12.17.07
Bits and Pieces
I’ve been overwhelmed with work, global warming, and the holiday season lately, so I’ve been falling behind on topics that need to be dicussed. So I thought I would lay some of them out here and open them up for discussion. Consider this a “housecleaning” post I guess…
First off, there’s the smoking issue. The argument has continued to rage behind the scenes here as Alaskanspawn and I have been bantering back and forth regarding secondhand smoke. The battle has been going on here if you would like to read up (it’s long though, so beware): http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/minnesota-smoking-ban-moves-forward-is-there-any-limit-to-the-actions-of-these-power-hungry-nannies/
I would like some more input on this. Even if you don’t want to read the banter, I would like to know your opinions on secondhand smoke. Is it a health issue or is it just nanny state overkill?
Second, there is Christmas and the separation of church and state. The athiests/secularists are going ape (as usual) over the Christmas season. Your opinion: does the separation of church and state cover religious holidays or is this just an ugly bastardization of the clause?
Third, the torture issue. Supposedly I do not represt America in my opinion on the use of torture in extracting information from terror suspects. What’s your opinion? Do Americans secretly endorce torture but refuse to publicly admit it thanks to media demonization, or is the condemnation of torture really the legitimate opinion of the American population?
Fourth, is the Islamic culture getting out of hand? With the recent murder of a Canadian teenager at the hands of her father over her rejection of Islamic law/culture, should we be taking a closer look at the Islamic spread in our own home? Your opinion: can we coexist with strict Islam in our homeland, or will one of us have to concede and conform?
micky2 said,
December 17, 2007 at 8:57 pm
We should torture the secularist by euthanizing them with cigarette smoke.
And then dress all the corpses up like Muhammed and ship them too Iran with ” Merry Christmas ” painted on their foreheads
micky2 said,
December 17, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Man, that was rough.
Guess what kind of mood I’m in.
ChenZhen said,
December 17, 2007 at 9:10 pm
#4 Did you know that paying interest is against their religion? I didn’t. I tried to sell a car to a gal in a burka today, and it was 0% or nothing (she didn’t qualify for 0%). I suppose her only option was to buy something cheap outright. But now I’m sitting here wondering how they would buy a house.
micky2 said,
December 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Next thing you know we will have to bring up special legislation that directs our banks to finance them.
For nothing.
Ha ! PC loans !
ChenZhen said,
December 17, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Well, speaking of that…Sharia Financing in Minneapolis?
micky2 said,
December 17, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Yea, but if you dont pay up they cut off a limb
Alaskanspawn said,
December 17, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I’ll tell you what, I count myself lucky to find this website. It’s been a long time since I’ve found a site with a lot of issues that are current, relevant, and insightful…regardless of my additions :-).
I’m not particularly political, in fact I’ve tried my damndest to avoid it or debate it. What I find is that it’s difficult to avoid and in no way ideal.
Anyway, you mention atheism as one of your topics. I can’t tell from your “about me” post which side you stand on. I see from your “must reads” 2 Ayn Rand books, objectivist comes to mind. The 5000 year leap appears to speak of the seperation of church and state, among other things.
May I ask? Are you religous or atheist or somewhere in between? If you have a post already about this topic could you point me in that direction? Forgive me if I’ve missed something obvious
arclightzero said,
December 18, 2007 at 7:10 am
Don’t worry, you haven’t missed anything. I don’t necessarily advertise it just because I like to try to be as objective as possible. I am spiritual. Not necessarily Christian, not necessarily agnostic. I would liken it to Buddhism more than anything - and I have studied Buddhism for many years. I was raised Lutheran though, and spent a good number of years as a very religious person trying to find God etc etc. But the more in tune I got with myself, the more I realized that being spiritual was much more important than being “religious.” However, I have no issue with any religion so long as nobody tries to tell me that one is right or others are wrong. However people choose to accept their spirituality is good by me.
