It was just reported that Biden said that the recovery didn't work BECAUSE we didn't SPEND ENOUGH!!! Does he believe this because he is out of touch with reality and with real people?
Politicians get to spend our money. These are entrusted servants, not entitled Kings. But, I think when one is conditioned by long terms in office to spend what is "budgeted", otherwise, there is less money to spend the next year, then one can "imagine" how this type of living and thinking can lead to a disconnect with where the money comes from and with the responsibility of the government to live frugally, like the rest of us.
This statement is amazing, too, because it is totally out of touch with what the population, as a whole is saying! Independents, and Republicans alike are calling for a "cut-back" in spending. But, while the government tells us to sacrifice, and to learn to do with less, they are being emboldened to further their borders in our private lives and personal pocketbooks!
Amazing! Absolutely Amazing!
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
John Stossel's Quote on Big Government
I love this quote!
"If the choice is between individuals using their freedom of speech hurtfully and an all-seeing Big Brother watching our words and thoughts, I know which society I'd rather live in. You can always ignore a racist. You can't escape from the government." ~ John Stossel
"If the choice is between individuals using their freedom of speech hurtfully and an all-seeing Big Brother watching our words and thoughts, I know which society I'd rather live in. You can always ignore a racist. You can't escape from the government." ~ John Stossel
Monday, October 4, 2010
News About Immigration, and" Hate Speech"
Today, I read the following article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_hate_speech
I think the suggestion to require citizenship classes for immigrants that they have to pay for, might limit those who are not serious about assimilation or for other more important reasons (religious) might not want to submit to our form of government. Wouldn't this limit the possibility of radicals intruding into our culture and undermining our laws?
Europe has started to change concerning their "tolerance policy". But, what is considered as "Facist"? Authoritarianism was the bane of our liberal and tolerant society. Americans do not believe that absolutism, when it concerns faith claims, can be made. This is what has polarized our culture wars and undermined our civility. We cannot "see" because of our emotional reactions to what we deem as "evil". We must come to understand what we "see" is, after all, a value system and we must cease to fear those that think or believe differently than we do.. And if we want to protect our liberties, we must embrace ordered liberty as the height of our value system. The problem will be in winning the war about what should be legislated to order our society.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_hate_speech
I think the suggestion to require citizenship classes for immigrants that they have to pay for, might limit those who are not serious about assimilation or for other more important reasons (religious) might not want to submit to our form of government. Wouldn't this limit the possibility of radicals intruding into our culture and undermining our laws?
Europe has started to change concerning their "tolerance policy". But, what is considered as "Facist"? Authoritarianism was the bane of our liberal and tolerant society. Americans do not believe that absolutism, when it concerns faith claims, can be made. This is what has polarized our culture wars and undermined our civility. We cannot "see" because of our emotional reactions to what we deem as "evil". We must come to understand what we "see" is, after all, a value system and we must cease to fear those that think or believe differently than we do.. And if we want to protect our liberties, we must embrace ordered liberty as the height of our value system. The problem will be in winning the war about what should be legislated to order our society.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
What is the Rationale?
This morning I watched an Ethics panel that consisted of many Supreme Court Judges. It got me thinking about minority rights, common sense, and public interest.
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Free Speech Is in Danger...
I have written about Gert Wilders, a Dutch politician that is outspoken against Islam. Today it was reported that he is being tried for "hate speech"!
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Politicizing the Public Square (con.)
My last post suggested that we must allow diversity of viewpoint, if we want our Republic to survive the "cultural wars". The Establishment clause did NOT discriminate against relgious freedom, but neither did it discriminate against any other form of "being in the world". So, religion cannot be established by the government, that means a certain tradition being sanctioned under governmental power. But, religious people can form the views and opinions and have a right to assemble about political goals. This is appropriate in a free society.
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Side Note About Healthcare,
I heard last night and forgot to add, that the Healthcare plan is written in "conceptual language", according to Fox News. This legislation should be in legislative language, or legal language, so that later on down the road, those in power cannot interpret the legislation in the way they want, giving them an advantage and a lack of accountability.
Since our country is ruled by law, the way the law reads is cumbersome because it maintains an accountability to what it was to enforce. Whenever legalist use "open ended" language, then the courts have to determine how the law is to be enforced.
If legislation is done too tightly, then it leaves little room for negotiating real life conflicts with the market. But, if it is left too open ended, there is little use for it, except for those "in the know" to use it for their own ends.
