Dan's Soapbox

Dan's views on current events, popular culture, and other topics of interest.

Name:
Location: United States

I'm now on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Racnad

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Do Our Rights Come From God, or the Government?

Over the past few years, Fred Thompson, Glenn Beck and Sara Palin have saying something that I've been trying to figure out.

I'll paraphrase:

"Our rights come from God, not the Government.  Liberals will have you believe that rights come from Government, but that belief leads to tyranny, because Government can take those rights away."

This week during the conformation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked if she felt the Second Amendment was one of the rights granted by God, or a mere Government-created right.

Well, how do we know that rights come from God? Which rights are these?   What is the source of this information???   The cited source is the Declaration of Independence, which begins:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We all like the sound of that, but since we're talking about the Declaration of Independence, not the Bible, where did the Founding Fathers get it?

Did it come from the Bible?   While I'm no Biblical scholar, I'll give it a try.   The First Amendment?   Well, Freedom of Speech is contradicted by at least three of the Ten Commandments.   Most Americans would consider taking the Lord's name in vain and dishonoring your parents to be covered by the First Amendment, even if such speech is rude or disrespectful.  Even lying is illegal only under oath and other specific circumstances, and legally protected free speech in all others.

And as Kagan was asked, what about the Second Amendment?   There may be something in the Bible about the right to defend one's self and family, but I don't think you'll find the distinction between legal arms like handguns and illegal arms like rocket-propelled grenades anywhere there.

And what about other rights written into the Constitution?   If I have an unalienable right granted by the Creator to travel from my home to Oregon and back without having to show citizenship documentation to authorities, did the Creator not also give me the same unalienable right when I visit British Columbia?

Wait, maybe the Founding Fathers were inspired by God when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, in the same manner that Christians believe the authors of the Bible were.  Someone should ask Glenn Back or Mitt Romney if maybe Moroni helped write the Founding Documents a few decades before revealing the Golden Tablets to Joseph Smith.

Seriously, our rights are social constructs, which vary from culture to culture and over time.  What the Founding Fathers built was an ingenious multi-tiered system of laws ranging from local ordinances to State and Federal Laws, and finally the Constitution.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not from God, they are from men.   They are not "carved in stone," but can be altered through the amendment process spelled out in the Constitution itself.   The men who designed the Constitution wisely made the Amendment process very difficult  - so difficult that it has happened only sixteen times in the past 200 years.  Any proposed change to the Constitution should be so important that two thirds of the State legislatures will ratify it.  Even then, it is possible for something loony get get through, as the 18th (prohibition) and 23(repeal of) prove. 

The language in the Declaration of Independence was an example of people projecting their own ideas onto their image of God.   This was done to invoke a power higher than the authority of European monarchs.   The more modern notion that the rights in the US Constitution "come from God not Government" is one of those false truisms that seems true when people repeat it enough times, but has no factual, or even theoretical basis.  Or as Stephen Colbert would put it - it has "truthiness."

So the next time someone says "our Rights Come From God," ask them to back the claim up!

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Afghanistan: Make Friends or Kick Ass?

With the departure of General McCrystal from Afghanistan and General Patreus taking his place, many are questioning the tactics recently used in Afghanistan which call for more restraint in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties. 

If we dropped what some call "ridiculous rules of engagement" in Afghanistan, then how would what we are doing be different from what the Russians were doing in Afghanistan 30 years ago?

Remember, the reason we originally when into Afghanistan was because Al Quada was based there.  But by all accounts Al Quada has not been active in Afghanistan for many years, so the people we're fighting now are the same people the Russians fought a generation ago. 

The enemy we're fighting now in Afghanistan has no interest in America at all.  They just don't want us there, which is understandable.  We certainly wouldn't want the Chinese Army occupying parts of Washington State

The reason we're there now isn't because the Taliban threaten the Freedom of Americans.  They don't. The reason is the assumption that they will allow their country to be a base for Al Quada or other terrorists as they did before. So the objective is to install a government that will be friendly to us. 

Unfortunately, more aggressive rules of engagement will lead to more civilian casualties, which will make more people hate Americans and more likely to support groups hostile to Americans, like Taliban or Al Quada.

So there's the problem.  Our larger objective for Afghanistan is a stable government which is friendly to the America.  But the Army is much better at killing people and breaking things than making friends, which is what Obama and McCrystal was trying to do.

I'd like to suggest what the best answer is, but I really don't know.  But stepping up the brutality won't work for the Americans any better than it worked for the Russians.

Friday, June 11, 2010

In Defense of AZ

If you've read a number of my post you'll see that I'm am not normally on the side of Beck/Palin/Fox News, etc. However, I decide my views for myself, and I don't look to what "my side" is saying. For that reason, I resist labeling myself a Liberal or Conservative. I find that these terms are often defined as having a certain view on a range of unrelated issues. Therefore, I have what is viewed as the "left" view on some issues, and the "right" view of others.