I do, however, find myself terribly annoyed by atheists because I think they are purposely going out of their way to deny something in their lives for whatever reason and they are angry that other people have something which is why they go out of their way to make people miserable when it comes to the outward celebration of their religion or spirituality.
I hope that helps
arclightzero said,
December 18, 2007 at 7:12 am
Chen, I did read that somewhere. It’s mind boggling that they abide by such things like that. I read somewhere that there was a big problem with the MN Somali community because of it - and there was some anger over the fact that it could be considered “discrimination” that they couldn’t buy a home or a new car in the area because they refused to pay interest on religious grounds.
alaskanspawn said,
December 18, 2007 at 11:23 am
I applaud your spirituality but am concerned about your view on atheism. I am an atheist but I’m not angry or in denial. I merely don’t believe that there is any evidence to support any deity. I also believe that religion is good for some people and gives us a framework to live by. There are always exceptions to this rule and as such I also believe that religion is the root of all evil. That may sound overly harsh but if history has taught us anything it’s that some of the bloodiest wars were fought over religion. That’s really an overly simplistic explanation so don’t read too much into that.
Some religions are more benign than others. I was raised Episcopal, was confirmed and was married (the first time) in a Lutheran church. The second marriage was on a beach on Maui (i highly recommend that). I was always the kid in sunday school to question the existance of God, much to the chagrin of my pastors and teachers. I never truly believed or had faith in religion…any religion.
You mention the muslim faith and being that it’s the oldest monotheistic religion (or so I’ve been told) how is it that “paying interest” is part of that religion. I must investigate this further. I’ve heard it before but do to my lack of political ferver did not know that our Mayor endorses this type of financing. Utterly ridiculous.
Anyway, don’t think of atheism as repressing something or being pushy or having anger towards others of faith, that type of thinking is often referred to as anti-theism which is wholly different. I am bordering on the anti-theistic views due to my hatred of religious fundamentalism (insert suicide bombers, crusaders, born agains, etc…
but I do not push any kind of agenda or rhetoric. I believe your spirituality is good and well grounded which all religions should be about, it’s just that, like politics, it’s full of it’s own agendas and priorities that don’t agree with me.
Oh, and to put the record straight. A lot of people, including self professed atheists, are really unaware of what it actually means. It’s not just the disbelief in a God or deity but, as I mentioned before, it’s the lack of evidence of a God that is at the root of atheism.
arclightzero said,
December 18, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Alaskanspawn, I forgot to say “welcome!” I’m glad you’re here and I hope you come by more often than just to talk about smoking. I always welcome further opinion here, and you have some varied opinions that we don’t have here yet. So please do join in the discussions.
As for my atheism comment, I may have worded that wrong. I shouldn’t have generalized that statement, however it seems that when there are issues popping up they always come from people who claim to be staunch atheists. Sadly, my sister is one of them. That aside, I understand that there are plenty out there who get along with the rest of us and can happily coexist side-by-side with us without stirring up trouble.
One point that I will make, however, is that one can be spiritual without believing in a high being. I may be wrong, but I always thought that atheism was the renunciation of any spirituality. I guess that may not be correct though. Either way, I don’t necessarily believe in a higher being, but I do believe in a power inside of us “(i.e. spirituality). I know it sounds hokey, but it goes right along with Buddhism (which also rejects the idea of a higher being).
But we don’t need to turn this into a religious topic. I just wanted to clear the air on that.
As for Islam, I cruised over to Wikipedia and checked it out. I don’t think that they are the oldest monotheistic religion. Muhammad supposedly was born in AD 570, which would put them 500 years after Christ.
From a mythology standpoint, religion is fascinating. However, to use it as law is a bit confounding. This concept of “sharia law” and the power that it holds over the people is sickening to say the least. To allow what is basically a mythological story to rule with such iron-clad jurisdiction is nuts. But I guess it’s not too much different than Egyptian rule, which was heavily based in religion… Or any of the other ancient religious rules throughout history. The only difference now is that we have the ability to look back into history and see mythology and ancient religions and see them for what they are yet we have immense difficulty in seeing current religions in the same light. No matter how hard I try, I fail to understand this. Is Islam or Christianity any different than Egyptian or Norse religion? Or Greek or Roman?