Since our country is ruled by law, the way the law reads is cumbersome because it maintains an accountability to what it was to enforce. Whenever legalist use "open ended" language, then the courts have to determine how the law is to be enforced.
If legislation is done too tightly, then it leaves little room for negotiating real life conflicts with the market. But, if it is left too open ended, there is little use for it, except for those "in the know" to use it for their own ends.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A GAG ORDER???
What is happening to our free society? Why are the American people left in the dark in regards to healthcare legislation?
Congress has to vote on this issue without knowing how much it will costs the American taxpayer!! And yet, these Comgressmen are to be OUR representatives!! American people WAKE UP!! We are being scammed....and why and what for and who is driving this legislation. I think there is more than meets the eye...
Healthcare is 1/6th of the American economy. And we believe AFTER A.C.O.R.N. that we can trust government to do things "right"??? Someone is asking for "blind faith" on our Congressmen's part and "blind trust" on the American people's part....Who is running the "ship" in America?
American doctors are already selling out their 'businesses" so that they do not have to be an assembly line of "healthcare service" under a government beauracracy. I don't blame them. The doctors who have a desire to really take care of their patients needs, do their jobs with utmost excellence, and not regard their patients as another number or quota to make their ends meet, are abandoning ship. They can't afford to make the money they need to and take care of the patients in the way they want to...I admire them.
What will be left of our healthcare providers once these are gone? What young person will seek to serve in this capacity when government will limit them? Will government then "mandate" who will be going to medical school and on what basis will these young people be determined? Will our professionals be governmental "pawns"?
A lot has to be seen. The American people are waiting. And we hope for the best.
Congress has to vote on this issue without knowing how much it will costs the American taxpayer!! And yet, these Comgressmen are to be OUR representatives!! American people WAKE UP!! We are being scammed....and why and what for and who is driving this legislation. I think there is more than meets the eye...
Healthcare is 1/6th of the American economy. And we believe AFTER A.C.O.R.N. that we can trust government to do things "right"??? Someone is asking for "blind faith" on our Congressmen's part and "blind trust" on the American people's part....Who is running the "ship" in America?
American doctors are already selling out their 'businesses" so that they do not have to be an assembly line of "healthcare service" under a government beauracracy. I don't blame them. The doctors who have a desire to really take care of their patients needs, do their jobs with utmost excellence, and not regard their patients as another number or quota to make their ends meet, are abandoning ship. They can't afford to make the money they need to and take care of the patients in the way they want to...I admire them.
What will be left of our healthcare providers once these are gone? What young person will seek to serve in this capacity when government will limit them? Will government then "mandate" who will be going to medical school and on what basis will these young people be determined? Will our professionals be governmental "pawns"?
A lot has to be seen. The American people are waiting. And we hope for the best.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
When Politics Drives Policy
My husband and I are in Colorado attending a scientific conference. Most of the information has been exciting to him, but tonight he wanted me to join him in attending a talk(s) on how science affects society and policy.
We were late getting to the talk, but the usual "politically correct" policies were being on the front burners of conversation.The scientist we heard was giving a talk and graphs on energy consumption and populations in a global perspective. He showed how the majority of the world's populations are expanding, while most of these don't even have electricity and live an impoverished existence. The discussion ensued over the questions of limiting our comsumption, limiting the expanding populations, and seeking new energy resources. He suggested that the government could underwrite R&D through a special tax. But, since he was from Europe, he made a remark about how Americans don't like taxes. The government cannot be the moral policman when it comes to R&D because then there is limited incentive for scientists to pursue a highly competitive and time-consuming career. And those who have benefitted from government money through grants have government "control" over how the money is to be used in pursuing R&D.
The media becomes useful to "educate" the public to the "wishes" of the government and the "pet projects" of those who want to control the resources of government in funding or limiting funding in specific scientific areas. Not just the "propagandizing of the media" for educating the public on "politically correct" scientific endeavors, but, this particular scientist said, it is difficult to get the proper information to the public and the politicians, who are not understand science. He gave the example of when scientists gave the media information regarding electricity usage and the media picked it up as energy. Policy ensued over incorrect information. Needless to say, that this policy will not be "met", as "mandated". So, public servants wasted time, the public's interest was disinvested, and the public good will not benefit through such means of legislation.
This president has made it his goal to be informed and to base his policy on "good science". This is good policy formation, but if, there is an agenda to "moralize science", limiting the "free market" and private industry, then, the economy cannot flourish and will not promote new innovations, and discovery, because there will be limited incentive and limited ability to engage science in new and original ways, unless it is done under the auspices of governmental oversight.