One issue where I find myself not jumping to the left is Arizona's new illegal immigration law. At first, I found myself siding with the opposition, after all, we're all against racial profiling aren't we? But as the debate unfolded, I found myself realizing the supporters arguments were basically sound, while the opposition was motivated by mostly speculative fears and hidden agendas.

First what does the law do? It allows Arizona law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. It doesn't make anything illegal that isn't already illegal in all fifty states already. You may not agree all immigration laws, regulations and procedures, but if you don't, work to change those.

The primary opposition argument against the Arizona law is that Arizona citizens and legal residents of Hispanic will be racially profiled and needlessly harassed. But there is nothing in the law that specially targets Hispanics or any other racial group, so it is not inherently racist. Next, about 30 percent of Arizona's population is Hispanic, and they are no doubt the majority in some communities. So Arizona police have an awful lot of people to harass, and many AZ police officers are Hispanic themselves.

I'm not saying that racial profiling or harassment won't happen, but at this point it is a theoretical problem with how the law might be applied, not a problem with the law itself. Arizona can address the application issues once is becomes apparent there is really a problem.

The hidden agenda is among citizens and legal residents who have relatives who are illegal aliens, or who have relatives in Mexico and other Latin American countries who want to live in the US. Imagine if you had brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles in other countries who could have a better life if they lived here. And if the legal immigration process for them took 5-10 years, wouldn't you be tempted to help them, or at least be supportive of, their circumvention of immigration laws? Who wants to see family members involuntarily returned the poverty of the old country?

Of course, no one in this position will say this publicly, but I feel this a huge motivation to the opposition of immigration laws, and those motivated use fears of racial profiling & harassment and the good intentions of those who don't want to see others profiles & harassed to garner support against the Arizona law.

The reason this is such an issue is that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has a quota for legal immigration for each country. Since Mexico is just south of the US and the economic opportunities in the US are much greater than Mexico, the number of Mexicans who want to emigrate is much larger than the annual quota for emigration from Mexico, the wait is 5-10 years. It's a lot hard to get from Madagascar to the US, so fewer people from that country arrive here and their wait is shorter. That's just geography & math.

So if you oppose the Arizona Illegal Immigration enforcement law, please be honest about your reasons, and be realistic about the validity of your objections to it. And don't be dupped into solidarity with others who have a hidden agenda they aren't being forward about.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Glenn Beck/Jon Stewart Book Exchange

Those who lament the ongoing deterioration of public discourse agree a few things:

  1. Not enough people read books anymore.
  2. People insulate themselves, tending to expose themselves only to ideas they already agree with and avoiding information that doesn't fit their preferred world view.
  3. When opposing ideas are discussed, they are too often in the form of shouting matches.

I would like to propose an even to counteract all of these....

On Comedy Channel's The Daily Show, Jon Stewart often interviews authors. He seems to have read most of the books he discusses, which makes the interviews more informative . Among the most interesting interviews are those with authors he disagrees with. These conversations are lively yet cordial, and when they run too long for the time slot, they are available to view in their entirety on The Daily Show's website.

Over on Fox News, Glenn Beck also reads a lot of books, mostly those spinning Conservative/Libertarian versions of history. He has those authors as guests on his show.

I also recall a few years ago the effect that Oprah Winfrey had on the publishing industry. She talks about books she likes, and sales of those books soar.

So in the interests of promoting the reading of books, of people exposing themselves to a wide range of perspectives, and of intelligent political discussion, I propose that Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart do a Book Exchange on their shows. It will work as follows:

  1. Jon Stewart will read a book selected by Glenn Beck which espouses the views expressed on the Glenn Beck Show.
  2. Glenn Beck will read a book selected by Jon Stewart which espouses views that Stewart feels Beck and his audience ought to hear.
  3. The event will be announced on both shows a month or so in advance, with the titles announced, so that viewers will have the opportunity to read both books first.
  4. Stewart will appear as a guest on the Glenn Beck Show to discuss the book he selected Beck to read. On the same day, Beck will appear as a guest on The Daily Show to discuss the book he selected for Stewart to read. I suggest that each host is a guest they discuss their selected books so that regular viewers of each show will hear ideas more likely will challenge their own.
  5. Both shows may edit the book exchange segments to bit their broadcast time slots, but both segments will be available in their entirety for viewing on each show's respective website.
Let's post this on each show's website, make this happen, and stimulate some more intelligent discussion!

Labels:

Monday, June 07, 2010

Does the First Amendment not Apply to Helen Thomas?