History is full of bizarre and righteous behaviors, civilizations, cultures and laws that are all based around various religions and beliefs. We study them but we don’t rightly learn from them. We still have people who jihad for religion, establish rule of law based on bizarre religious standards etc etc.
Go figure.
micky2 said,
December 18, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I’m just tired of being called an idiot by athiests. Only because I dont believe we just popcorn farted our way into existance.
I’m not harping on Alaska, but I’ve run into alot of atiest who frown on me because I have approached my existance with more than the simplistic reasoning that we just “are”.
Is it just too complex for these people to entertain the thought that there actually might be something else going on besides their own 3 dimensional world ?
Alaskanspawn said,
December 18, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Well aside from the smoking issue I think we agree on many things. So I realized it was Judaism that’s the oldest monotheistic religion. My bad…needless to say, I completely agree with your definition of spirituality.
Thanks for the welcome and I do plan to return for more than just smoking issues…to tell you the truth that debate is getting a little stale. As with most debates, intelligently argued, the point is not necessarily to win but to discuss the issues and decide what’s best for you. Religion is one of those “un-winnable” debates but like you I find it absolutely fascinating and frustrating at the same time. The story of me as a kid in Sunday school was strikingly similar to the statement you made of:
“Is Islam or Christianity any different than Egyptian or Norse religion? Or Greek or Roman?”. I used to have the faith argument with my Dad about whether the Sun will rise tomorrow. As a kid my logic was lacking but after spending the last 4 months studying different philosophies I’m ready for him to bring that up again hehe
Again, thanks for the welcome.
scarlett said,
December 18, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Thanks for the link arclightzero.
While I am here I may as well put my 2 cents in. lol
Let’s see…
Second hand smoke. Nanny state overkill. Especially when it comes to smoking outdoors.[roll eyes] Imagine if and when (God forbid) national health care is put in place. The gov will then own you and your body. If they pay for your health care they will feel they have a voice as to how you treat your body. Think about it.
In January California residents will be banned from smoking in their own personal vehicles, when children are present. It may be good idea to not smoke in a car while children are inside. But to be forced to not do so by the state, goes against my grain. In a big way! Arizona is considering it and Louisiana and Arkansas already have similar laws in place.
As long as cigarettes are a legal taxed product they need to lay off. Plain and simple.
In related news. Mayor Newsom of San Fran wants to levy a special tax on soda. It leads to obesity don’t ya know. Crazy? Well back to what I had stated earlier. Newsom is planning on rolling out a universal health care for city residents in June. See what I mean?
Christmas and separation of church and state.
Ugly bastardization of the clause.
Secularists would like nothing better than to wipe religion. Christianity that is, out completely. If something as beautiful as Christmas is so damn offensive to someone. That they feel the urge to erase the reference to it and switch to the terms such as ‘holiday’ then there is much larger issues they should be dealing with besides calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree. Christmas is not Christmas without Christmas.
I say all of those rallying against Christmas should have to work on Christmas. Without holiday pay when applicable.
I always thought that ’separation of church and state’ is about keeping the government out of the ‘church’ not the other way around. Has it been twisted? I’d truly like to know.
Your opinion: can we coexist with strict Islam in our homeland, or will one of us have to concede and conform?
Coexistence between our ways and Islams? Not possible. Not if they expect their ways to become law. Which would push aside ours. Since they are not compatible. By any means. Look around. It is already happening bit by bit. It must be stopped! Our way of life is at stake.
My opinion is either assimilate or get the h**l out!
That is enough rambling and ranting for now.
Oh and micky2. I have to tell you your first comment had me laughing out loud. It must of struck a chord somewhere inside me.
Alaskanspawn said,
December 18, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I have to agree with Scarlett in that Mickey2’s comment about popcorn farting into existence was funny.
