits. This website has an enormous list of the benefits of marriage. Especially amusing is the quote "if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union... none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships". Also, "...you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner... and other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply".
This isn't a question about religion anymore. It stopped being about religion the moment government benefits came into the equation. It's about the fact that government has decided to endow couples certain special privileges, and as everyone is created equal, everyone should be entitled to these same privileges.
Either that, or eliminate every single privilege enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Whatever floats your boat.
If it were just a question of a "celebration of love" or "a holy contract between a man, a woman, and God", I honestly wouldn't care either way.
But that's not what marriage is. At least, not anymore. Government decided to get involved. In the present day world, marriage is a contract between two people and the government. There are tons of benefits of being married; actual, tangible benefits. This website has an enormous list of the benefits of marriage. Especially amusing is the quote "if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union... none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships". Also, "...you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner... and other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply".
This isn't a question about religion anymore. It stopped being about religion the moment government benefits came into the equation. It's about the fact that government has decided to endow couples certain special privileges, and as everyone is created equal, everyone should be entitled to these same privileges.
Either that, or eliminate every single privilege enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Whatever floats your boat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)