I'm disappointed to learn that Helen Thomas was abruptly "retired" after recent comments about Israel.

Years ago when I was in college, it was discovered that White Separatist Tom Metzger had been recording public-access cable television shows out of a TV studio in the basement of the campus library. This studio was made available to the local cable company out of an effort to support free speech, but as I learned, free speech applies only if the views expressed fall within the acceptable range.

When this news broke, there were campus protests in which the protesters "stormed" the dean's office to demand that Metzger be no longer welcome on campus. Actually, the dean's staff knew the protesters were coming and pretty much invited them in and showed them to the dean's conference room for a sit-down meeting with the dean.

Not surprisingly, Metzger had to shop for a new studio for his TV show, and the campus was once again clean of hate speech. This episode taught me that while it was OK for someone to be a Ronald Reagan supporter or a Sandinista supporter, any political views you expressed were expected to fall within an acceptable range of political opinion. If they don't, then the First Amendment doesn't apply.

I was never comfortable with the way so-called "hate speech" is dealt with. I'm OK with the label "hate speech" as some speech is indeed hateful, but I object to the use of the "hate speech" label as a way to end discussion and shut someone up. All ideas should be up for intelligent discussion and criticism regardless of if they are hateful or not, and no one should be persecuted for expressing an unpopular opinion.

This past week, opinion Columnist Helen Thomas made some remarks about Israel saying that the land belongs to Palestinian Arabs and that Jewish Israelis should go home to Poland, Germany or the United States. This is a political view which many people strongly disagree with, and one which I personally disagree with, but to fire her and call her a hateful bigot is dishonoring the First Amendment.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire

Thursday, June 03, 2010

2010 - An Oily Odyssey

Watching the live BP Oil Spill cam while listening to a Stauss-like waltz on a classical music radio station oddly reminds me of the film 2001 - A Space Odyssey.

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Keith Olbermann - Almost Forgiven

About 20 years ago I was active in mountain bike racing. I was real excited when ESPN started showing up at the major races. The problem was that mountain biking was a bottom tier sport, so the ESPN coverage ran 6 months after the races took place and typically ran between 1-3 am on weeknights. So I programmed my VCR to record them. But if a live baseball game earlier in the evening ran long, that pushed the night's schedule back, and instead of mountain biking I'd have Baseball Tonight, during which Keith Olbermann had to show us one play from every damn ball game in the country. Big plays in baseball may be exciting in the context of the game. But out of context, they ALL look the same: a guy hits a ball and runners come into the home plate. Just what I want to see instead of mountain biking. So I learned I needed to pad the mountain bike recordings by an hour to make sure I got the whole show, which is a PITA when you're trying to make a VHS tape with a whole season of races.

Today I'm a fan of Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but I haven't quite forgiven him for screwing up my mountain bike race tapes.

Do Consumers Want $1000 Stoppers?

Last week I came across the following article in the Wall Street Journal Online.

It describes a manufacturer of stoppers for vaccines. The company had viewed it's product as a commodity which could only compete on price. But when they decided to "add value" and market the product in that matter, they were able to improve their revenue and profit by establishing a price range of $5 each for chicken vaccine stoppers to more than $1,000 each for stoppers designed for anti-cancer drugs.

How much value do you have to add to a stopper to sell it for $1,000? According to the company, the anti-cancer stoppers are made to tighter tolerances. The company's stoppers are also color coded to help medical personal avoid errors.

Well, color-coding is fine, but $1000? In a suburban supermarket you'll find hundreds of types of lids and stoppers, most of which are nearly 100 percent effective at protecting the container's contents, and I'm sure none of them cost even $5, not even corks in $200 bottles of wine.

Why does this matter? After all, in a free market the correct price is the one the consumer is willing to pay. Just as a Lamborghini is worth $200,000 if buyers are willing to pay that much for one, the pharmaceutical companies and hospitals buying the vaccines were apparently convinced that $1,000 was a fair price for a stopper.

But the WSJ article fails to mention the real ultimate consumers of this product: families of cancer victims who sometimes have to drain their retirement accounts or sell their homes to pay for treatment, or ordinary people who have to go without raises for another year because the company they work for has to find the funds to cover the 20 percent increase in health care premiums for their employees. I'm sure the $1,000 stoppers are not the only example of price gouging in the medical industry. Yes, the manufacturers of medical supplies deserve to earn a living, but will innovation in medicine really stop if the finances of the middle class weren't being drained so that CEO's, salesmen and shareholders in the medical industry can buy vacation homes in Hawaii?

People shopping for cars can decide for themselves if a $80,000 Mercedes Benz has enough added-value to justify a price $60,000 more than a $20,000 Mazda. For the free market solutions to health care to work, people need to be able to choose which stoppers they want on their anti-cancer drugs.