Seperation of church and state as stated by the first amendment…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…I think it’s pretty clear, it goes both ways.
I think there is a line that has to be drawn here. I’ve mentioned it before in that long drawn out smoking debate. Taxing soda because it leads to obesity is silly and in no way related to the smoking issue…though I can understand why someone would think it is. Each issue needs to be handled seperately and intelligently. I think it’s absurd that the government thinks they can make it illegal to smoke in your own car, regardless of your passengers…that’s stepping over MY line. Yes, it’s a good idea not to smoke around children but these advocacy groups are using them as weapons, they don’t really care about the children, just their agendas.
So one more thing, a lot of people think that in order for humanity to have evolved (darwinism) the mathmatical probability is staggering, like water flowing up a mountain. I have a different view, I think everything happens because it’s easy or necessary. I’ve never read this theory of mine from anyone else so I’m still working on it (I like to come up with these things by myself then if I find it elsewhere it gives credibility) but water flows downhill and trees grow tall out of necessity. Our place in this world was not put here for us but rather we adapted to it as it was necessary to do so.
So there’s a little bit of my theory.
Gary said,
December 19, 2007 at 1:47 am
Just to chime in on a few, #2 - Ugly bastardization.
Reasoning -
1) Separation of church and state isn’t in our Constitution but is in the Russian Soviet Republic Constitution.
2) “Wall of separation of church and state” were 8 words taken horribly out of context from a non-Constitutional source used to turn the 1st Amendment upside down.
3) You can reread the 1st Amendment as - Congress and by extension the Judicial and Executive branches are to butt out of religious affairs. Doesn’t mean they can’t recognize or participate in them. Only means they can make no law,which means there is no law for the Executive branch to enforce, and no law for the Judicial to interpret. Really simple really.
Legal action to prevent some one else including the government from expressing religious values is only a waste of time and tax dollars.
As for the Evol / Creation topic, I’ve read up on this for the better part of two years as a neutral person. Conclusion - Science will never answer the question of origins. No observational or empirical data that can be repeated for any of the 53 plus origin stories. Those who yell about the topic are akin to Al Gore. Loud mouth, no science.
That said, I’m all for the various sides presenting their arguments and circumstantial evidence for people to determine on their own. Silly civil discourse thing.
Angie said,
December 19, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Micky2 and Scarlett said it all for me in every way.
Loved Micky 2 comment about pop farting into existence. I too am sick of Agnostics and Atheists that try to make you look stupid or uneducated.
I am with Scarlett on the smoking, soda or sugar issue.
Same with Separation of Church and State. In my opinion, since so many came here to escape religious persecution, it was a huge issue and designed to protect the church against the big bad government.
Love Scarletts comment on:
“I say all of those rallying against Christmas should have to work on Christmas. Without holiday pay when applicable.”. My feeling exactly.
Also her comment on: “Coexistence between our ways and Islams? Not possible. Not if they expect their ways to become law. Which would push aside ours. Since they are not compatible. By any means. Look around. It is already happening bit by bit. It must be stopped! Our way of life is at stake.
My opinion is either assimilate or get the h**l out!”
I could not have said it better.
arclightzero said,
December 19, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Micky, I agree with you, I too tire of being called everything under the sun by so-called atheists. Although I wonder if the ones with the biggest mouths are the way they are because they think that they are atheists, or because they have some some other rationale for going after people over religion or spirituality? It’s almost as if they view it as a weakness, and that maybe it’s a weakness that they recognize in themselves and they overcompensate for by being pains in the ass and outwardly denying things that they themselves aren’t sure about. Is that atheism or just confusion?
arclightzero said,
December 19, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Scarlett, thanks for dropping by. I hope you do so more often.
Anyway, you bring up a good point about nationalized health care. If people think we’re being nannied now, just wait until we are having our health and welfare legislated by the clueless in congress. Yikes!