C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,; but, those who toment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." HOW TRUE!
We were late getting to the talk, but the usual "politically correct" policies were being on the front burners of conversation.The scientist we heard was giving a talk and graphs on energy consumption and populations in a global perspective. He showed how the majority of the world's populations are expanding, while most of these don't even have electricity and live an impoverished existence. The discussion ensued over the questions of limiting our comsumption, limiting the expanding populations, and seeking new energy resources. He suggested that the government could underwrite R&D through a special tax. But, since he was from Europe, he made a remark about how Americans don't like taxes. The government cannot be the moral policman when it comes to R&D because then there is limited incentive for scientists to pursue a highly competitive and time-consuming career. And those who have benefitted from government money through grants have government "control" over how the money is to be used in pursuing R&D.
The media becomes useful to "educate" the public to the "wishes" of the government and the "pet projects" of those who want to control the resources of government in funding or limiting funding in specific scientific areas. Not just the "propagandizing of the media" for educating the public on "politically correct" scientific endeavors, but, this particular scientist said, it is difficult to get the proper information to the public and the politicians, who are not understand science. He gave the example of when scientists gave the media information regarding electricity usage and the media picked it up as energy. Policy ensued over incorrect information. Needless to say, that this policy will not be "met", as "mandated". So, public servants wasted time, the public's interest was disinvested, and the public good will not benefit through such means of legislation.
This president has made it his goal to be informed and to base his policy on "good science". This is good policy formation, but if, there is an agenda to "moralize science", limiting the "free market" and private industry, then, the economy cannot flourish and will not promote new innovations, and discovery, because there will be limited incentive and limited ability to engage science in new and original ways, unless it is done under the auspices of governmental oversight.
C.S. Lewis said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated,; but, those who toment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." HOW TRUE!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Legalizing Marijuana
Obama has stated that he will leave legalizing marajuina to the States. California is to bring up the issue before their State legislature and it is expected to pass.
Ethics, as well as science should be considered in this legislative decision. It is reported that marajuina is available to teens more readily than alcohol and cigarettes. The argument is that legislating a substance requires a more regimentation and structure which helps those who need it and limits abuse of minors.
Marajuina is regarded as a medicinal way to alleviate pain for those with painful illness, such as cancer, AIDS, and even for manic depressive disorder. Many think that this is a compassionate way to help, not only with pain but supposedly with appetite. Appetite loss results from certain drugs, not to mention the damage to organs that further complicates the initial illness.
California is not just looking at legislating marajuina because of compassion but because of the monies that can come into state coffers through taxes. It is known that pharmacetical companies have strong influence in our Congress, so possibley passing the buck to the States is a political means to stay "clean" on the issue, while helping States cover their deficits.
On the other hand, the argument against legalizing marajuina is substance abuse. Those who are buying the drug on the black market not only are furthering the drug trafficing along our borders that increase the dangers of gangs and crime "warlords", but it also exposes these people to possible tainted substances that could have damaging reprecussions. So, do we take the chance on addictions escalation through legalization, or do we further the crimes at our borders with drug smuggling? It is not an easy choice. It will be an interesting development to watch.
Ethics, as well as science should be considered in this legislative decision. It is reported that marajuina is available to teens more readily than alcohol and cigarettes. The argument is that legislating a substance requires a more regimentation and structure which helps those who need it and limits abuse of minors.
Marajuina is regarded as a medicinal way to alleviate pain for those with painful illness, such as cancer, AIDS, and even for manic depressive disorder. Many think that this is a compassionate way to help, not only with pain but supposedly with appetite. Appetite loss results from certain drugs, not to mention the damage to organs that further complicates the initial illness.
California is not just looking at legislating marajuina because of compassion but because of the monies that can come into state coffers through taxes. It is known that pharmacetical companies have strong influence in our Congress, so possibley passing the buck to the States is a political means to stay "clean" on the issue, while helping States cover their deficits.
On the other hand, the argument against legalizing marajuina is substance abuse. Those who are buying the drug on the black market not only are furthering the drug trafficing along our borders that increase the dangers of gangs and crime "warlords", but it also exposes these people to possible tainted substances that could have damaging reprecussions. So, do we take the chance on addictions escalation through legalization, or do we further the crimes at our borders with drug smuggling? It is not an easy choice. It will be an interesting development to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