As for the separation of church and state, I will do a full post on this tonight or tomorrow, but the odd twist is that there is no real constitutional grounds for it. It is based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson that was used to misinterpret the first amendment. Somehow people have forgotten world history from that era, because the first amendment was written in response to the threat of a theocracy (which is one of the biggest reasons that Americans fled Europe to begin with). While the first amendment keeps government out of religion, more importantly it kept religion out of government. However, that never meant that people couldn’t recognize, celebrate or otherwise acknowledge religion. It simply means that government cannot say that one religion is right or wrong. In the eyes of the US government, all religions were to be acceptable. Whoever in history decided that celebrating Christmas meant the government was endorsing one religion over really had some serious issues. Sadly it set an ugly precedence from which whining babies can argue from these days.
And finally, you said: “Not possible. Not if they expect their ways to become law.”
Agreed. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), their law is completely entwined in their religion and culture. I have my doubts as to if they could - as a whole - ever separate themselves from their culture/religion/law and actually assimilate into a new culture, or if there will always be strife as our two cultures/laws clash.
arclightzero said,
December 19, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Gary said:
I couldn’t have said it better. It’s just a simple matter of leaving well enough alone. it comes down to the fact that the United States has nothing in the Constitution regarding a person’s right to not be offended in this country. part of living in a free nation is that people will, from time to time, be offended by something. To try to take legal action against everything that offends somebody is ludicrous. People just need to learn to toughen up and deal with being offended.
You also bring up creationism v. evolution, which is something that I have tried to avoid since I don’t rightly know the right answer to that quandary. I maintain that religion can easily be treated as any other mythology course and taught in school. Once again, the first amendment was bastardized when it comes to this sort of thing, because theoretically so long as a government-run school doesn’t say that “this is right and that is wrong” when it comes to religion, they can teach whatever the hell they want. I don’t know how it ever came to be that any mention of religion whatsoever was an endorsement and must be banned as such. It’s just silly.
arclightzero said,
December 19, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Angie said:
Bingo! That’s part two of the issue. That’s the “free exercise clause” which you hit right on the head. The first part is the “establishment clause.”
Alaskanspawn said,
December 19, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I’m a little confused. I think the first amendment is quite clear and like Arc said is meant to keep the government from choosing one religion over the other. As a matter of fact, the rest of the first amendment talks about religious freedom or the freedom to practice any religion without fear of persecution (freedom of speech, etc.). They play very nicely together to keep the government out of it. The fact of the matter is the government should not have anything to do with religion and stick to what it is they do best…whatever the hell that is. This leaves the churches and religions to do whatever it is they do best. So I say, as an atheist, keep your beliefs. I can’t prove you wrong anyway and so long as you are not hurting anyone I don’t see the harm. I also can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist…sorry, couldn’t resist.
The whole religion in school thing is quite a topic lately as there has been a resurgence of shows discussing the intelligent design debate. I, personally, don’t have an issue with teaching religion in school as long as it’s not introduced in a science class. Teach it as mythology or religious studies but I’m pretty sure that by definition it is not a science. That was and always will be the root of that argument, at least when it comes to intelligent design being taught in biology class.
Alaskanspawn said,
December 21, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I just watched “Dan Rather Reports” and he had a piece concerning the debate of teaching religion in school but surprisingly he spoke of it being taught as an elective as we’ve mentioned. I don’t have any issue with that and neither do the courts in Texas or at least in that community.
I have a feeling this will catch on and will be completely acceptable across the nation. As long as they stay away from teaching it as a science then they should be safe from the courts.
arclightzero said,
December 22, 2007 at 9:00 am
Agreed. It should be an elective - just like any other philosophy or history class. It should not be forced upon students, but at the same time it shouldn’t be forced out completely under the misinterpretation of the first amendment.
velvethammer said,
December 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I feel the need to clarify myself. This is the comment I was speaking of…
…not mickey2’s “Popcorn fart” comment. Not that it wasn’t a great comment in it’s own right. lol
alaskancamel said,
December 28, 2007 at 11:44 am
I am not sure where to post this, but this is bits and pieces. I am having a moment of political crisis. I have always considered myself a conservative, a republican if you will. I have always said I would not vote party lines, but vote for the man I felt best represented me, yet I have always voted republican. I have supported every war we have been in, both in my lifetime and in our history. I considered them just (as in truthful and honest) wars and knew that we were in the right for being there. I have always known that our school system was broken and needed to be fixed, but it is the school system we have and everyone should get a free education to better society. I have always been in favor of child labor laws looking at other countries with disdain seeing there children working and fighting while our children were safe at home playing video games. I have always been against open borders saying that if other countries want what we have, they can build it themselves. I have always longed for the pride of home ownership and finally achieved that goal a few years ago feeling that I had reached a milestone. I have always valued money and felt secure in the fact that our money had power.
I am afraid that everything I thought was crap. By definition, a conservative is someone who wants to conserve the past. It is allegedly based on morals and tradition. I don’t want tradition, I want progress (and not that liberal progress crap, that just means socialism or fascism). I honor and support our troops, they are very brave men and women, but what the hell are we doing in other countries fighting other battles? No offense, but what is in it for us? How do we go forward if all we do is spend billions of dollars that we don’t have in other countries? In regards to our school system, it isn’t broken, it never worked. Most of what is taught in schools is agenda driven and not a true representation of the past. Most teachers are lazy and demand that they deserve certain things that are well beyond what most of them deserve. When people talk of private schools, they talk of them with disdain. Our future lies in these private schools because they are not touting the governments’ agenda. Sadly, maybe other countries have it right.
Why do we have child labor laws? So that our children can grow up weak and not value a days pay for a days work? It is against the law for a child under the age of 18 to use a power tool in construction in Alaska. How the hell will they learn a trade if they cant even try until they are considered an adult? If my child is only 12 but has the desire and the drive to earn his own money, why the hell shouldn’t he? As for open borders, the reason we fear them is they are taking jobs away from our people. This wouldn’t be a problem if the children could take up those jobs. (and don’t even get me started on minimum wage…what a farce that is) I do see the point of blocking the borders due to terrorism, but what real percentage of border crossers are doing it because they want to hurt us? How much are we spending that we don’t have to stop 1/100th of a percent (and I am shooting high here) of bad guys?
Home ownership is the big one for me. It no longer exists in our country. My home is valued at over $400,000. If I had it paid in full, I still wouldn’t own it. The government owns it. If I don’t pay the extortion of there taxes, they will take it from me. If they decide they want the land, they will enforce eminent domain and I will lose it no matter how hard I fight for it. If you think you actually own anything, just try to not pay taxes for a few years and see what happens to you. Finally, our money system is a wreck. I have always been told that Nixon did away with the gold standard. This is another crock of lies. In 1913, our gold standard system was junk piled. This brought on the great depression and put our monetary system into chaos. Our money is based on a government promise that isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
This has been a lot of rambling, but this is the chaos of my mind right now. I haven’t found a candidate for president that I like so maybe that was the catalyst for my thought process. At one point I had taken a look at Ron Paul, but I thought he was extreme and a little bit of a kook. Maybe we need someone extreme and maybe I need to take a closer look at him.
I have enjoyed all of the conversations on this blog and know that if anyone can get me thinking its you guys. Let me know where I am wrong and let me know where I am right. I easily have another 20 topics bouncing in my little brain, but I think I have rambled on long enough. Hope everyone had a great Christmas and will have a safe new year.
alaskancamel said,
December 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Side note….
Alaskanspawn, I attended both of those weddings and I have to tell you the one in Hawaii was way better. Even though the first one was a religious ceremony, to me, the second one was much more spiritual. Keep up the great posts.
alaskanspawn said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Uhhh, damn that’s a mouthfull :-). I’ll have to agree with you on almost every point though I’ve never bothered looking into child labor laws. I don’t want to hijack this blog for our own conversations so I’ll email you with more detail.
Funny you mention my 2 weddings and the religious aspects. Both were religious but only because it was necessary. The one in Hawaii was definitely more spiritual as it incorporated both Alaskan and Hawaiian cultures which means more to my wife and I than any religious meanings. You know what’s really funny about that is that due to the fact that my pastor that married us was my pastor in Alaska growing up he had to clear it with the Bishop of Alaska. The Alaskan Bishop thought it was the Minnesotan Bishop’s job to bless the wedding because we live in MN. The MN Bishop thought it should be the job of the Bishop in Hawaii. Long story short, this atheist thought it very entertaining to have 3 very prominent Bishops arguing about who should bless my wedding…ah the irony!
alaskanspawn said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm
oooh, forgot to mention. I’m a little disappointed in you Alaskancamel, I thought you would have figured out long ago that taxes mean you can’t really own anything of value :-).
alaskancamel said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:31 pm
its not just things of value, its anything at all.
alaskancamel said,
December 28, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I have been reading up on Ron Paul and I think the only areas I have my doubts on him are the environment and on health care. Any thoughts out there?
arclightzero said,
December 28, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Ok, lets see where to start with this…
To start with, let’s look at modern-day conservatism. What passes for Republican today isn’t hardly conservatism. As I have said before, the dems have strayed to the far left and the Republicans have moved in to fill the vacuum in the middle. They have distorted what conservatism is and have created a new concept of “big government conservatism” which is an absolute oxymoron. It is liberalism hidden behind a guise of social conservatism (i.e. pro-life liberals). The aspect of conservatism that has been forgotten is that government should be limited and unobtrusive and allow progress to happen naturally. Government should not be a catalyst to progress, it should simply be an enabler.Liberals, in contrast, believe that progress should be controlled and managed by the government (like the global warming fiasco).
On to your other points…
Military: I agree. We are spread too thin. I am a veteran and a hawk but I don’t believe that we should be the world’s police or peacekeepers. The primary goal of a strong military force should be national defense. The only time we should go on the offense is when we are threatened or when military action is necessary for the sake of mankind (like WW2).I have always maintained that we should get away from the UN and their global actions. We spend nearly a billion dollars on the UN annually and that doesn’t even factor in the cost of military operations. We are not one big happy planet, nor should we be. Our number one priority should be our own home.
Schools… I couldn’t agree more. There is a serious breakdown in schools right now, and 99% of the fault lies with the teacher’s union. As with any union, the employees (teachers) are generally agenda-driven and they are rewarded for longevity rather than performance. Combine that with the fact that they are directly tied to the political climate and their agendas become painfully predictable and transparent. I personally think that all education should be privatized and the government should provide funding directly to the taxpayers through credits or some other method and allow parents to choose the schools based on their preferences. We need to return objectivity to education.
Child labor… I think that it should be up to the parents to manage the work their children do. If a kid wants to learn a trade and the parents think that it is acceptable, it should not be up to the government to tell them that they are wrong and that they know what is best for your kids.
I disagree a bit on the open borders issue. While “stopping terrorism” is a good talking point, it’s not a terribly realistic talking point. The problem with open borders is the threat to our nation and culture. Part of what make a nation a sovereign entity is the ability to maintain a distinct culture and have a population that has allegiance to that nation. having a porous border is much less about jobs than it is about maintaining a sovereign country - although political correctness has driven many people to deny this and make hollow claims about jobs and terrorists.
Taxes are an interesting farce and are in dire need of a serious overhaul. While I may dislike taxes, the current system is seriously jacked up and has no real logic to it. For instance, taxes should be based on consumption, not income. Property taxes should be based on services used, not the value of your home. After all, why should a small house/property in an expensive area pay higher property taxes than a large house/property in a cheaper area? In actuality, the larger house would use more city resources than the small one. Property taxes have gotten so out of whack that they make it appear as if the government owns your property. It shouldn’t be like that. Property taxes should be used for funding essential services and should be based on consumption rather than value.
As for the money system, I don’t know what to tell you about that one. It is seriously screwed up, and while I don’t think that the gold standard is the best choice, I don’t think that having the central bank controlling the “value” of money is the way to do it either. They have created a volatile system that is painfully dependent on government control and manipulation - which also means that it is extremely fragile and too closely tied to the geopolitical climate. That is a piss-poor way to run an economy, but I don’t rightly know how to fix that one.
Anyway, I hope this inspires some more thought and conversation. You managed to get my wheels churning, and maybe I can take some of these topics out into new more specific posts if we want to develop them more.
alaskancamel said,
December 28, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I really appreciate your input. At least I know that if I am going crazy, others are headed there with me.
I had not thought of the sovereignty issue. Great point. I wasnt proposing open borders, I was just looking for input. I have not formulated concrete ideas on this one as of yet and am always looking for more brain food.
Keep up the good work.
arclightzero said,
December 29, 2007 at 8:27 am
Oh yeah, no worries. There are plenty of us going crazy right alongside you. There are a lot of things in flux right now and a lot of problems that will need to addressed and resolved that have just been festering below the surface of everything in recent years.
The next few years may prove to be very interesting.
alaskanspawn said,
January 8, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Ok guys, you always talk about civil liberties and I’ve always said that I draw the line in a different place than you but this is going too far.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22559988/
Banning swearing, drinking contests, obscene music and table dancing?!!? WTF??? I can understand drinking contests if the drunk bastards are too stupid not to take a cab home but come on!
arclightzero said,
January 9, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Thanks for the link, spawn. This is that “slippery slope” thing that we speak of. Once people get it in their head that they can ban things that bother them, it’s all just downhill from there. To ban swearing, table dancing, obscene music… Ugh! It’s so sad that people think this is ok!!
alaskanspawn said,
January 9, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I understand the slipper slope argument but does that mean we shouldn’t try to make things better, should we completely do away of all regulations and controls? I understand the basic stance of conservatism and it’s hatred of government regulations and love of tradition but there is a time when things need to change so we can move forward.
alaskancamel said,
January 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm
One important note…I dont think that it is a love of tradition. I think it is love of what we consider basic rights. If it was tradition, you could raise the argument of scalping indians. I dont think anyone wants that ( I hope).
The reason we speak of the slippery slope is that once the government gets involved things usually turn out bad. There is huge waste and corruption and the market never has the ability to correct itself with out more regulation. One regulation always leads to another.
I think that its not that the slippery slope is something to watch out for, I think that when it starts, it cant be stopped.
arclightzero said,
January 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I don’t advocate for getting rid of all government regulations and controls. In many ways, I am a civil libertarian, but when it comes to the necessity of government I break sharply with the usual libertarian rhetoric.
There are lines that need to be drawn but I don’t believe that those lines need to be as deep and infringing as they are getting. For instance, I draw the line at street drugs because of the massive amount of harm (often times immediate) they do. On the other hand, I have no problem with smoking because the harm done is minor compared to other drugs… Including alcohol. In my mind, I can’t make sense as to why one would ban smoking but not alcohol, because as I have pointed out before, the harm done to “innocent bystanders” is about equal to smoking - and in another way it’s much worse because people don’t have the choice when it comes to alcohol. You don’t choose to go out and get mowed down by a drunk driver the same way you choose to go into a bar and expose yourself to ETS.
alaskanspawn said,
January 13, 2008 at 9:12 pm
So just a little idea that I keep hearing from everyone here. “Why do they ban smoking and not alcohol?”. It kind of makes it seems absolute, extreme, black and white. Smoking is not being banned. Moved outside mainly but not banned. Btw, I completely agree on the alcohol thing (sort of). I think we may be missing the point. ETS is an immediate threat to those around you (yes, I still believe this). Alcohol is also a threat but not till later where extreme consequences abound (the big bad law).
This is not a black and white issue. Moderation is key here. Smoke your cigs but not around me or anyone else that doesn’t want the smoke. I know this might spark the bar owner’s rights argument but since that one is kind of worn out shoot for something new. A new angle on that argument would be refreshing.